The Revolving Door of a Broken Science
Posted by Jeff Condon on July 27, 2010
Back again. During my absence, a story came out at Climate Audit and the Blackboard regarding Ryan O’s efforts to collect data from Ammann. Now Ryan wrote several times politely to Caspar Ammann first, receiving ZERO response. Having no options, he reasonably began a series of FOI’s which have been unsuccessful as of late. It seems the climate of climate is more stable than the actual climate.
Just to demonstrate the apparently overwhelming nature of the request Ryan is making, which at the FOI level requires a Fee:
A reasonable fee should be quite low, as Dr. Ammann has freely provided the data I request to multiple researchers in the past, including Drs. Mann, Rutherford, and Wahl (at a minimum).
It seems that Climate Science is treating Climategate like a revolving door. We’ll be here when it comes around again. You can mark my words, if they learn nothing from the last time, it will come around again.
Check out the links above for the full story if you missed it.
kim said
I’m convinced that it will soon be mandatory for the data underlying policy critical papers to be available through an FOIA report. There must be a penalty for failure to deliver the data in good faith.
===================
stan said
When it comes to climate science Marx was wrong when he said — “history always repeats itself twice: first time as tragedy, second time as farce.” In climate science, it’s a farce from the beginning.
Kenneth Fritsch said
Not so fast there Ryan. I am providing an itemized expense account for providing the information requested through an FOIA that I would consider fair:
1. Original fee used to avoid frivolous requests (that was not removed after other expenses were added to it)———– $150.
2. Administration costs to handle requests ————————————————————————–$200.
3. Cost for legal counsel in what is called “term couching” in the replies to requests——————————–$220.
4. Psychological attention for ruffled feathers of potential information provider (assumes 1 hour on the couch)——– $300.
5. Graduate student’s labor to locate and send information—————————————————————$5.
Grand Total $775
kdk33 said
But they were exhonerated. Completely. Didn’t you hear?
Brian H said
“But they were exhonerated. Completely. Didn’t you hear?”
Well, I heard about a number of fake exonerations.
Which were really ex-honor-ations. But no exhonerations, no. ;p
kdk33 said
spelling is optoinel. Didn’t you know?
boballab said
What you will find is that for a year or two the Team will be paranoid where emails are concerned and very careful about what they say in them and how they are handled, but after that they will go back to the way they were in the Climategate emails. It will be just like it is/was when you get a big military leak of secrets. Back when I joined the Navy you had the John Walker spy ring case where he sold every Crypto secret to the Soviets. I was an Electronics Tech that switched over from the Nuclear field and wound up in Crypto repair and I spent the next 9 years dealing with classified material. For the first 3 to 4 years after the Walker Spy ring got busted everyone followed the new rules religiously but slowly over time you saw the security get slacker and slacker. As evidenced by leaks in the past years it got slack enough for breaches to occur and you will find this happening to the Team and that is when things will really get ugly if they learned nothing. The people that are basically taking the heat for them now, I doubt will a second time of them doing the exact same stuff. It just won’t fly, especially if any emails turn up talking about how they will try to get out of Climategate and/or emails between the Team and the “investigations” in a chummy way.
j ferguson said
Kenneth:
” Graduate student’s labor to locate and send information—————————————————————$5.”
Bingo!
But Kenneth, that’s the cost of the Grad Student’s labor, not the charge. Likely, grad students do all the work.