*********************************
Exact match results
You searched for FOIA
There were 22 results for the exact phrase FOIA, see below for more results.
********************************************EXCERPT************************************
1.
From: Tom Wigley To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: FOIA request Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:01:07 -0700 Cc: "Thorne, Peter" , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , Susan Solomon , Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz , "David C. Bader" , Bill Goldstein , Tomas Diaz De La Rubia , Hal Graboske , Cherry Murray , mann , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Bill Fulkerson , Professor Glenn McGregor , Luca Delle Monache , "Hack, James J." , Thomas C Peterson , vladeckd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, miller21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Wehner , "Bamzai, Anjuli"
Dear Ben,
This is a good idea. However, will you give only tropical (20N-20S) results? I urge you to give data for other zones as well, viz, SH, NH, GL, 0-20N, 20-60N, 60-90N, 0-20S, 20-60S, 60-90S (plus 20N-20S). To have these numbers on line would be of great benefit to the community. In other words, although prompted by McIntyre's request, you will actually be giving something to everyone.
Also, if you can give N3.4 SSTs and SOI data, this would be an additional huge boon to the community.
For the data, what period will you cover. Although for our paper we only use data from 1979 onwards, to give data for the full 20th century runs would be of great benefit to all. This, of course, raises the issue of drift. Even over 1979 to 1999 some models show appreciable drift. From memory we did not account for this in our paper -- but it is an important issue.
This is a lot of work -- but the benefits to the community would be truly immense.
Finally, I think you need to formally get McIntyre to list the 47 models that he wants the data for. The current request is ambiguous -- or, at least, ill defined. I think it is crucial for McIntyre to state specifically what he wants. Even if we think we know what he wants, this is not good enough -- FOIA requests must be clear, complete and unambiguous.
This, after all, is a legal issue, and no court of law would accept anything less.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++
*********************************EXCERPT*************************
From: Stephen H Schneider To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: [Fwd: data request] Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:50:56 -0800 (PST) Cc: "David C. Bader" , Bill Goldstein , Pat Berge , Cherry Murray , George Miller , Anjuli Bamzai , Tomas Diaz De La Rubia , Doug Rotman , Peter Thorne , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , Susan Solomon , Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "Philip D. Jones" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz
"Thanks" Ben for this, hi all and happy new year. I had a similar experience--but not FOIA since we at Climatic Change are a private institution--with Stephen McIntyre demanding that I have the Mann et al cohort publish all their computer codes for papers published in Climatic Change. I put the question to the editorial board who debated it for weeks. The vast majority opinion was that scientists should give enough information on their data sources and methods so others who are scientifically capable can do their own brand of replication work, but that this does not extend to personal computer codes with all their undocumented sub routines etc. It would be odious requirement to have scientists document every line of code so outsiders could then just apply them instantly. Not only is this an intellectual property issue, but it would dramatically reduce our productivity since we are not in the business of producing software products for general consumption and have no resources to do so. The NSF, which funded the studies I published, concurred--so that ended that issue with Climatic Change at the time a few years ago.
This continuing pattern of harassment, as Ben rightly puts it in my opinion, in the name of due diligence is in my view an attempt to create a fishing expedition to find minor glitches or unexplained bits of code--which exist in nearly all our kinds of complex work--and then assert that the entire result is thus suspect. Our best way to deal with this issue of replication is to have multiple independent author teams, with their own codes and data sets, publishing independent work on the same topics--like has been done on the "hockey stick". That is how credible scientific replication should proceed.
Let the lawyers figure this out, but be sure that, like Ben is doing now, you disclose the maximum reasonable amount of information so competent scientists can do replication work, but short of publishing undocumented personalized codes etc. The end of the email Ben attached shows their intent--to discredit papers so they have no "evidentiary value in public policy"--what you resort to when you can't win the intellectual battle scientifically at IPCC or NAS. Good luck with this, and expect more of it as we get closer to international climate policy actions, We are witnessing the "contrarian battle of the bulge" now, and expect that all weapons will be used.
Cheers, Steve PS Please do not copy or forward this email.
Stephen H. Schneider Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor, Department of Biology and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment Mailing address: Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 473 Via Ortega Ph: 650 725 9978 F: 650 725 4387 Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
Finally, I think you need to formally get McIntyre to list the 47 models that he wants the data for.
************************************
McIntyre is like a bull dog after these sleazy characters......