BrianGarst.com

Time for more on Climategate. There’s now a searchable database of the emails, which I decided to use to find discussions surrounding FOIA requests.

In 2005, for instance, an interesting discussion took place on how to avoid legitimate requests:

Source text

Phil,
…
I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean
that, if someone asks for a computer program we have to give
it out?? Can you check this for me (and Sarah).
…
Thanks,
Tom.

Tom,
…
On the FOI Act there is a little leaflet we
have all been sent. It doesn’t really clarify
what we might have to do re programs or
data. Like all things in Britain we will only
find out when the first person or organization
asks. I wouldn’t tell anybody about the FOI
Act in Britain. I don’t think UEA really knows
what’s involved.
…
Cheers
Phil

Phil,
Thanks for the quick reply.
The leaflet appeared so general, but it was prepared by UEA so
they may have simplified things. From their wording, computer code
would be covered by the FOIA. My concern was if Sarah is/was still
employed by UEA. I guess she could claim that she had only written
one tenth of the code and release every tenth line.
…
Best wishes,
Tom.

Tom,
…
As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she
will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get
used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people,
so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any
requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to
deal with them.
Cheers
Phil

Keep in mind that this is a supposedly scientifically-minded research group funded by the British government. They are part of the “overwhelming scientific consensus” that we are supposed to blindly adhere to, and they are discussing ways to avoid having any access to the data they use. That kind of behavior is more characteristic of political, rather than scientific, endeavors.

There’s plenty more:

Source text

Wei-Chyung and Tom,
The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990)
paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to
submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?
…
Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA
requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said
they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are
threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning)
about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various
stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on
paleo.
Cheers
Phil

Source text

Tom P.
Just for interest. Don’t pass on.
Might be a precedent for your paper to J. Climate when
it comes out.
There are a few interesting comments on the CA web site.
One says it is up to me to prove the paper from 1990 was correct,
not for Keenan to prove we’re wrong. Interesting logic.
Cheers
Phil

When it comes to the religion of global warming, expecting them to prove their assertions is “interesting logic.” In another email, Steven McIntyre is referred to as “the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science.”

How dare he, or anyone, question their proclamations.

Here they brag about not having to comply with FOIA requests:

Source text

Ben,
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide
by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince
them otherwise
showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were
dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school
– the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI
person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also
aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t know
the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures.

…

Double figures!

There is also bragging about lying about the receipt of government funds:

Source text

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: A quick question
Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008

Ben,

…Finally, I know that DEFRA receive Parliamentary Questions from MPs to
answer. One of these 2 months ago was from a Tory MP asking how much
money DEFRA has given to CRU over the last 5 years. DEFRA replied that they
don’t give money – they award grants based on open competition. DEFRA’s system
also told them there were no awards to CRU, as when we do get something it is
down as UEA!
…
Cheers
Phil

The primary theme I see in these emails is a desperate desire not to have to divulge how the data is analyzed. They will provide the raw data, but staunchly refuse to ever allow it to be known what they do to it to reach their results. Given what we’ve previously seen about the “tricks” they like to use to massage the data, this should come as no surprise.

This is not science, and any scientist involved in this ought to be ashamed.

Climategate environmentalists Global Warming