Prev: Alan Alda is part of an innovative US project to help scientists communicate
Next: splitting water using sunlight
From: Mike Jr on 5 Mar 2010 16:32
"Dear Professor Jones,
With reference to the current debate regarding, amongst other things,
access to climate data we have found that our letter to you dated 21
December 2009 unfortunately have rendered bad publicity both to SMHI
and to the climate research community. We understand now that our
response to your request forwarded by UK MetOffice 30 November 2009
may have been misinterpreted, maybe due to the fact that the
formulations may have been a bit harsh.

Our response was based on your information that it was likely that the
version held by you would most likely differ from our current
holdings. It has never been our intention to withhold any data but we
feel that it is paramount that data that has undergone, for instance,
homogenisation by anyone other than SMHI is not presented as SMHI
data. We see no problem with publication of the data set together with
a reference stating that the data included in the dataset is based on
observations made by SMHI but it has undergone processing made by your
research unit. We would also prefer a link to SMHI or to our web site
where the original data can be obtained.

Yours sincerely
Marcus Flarup

SMHI - Core Services"

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/data_from_the_hadcrut_dataset_100304.pdf

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. Of course
they wouldn't want data that Jones had artificially inflated, I mean
homogenized, to be labeled as the real deal. Grrrrr.

--Mike Jr.
From: Ouroboros Rex on 5 Mar 2010 17:17
On 3/5/2010 3:32 PM, Mike Jr wrote:
> "Dear Professor Jones,
> With reference to the current debate regarding, amongst other things,
> access to climate data we have found that our letter to you dated 21
> December 2009 unfortunately have rendered bad publicity both to SMHI
> and to the climate research community. We understand now that our
> response to your request forwarded by UK MetOffice 30 November 2009
> may have been misinterpreted, maybe due to the fact that the
> formulations may have been a bit harsh.
>
> Our response was based on your information that it was likely that the
> version held by you would most likely differ from our current
> holdings. It has never been our intention to withhold any data but we
> feel that it is paramount that data that has undergone, for instance,
> homogenisation by anyone other than SMHI is not presented as SMHI
> data. We see no problem with publication of the data set together with
> a reference stating that the data included in the dataset is based on
> observations made by SMHI but it has undergone processing made by your
> research unit. We would also prefer a link to SMHI or to our web site
> where the original data can be obtained.
>
> Yours sincerely
> Marcus Flarup
>
> SMHI - Core Services"
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/data_from_the_hadcrut_dataset_100304.pdf
>
> All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. Of course
> they wouldn't want data that Jones had artificially inflated, I mean
> homogenized, to be labeled as the real deal. Grrrrr.
>
> --Mike Jr.

Sure does sound like they originally withheld the data. =)
From: Mike Jr on 6 Mar 2010 01:16
On Mar 5, 5:17 pm, Ouroboros Rex <i...(a)casual.com> wrote:
> On 3/5/2010 3:32 PM, Mike Jr wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dear Professor Jones,
> > With reference to the current debate regarding, amongst other things,
> > access to climate data we have found that our letter to you dated 21
> > December 2009 unfortunately have rendered bad publicity both to SMHI
> > and to the climate research community. We understand now that our
> > response to your request forwarded by UK MetOffice 30 November 2009
> > may have been misinterpreted, maybe due to the fact that the
> > formulations may have been a bit harsh.
>
> > Our response was based on your information that it was likely that the
> > version held by you would most likely differ from our current
> > holdings. It has never been our intention to withhold any data but we
> > feel that it is paramount that data that has undergone, for instance,
> > homogenisation by anyone other than SMHI is not presented as SMHI
> > data. We see no problem with publication of the data set together with
> > a reference stating that the data included in the dataset is based on
> > observations made by SMHI but it has undergone processing made by your
> > research unit. We would also prefer a link to SMHI or to our web site
> > where the original data can be obtained.
>
> > Yours sincerely
> > Marcus Flarup
>
> > SMHI - Core Services"
>
> >http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/data_from_the_hadc...
>
> > All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. Of course
> > they wouldn't want data that Jones had artificially inflated, I mean
> > homogenized, to be labeled as the real deal.  Grrrrr.
>
> > --Mike Jr.
>
>    Sure does sound like they originally withheld the data.  =)

No, SMHI did not withhold data, Dr. Jones is misstating the original
letter. He turned <don't release data on your web site that you have
changed labeled as ours> to <They won't let me release data>.
Innocent misunderstanding? Please. SMHI is pissed off at Dr. Jones
for what they consider a deliberate distortion of their position.

Date: 21 December 2009
"Data from the HadCRUT dataset

Dear Prof. Jones,
SMHI has in a letter, dated November 30, from UK MetOffice, received
your request regarding the release of data from the HadCRUT dataset.

Given the information that the version of the data from the SMHI
stations that you hold are likely to differ from the data we hold,
SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site."

*** Notice that SMHI isn't saying that Jones can't release the data,
just that since it is different from theirs they don't want him to
place it *on his web site* mislabeled as SMHI. Since the original
undoctored data was available on the SMHI website, SMHI wanted him to
place a hyperlink on Jones' site to their site. Nothing here would
prevent Jones from releasing his doctored data to a FOIA request. ***

"SMHI are developing its own web site where you can find data from a
number of stations, including the stations in the list enclosed with
your letter, downloadable for non-commercial purposes, please see
http://data.smhi.se/met/climate/time_series/html/essential20.html and
http://data.smhi.se/met/climate/time_series/html/vov20.html. The
datasets are for a shorter period, but the web site is under
development and more data will be available for download in the near
future.

Yours sincerely
Marcus Flarup

Sales manager - Products and Data Wholesaling
Core Services - Information and Statistics"

--Mike Jr.
From: Cwatters on 6 Mar 2010 04:59

"Mike Jr" <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ce29e309-9213-4104-b634-ef6f91b1da99(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

>No, SMHI did not withhold data, Dr. Jones is misstating the original
>letter.

but the sweeds say that might be their fault...

>"We understand now that our response to your request forwarded by
> UK MetOffice 30 November 2009 may have been misinterpreted,
> maybe due to the fact that the formulations may have been a bit harsh."

At the very least the letters show Jones went to the trouble of asking if
the data could be released. eg he didn't just throw the FOI request in the
bin.





From: Mike Jr on 6 Mar 2010 10:11
On Mar 6, 4:59 am, "Cwatters"
<colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> "Mike Jr" <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ce29e309-9213-4104-b634-ef6f91b1da99(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >No, SMHI did not withhold data, Dr. Jones is misstating the original
> >letter.
>
> but the sweeds say that might be their fault...
>
> >"We understand now that our  response to your request forwarded by
> > UK MetOffice 30 November 2009  may have been misinterpreted,
> > maybe due to the fact that the formulations may have been a bit harsh."
>
> At the very least the letters show Jones went to the trouble of asking if
> the data could be released. eg he didn't just throw the FOI request in the
> bin.

Jones was clearly looking for an excuse to deny the FOIA requests and
if you squint just right, the Swede's letter can be pawned to fit the
bill. The section you quoted is classic "love-ball".. You know what
playing hardball is. Love-ball is when you say, "I empathize with
your pain but HELL NO". It's also called sticking the knife in and
having the person like it. Anyone in management for more than six
months learns this one.

This whole episode is very telling about Jones' character. How can
you trust somebody who is this loose with the facts?

--Mike Jr.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Alan Alda is part of an innovative US project to help scientists communicate
Next: splitting water using sunlight