Monday, March 5, 2012


date: Wed Dec 3 13:31:06 2008
from: Phil Jones <>
subject: Re: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01
to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" <>

Do I understand it correctly - if he doesn't pay the �10 we don't have to respond?

With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting
numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have
virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent.
There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I'm not wasting my time
going through these.

At 09:51 25/11/2008, you wrote:

Please note the below. I am not in a position to deal with the substance of Mr.
McIntyre's comments but now have to handle his request under DPA (which means a troll
through your files for material that identifies Mr. McIntyre). Please note that under
the DPA, comments about an individual are the personal data of that individual and
subject to access under a DPA subject access request. Ergo, I would strongly advise all
to be careful in what you put in your correspondence.
As to this specific DPA request, I will require proof of identity, �10, and a form
before we proceed but I do assume that all will be forthcoming upon request. We then
have 40 calendar days to respond.

Cheers, Dave

From: Steve McIntyre [[1]]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 9:28 PM
To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
Subject: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01
Dear Mr Palmer,
Dr Philip Jones of your university recently sent the following email to 17 climate
scientists, commenting unfavorably on my FOI inquiry FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01. Please note
that I had not made any public disclosure of this follow-up inquiry. Under the Data
Protection Act, I request that you provide me with any other "personal records"
pertaining to me, including any correspondence received by or sent by UEA and/or CRU.
In addition, in the email, Jones made false and misleading statements regarding my
inquiry to you and I request that you deal with these statements according to your
Jones said that "we put up all the individual tree-ring series (widths, densities)".
This statement was untrue. Some ring width and density series were not available - they
are the ones that I requested in Item 5. Had Jones put up "all" the series, then this
request would have been unnecessary. Because CRU did not put up "all" the data, it was
entirely reasonable for me to request the missing data. Jones' misrepresentation of the
inquiry creates a bad impression of me, in a situation where the fault lay with CRU.
Jones also complained that I want to "know why some individual series were excluded from
the chronologies" and complained that "if they just did some paleo fieldwork with
trees, corals, sediment cores they might understand why some samples are excluded."
My inquiry pertained to inconsistencies between the list of sites provided in reponse to
my FOI request and the procedures reported in the original articles and/or the website
and was entirely reasonable. I have considerable personal experience with reporting
requirements for mineral exploration fieldwork, which is strictly regulated by
securities commissions, and am quite confident that, contrary to Jones' allegations,
the above inconsistencies do not arise out of the exigencies of fieldwork, but out of
avoidable inaccuracy on the part of CRU in describing the procedures actually used.
Again, Jones' misrepresentation of the situation creates a bad impression of me, when
the fault lay with CRU.
Regards, Steve McIntyre

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [[2]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:43 AM
To:; Steve McIntyre
Cc: Thorne, Peter; Leopold Haimberger; Karl Taylor; Tom Wigley; John Lanzante; Susan
Solomon; Melissa Free; peter gleckler; Thomas R Karl; Steve Klein; carl mears; Doug
Nychka; Gavin Schmidt; Steven Sherwood; Frank Wentz; Professor Glenn McGregor
Subject: Re: FW: Santer et al 2008
Your response is already up on the Climate Audit site, and when
I looked there
were over 50 comments. Don't feel picked on - we in CRU had another
FOI request
related to tree-ring data yesterday as well. It is in a similar
vein. We put up all
the individual tree-ring series (widths, densities) - i.e. what we
consider the raw
data. He already had the chronologies. He now wants to know why
some individual
series were excluded from the chronologies and why some chronologies were
excluded in subsequent analyses. This time they have asked for manuals,
computer code and correspondence explaining the exclusions! It
seems neverending.
If they just did some paleo fieldwork with trees, corals, sediment cores they
might understand why some samples are excluded.
I would urge the 4 NOAA people on the paper to make a joint response to the
FOI request when it filters through that the raw data for our paper are all
publically available. I know it's not in their (skeptic) make up,
but the sooner they
get their hands dirty with the sorts of analyses we/you've done for
this and many
other papers the better. They seem only to want to come in at the
end, particularly on the statistical side.
At 20:10 10/11/2008, Ben Santer wrote:
>Dear Mr. McIntyre,
>I gather that your intent is to "audit" the findings of our
>recently-published paper in the International Journal of Climatology
>(IJoC). You are of course free to do so. I note that both the
>gridded model and observational datasets used in our IJoC paper are
>freely available to researchers. You should have no problem in
>accessing exactly the same model and observational datasets that we
>employed. You will need to do a little work in order to calculate
>synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures from climate
>model atmospheric temperature information. This should not pose any
>difficulties for you. Algorithms for calculating synthetic MSU
>temperatures have been published by ourselves and others in the
>peer-reviewed literature. You will also need to calculate
>spatially-averaged temperature changes from the gridded model and
>observational data. Again, that should not be too taxing.
>In summary, you have access to all the raw information that you
>require in order to determine whether the conclusions reached in our
>IJoC paper are sound or unsound. I see no reason why I should do
>your work for you, and provide you with derived quantities (zonal
>means, synthetic MSU temperatures, etc.) which you can easily compute yourself.
>I am copying this email to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer et al.
>IJoC paper, as well as to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC.
>I gather that you have appointed yourself as an independent arbiter
>of the appropriate use of statistical tools in climate research.
>Rather that "auditing" our paper, you should be directing your
>attention to the 2007 IJoC paper published by David Douglass et al.,
>which contains an egregious statistical error.
>Please do not communicate with me in the future.
>Ben Santer
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>Could you please reply to the request below, Regards, Steve McIntyre
>>-----Original Message-----
>>*From:* Steve McIntyre [[3]]
>>*Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2008 1:29 PM
>>*To:* ' ('
>>*Subject:* Santer et al 2008
>>Dear Dr Santer,
>>Could you please provide me either with the monthly model data (49
>>series) used for statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a
>>link to a URL. I understand that your version has been collated
>>from PCMDI ; my interest is in a file of the data as you used it (I
>>presume that the monthly data used for statistics is about 1-2 MB) .
>>Thank you for your attention,
>>Steve McIntyre
>Benjamin D. Santer
>Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
>Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
>P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
>Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
>Tel: (925) 422-3840
>FAX: (925) 422-7675
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email

No comments:

Post a Comment