Considerable skepticism has been expressed in the press and elsewhere about the limitations associated with release of data from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. Indeed the usual suspects have been rather loud on this (contributions of links appreciated)
As part of the spreading FOIgate investigation at Rabett Run (the comments are hopping), in which Steven McIntyre has been proved to have organized and administered through Climate Audit a vexatious FOI attack** on the CRU one of the bunnies, bluegrue points to a letter from Tom Peterson, which not only shows McIntyre's inherent sliminess when he writes:
and manages to leave out that this was a two day trip including travel from the east coast of the US to Hawaii, which leaves precious little time, as bluegrue points out
And oh yes, Jones’ correspondent, Tom Peterson of NOAA, wrote back:
Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of sympathy, but I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii ...
Not Tahiti, as some speculated.
A bare minimum of digging would have shown to you, that Tom Peterson was a panelist for the session “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” (page 14) on Tuesday, July 28 2009, at the Hawai’i Conservation Conference 2009.McIntyre tries to play the innocent while spewing additional slime
I’ve done enough business travel to know that these sorts of things are necessarily not a holiday and, as you say, it wasn’t in Peterson’s case here. But Hawaii is still a nice destination. And parlaying the endpoints of this sort of business travel can be a sort of hidden perq – one not exercised by Peterson in this case, but perhaps others did. I didn’t notice any emails mentioning meetings of climate scientists in Flin Flon or Saskatoon in January.but what concerns us are the other parts of Peterson's letter which flatly contradict the nonsense spewed at Climate Audit over the past three months
Hi, Phil,Interesting that the Director of the Center, Tom Karl, contrary to the McIntyre party line, has actually been pushing for data release even when that has the potential to hurt research programs.
Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of sympathy, but I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii - I left Monday morning and flew out Tuesday evening and am now in the Houston airport on my way home.
Data that we can't release is a tricky thing here at NCDC. Periodically, Tom Karl will twist my arm to release data that would violate agreements and therefore hurt us in the long run, so I would prefer that you don't specifically cite me or NCDC in this.
But I can give you a good alternative. You can point to the Peterson-Manton article on regional climate change workshops. All those workshops resulted in data being provided to the author of the peer-reviewed paper with a strict promise that none of the data would be released. So far as far as I know, we have all lived up to that agreement - myself with the Caribbean data (so that is one example of data I have that are not released by NCDC), Lucie and Malcolm for South America, Enric for Central America, Xuebin for Middle Eastern data, Albert for south/central Asian data, John Ceasar for SE Asia, Enric again for central Africa, etc. The point being that such agreements are common and are the only way that we have access to quantitative insights into climate change in many parts of the world. Many countries don't mind the release of derived products such as your gridded field or Xuebin's ETCCDI indices, but very much object to the release of actual data (which they might sell to potential users). Does that help?Emphasis added. Let Eli repeat such agreements are common and are the only way that we have access to quantitative insights into climate change in many parts of the world.
Given their track record, who is so naive as to believe that McIntyre and his horde would honor a subsequent no disclosure agreement? Given the need to protect the original data from release in order to ensure its continued availability the requirement that such data only be released to academic researchers who can be trusted is obvious.
**McIntyre obviously is as deep into denial on this as he was when his bot expedition to the GISSTemp server made it impossible for others to access the web site and the administrator threw him off. The correct answer is GMAFBA