the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Contact the Owner

Posted by Jeff Id on March 25, 2009

Below is one of my many requests for data left on RC (after multiple other attempts from other avenues). RC now has edited the link, apparently they weren’t happy with the hundreds of travelers to my blog that went on for weeks.

jeff Id Says:
4 February 2009 at 11:21 PM

A link to my recent post requesting again that code be released.
[edit]
I believe your reconstruction is robust. Let me see the detail so I can agree in public.

[Response: What is there about the sentence, “The code, all of it, exactly as we used it, is right here,” that you don’t understand? Or are you asking for a step-by-step guide to Matlab? If so, you’re certainly welcome to enroll in one of my classes at the University of Washington.–eric]

I told TCO a couple of days ago about my habit of bolding the crazy stuff.

Here is a link to the code I’ve been asking for for months.

steig-directory

Note the date of my request for data Feb 4 and the date of the last file cloudmaskedAVHRR Mar 22. All of a sudden the story has changed and the data wasn’t published before and now it is. Does anyone think Steig forgot his data or…..? Don’t forget that I repeatedly requested the AVHRR TIR data including the code used to process the AVHRR data SPECIFICALLY.

Now nearly all the files in the directory work but here’s what you see when you click on the last file.

permission-denied

Yeah, that’s a good suggestion. Contact the owner, why didn’t I think of that.

Giving the benefit of the doubt to RC I left this question on their thread.

“Gavin, Is there an intentional block to the AVHRR data on Dr. Steig’s site?”

Clipped, trashed and discarded almost as fast as I wrote it!

Still no code or original data has been released.

——-

Thanks to Steve McIntyre for finding the data link on Steig’s server.

Here’s a link to his post on the subject.


31 Responses to “Contact the Owner”

  1. Joseph said

    Jeff, you ARE the bulldog. Keep after them. Never say die. They have dug themselves into a hole, and now they are throwing dirt on their heads. Do not let this go. You ARE making progress.

  2. Jeff Id said

    For those who are interested, please click on this link

    http://faculty.washington.edu/steig/nature09data/

    Find the file marked cloudmaskedAVHRR.txt 1/3 of the way down the page.

    Click on it to see if it works. Perhaps certain computers have been marked.

  3. Permission denied for me too. Accessing from a hotel in Alexandria, VA.

  4. Jeff Id said

    Thanks Jeff,

    You’d think Gavin would have just said sorry I don’t know what’s happening or something. Why censor my question, it just makes them look like crap?

  5. rephelan said

    OK, the very last benefit of the doubt…. all of us are trying to access from networks that do not have climate programs…. If I were to try and access from within my univesity, which has a very active (and pro-agw) program… what would I get? Please. someone on campus… access the file. Can’t?

    Can’t?????

  6. John Miles said

    Perhaps taking a “least adversarial” approach in your postings would encourage more cooperation. E.g., instead of “Gavin, Is there an intentional block to the AVHRR data on Dr. Steig’s site?” you might phrase it in a way to make him feel his side is not being criticized (even by inference–he’s looking at any post by you as a challenge at this point).
    .
    Perhaps a “Gavin, I’ve tried several times without success to view the AVHRR data on Dr. Steig’s site. Any suggestions as to what I’m doing wrong or how to get the same read permissions for that file as for all the others in the directory?” would go further.
    .
    Maybe it’ll help Gavin (or whomever at RC) feel like they’re being asked for advice instead of feeling they’re being chided for the file being blocked in the first place. I think we’ll all get further even if we have to stroke their egos (or sooth their antipathy) if we play the game by their rules. If it doesn’t make it hard for them to say no, it will, at the least, reveal very starkly their need for censorship in order not to be challenged in their environmental religious tenets.

  7. Greg F said

    Same denied access for me. I even tried ftp.

  8. Jeff Id said

    John

    Actually you have a good point about this one sentence. If you didn’t see the endless history of polite questions being clipped or extensive ‘polite’ requests for data being ignored followed by the question that leads this post it reads a little different.

    Trust me, they exist and were extensive.

    Here’s a sample.

    One of my first requests.
    I wonder if you know when the data and code for this will be released. If it has, where can I find it?

    It doesn’t matter to me if the antarctic is warming or not, but I would like to know the details of this study. I’ve read the paper and SI and it isn’t exactly chock full of detail.

    Here’s another
    If you wouldn’t mind encouraging your colleagues to publish the data and code used, the review process may gain you considerable support.

    I for one wouldn’t be surprised to find the Antarctic was warming, but I need to see the calculations used in order to trust the result. If it looks reasonable, there’s nothing wrong with that. That’s exactly what my blog will say.

    A link with several more.
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/steigs-code/

    This has a long history of stonewalling and insults by the RC crowd.
    —-
    Thanks Greg….

  9. rephelan said

    Oh, he’s back? well, then… his home page, with phone numbers is

    http://www.ess.washington.edu/web/ess/people/faculty_bio/steig-bio.html

    give him a call. [snip]

    Reply: While the phone numbers are public, I think we put enough pressure on him by letting the world know how he operates. The support is highly appreciated though

  10. Larry Huldén said

    I also tried to access cloudmaskedAVHRR.txt from Finland (University of Helsinki) with the same reply Permission denied.

    Larry Huldén
    Finnish Museum of Natural History

  11. Amabo said

    Norway is blocked. Does this mean that Steig hates norwegians? Man, I’m starting to like that guy less and less.

  12. Chris H said

    Tried from UK, no luck.

  13. It’s on a publicly accessible site, with no indication that a restriction is in place. So it’s either a mistake, which Steig’s Defender, Gavin, has known about for at least a day or two, and the permissions are still bad. Even if it was a mistake originally, it’s now pretty clear it’s either complete incompetence, or just pettiness.

  14. Eric Anderson said

    Blocked here too.

  15. James S said

    Blocked from New Zealand too!

  16. Jeff Id said

    Wow, thanks to everyone for trying. I think the link is either down or requires a secret handshake or something.

    I’ll send an email to Steig today and will keep checking to see if it starts working.

  17. Jeff Id said

    Here’s my email to Eric Steig. His email was removed from the lab homepage but it’s easy enough to find by google.

    Dr. Steig,

    A link was provided on your homepage for the satellite AVHRR data. The filename is cloudmaskedAVHRR.txt.

    Currently it appears to be unintentionally set for password permission only to access. I am interested in continuing analysis of this data through RegEM and comparison to the NSIDC AVHRR dataset. Can you please reset permissions for download?

    Jeff

  18. Jeff Id said

    Dr. Steig fixed the permissions.

  19. TCO said

    Jeff:

    The weird thing is that I completely agree that Mann et al are politicized and recalcitrant. All that said, you all come off as blunderers at times. And McI as a little tow faced whiner. Look at him complaining about treatment of a submiutted paper, yet lacking the balls to share a preprint (when many people do…and when he operates a blog with lots of transmission of analyses.)

  20. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    must be, I have the file on my HD.
    If failures should accrue, I have it for you.
    see if you can get there same output…. then see if they double dipped the cloud masking?

  21. John Miles said

    Jeff Id #8

    Thanks for the update as I don’t have the time to follow things as closely as I’d like, though I had read the asinine comments by steig et al. such as “What is there about the sentence, ‘The code, all of it, exactly as we used it, is right here [link to generic RegEM],’ that you don’t understand?” Their comments are for propaganda purposes for those who follow the RC blog but don’t understand what’s being offered. But I understand your (and my) frustration.

    Hiding data & censorship seems to be widespread in the science-as-dogma community. I recently experienced it with Science magazine (online). I had commented on an article noted in a “ScienceNOW Daily Headlines” email I’m subscribed to–in the section meant for comments, believe it or not–regarding a recent study modeling the West Antarctic ice sheet at

    http://www.info-aaas.org/util/link.jsp?e=47YNycyl_p6XJlMxZ4G3rDzMe1cQ1Yi1gTvSMG7hIJAPBe8_k&s=2aatJFing8A..A&v=3TVkBn7KLcxZL

    (or, alternatively,

    http://tinyurl.com/dlhg65 )

    Wish I had saved the comment, but I merely mentioned that it is also important to consider that glacier & ice sheet dynamics are poorly understood, that models have tunable parameters that make virtually any desired model fit possible, and that models are not predictive given the vast complexity of the climate system that is not represented therein and especially due to the chaotic nature of climate and other dynamic systems.

    There one day and gone the next. Didn’t know they required peer reviewed comments only when they make some sense and sound legitimate. My master’s degree work was in meteorology/numerical weather prediction and we tuned parameters when the model gave us unrealistic results without thinking twice. It was interesting to note that they let stand opposing views that portray skeptics as being ignorant, extreme, or incoherent (I’ll let others decide).

  22. Jeff Id said

    #19,

    The rules are no preprint, I say so what if he waits.

    His paper is the same as Santer, I mean except for not chopping the inconvenient data. Why wouldn’t it be published unless the magazine doesn’t like scientific controversy.

    I bet that the Santer team has a copy because I bet at least one of them was picked as a reviewer.

  23. Jeff Id said

    #21 John,

    It’s almost impossible for the public to understand how complete the censorship is. How can a person trained in meteorology not be allowed an opinion on an alleged science blog. It’s outrageous.

    Consensorship.

  24. TCO said

    That’s wrong. There is not a rule forbidding preprints. McI hides this stuff becuause he doesn’t want to have his stuff torn apart. Also, because he is a crappy writer.

  25. Jeff Id said

    #24 As long as you’ve been around I would think you would know this stuff. — my bolds.

    Copyright. To enable the publisher to disseminate the author’s work to the fullest extent, the author must sign a Copyright Transfer Agreement , transferring copyright in the article from the author to the publisher, and submit the original signed agreement by postal mail to the Editor handling their manuscript at the time the article is presented for publication. A copy of the agreement to be used (which may be photocopied) can be found in each volume of the International Journal of Climatology . Copies may also be obtained from the journal editor or publisher, or may be printed from this website.

    —–

    The Royal Meteorological Society grants back to the Contributor the following:
    1. The right to share with colleagues print or electronic “preprints”of the unpublished Contribution, in form and content as accepted by Wiley for publication in the Journal. Such preprints may be posted as electronic files on the Contributor’s own website for personal or professional use, or on the Contributor’s internal university or corporate networks/intranet, or secure external website at the Contributor’s institution, but not for commercial sale or for any systematic external distribution by a third party (eg: a listserver or database connected to a public access server). Prior to publication, the Contributor must include the following notice on the preprint: “This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in International Journal of Climatology Copyright © [year] Royal Meteorological Society”. After publication of the Contribution by Wiley, the preprint notice should be amended to read as follows: “This is a preprint of an article published in [include the complete citation information for the final version of the Contribution as published in the print edition of the Journal]”and should provide an electronic link to the Journal’s WWW site, located at the following Wiley URL: http://www.interscience.wiley.com/. The Contributor agrees not to update the preprint or replace it with the published version of the Contribution.

    2. The right, without charge, to photocopy or to transmit on-line or to download, print out and distribute to a the published Contribution in whole or in part, for the Contributor’s personal or professional use, for the advancement of scholarly or scientific research or study, or for corporate informational purposes in accordance with paragraph D2 below.

    3. The right to republish, without charge, in print format, all or part of the material from the published Contribution in a book written or edited by the Contributor.

    4. The right to use selected figures and tables, and selected text (up to 250 words) from the Contribution, for the Contributor’s own teaching purposes, or for incorporation within another work by the Contributor that is made part of an edited work published (in print or electronic format) by a third party, or for presentation in electronic format on an internal computer network or external website of the Contributor or the Contributor’s employer. The abstract shall not be included as part of such selected text.

    ——

    I also know E&E only allows the abstract to be used.

  26. TCO said

    You can circulate it befor it’s accepted as well. They don’t send you the copyright stuff to sign until after it’s accepted.

  27. Keith said

    TCO, if the M&M paper is still in consideration for publication, then based upon the copyright description Jeff provides, McIntyre can provide copies of parts, but not the whole until after IJC declines to publish. I do know that most journals refuse to accept papers that have been previously published in some form unless there is new information added to update the findings. While Steve can circulate individual copies to people to receive feedback during the deliberation process at IJC, he cannot release the paper for mass viewing until it something is decided one way or the other on the submission. Have you asked Steve for a private copy to view? If your credentials are as good as you say they are, I am sure he could send you a private copy for you to read, with the proviso that you not discuss the contents with anyone but he and Ross until after IJC decides upon their submission.

  28. TAG said

    A journal editir would not want a preprint circulated before an accepted version is created. The reviewers may require major changes before publication or even recommend rejection. So an unacceptable preprint with a notation “submitted to ABC” could cause embarrassment if major changes to it are required by the referees.

  29. McIntyre afraid to print his stuff??? Wow, that’s rich!! If that’s so, then Mann, Santer, and all the others must REALLY be crappy scientists.

  30. TCO said

    Steve has a pattern of this behavior. Even after acceptance, he does not circulate the preprints. The reporter who said that skeptics like to fire from the underbrush on the sides of the road…nailed them.

    Steve is a [snip] Canadian civilian penny stock blog guy. A 4 year tease. I’m warning you. Just like I warned the RINO Bush-lovers that going pro-bailout would kill McCain more than helping save him from the Hoover tag. I’m warning you…

  31. John Miles said

    #30 TCO

    I don’t mean to interrupt the conversation, but I think you’re on the wrong website. Religious dogmas are usually discussed in USENET newsgroup forums. I’ve got links if you want them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 134 other followers

%d bloggers like this: