No, you obviously didn't read the paragraph you quoted. It suggests that in addition to withholding data, they also withheld source code. The fact that maybe you could recreate the code or download data from elsewhere does not change the fact that the CRU did withhold both source code and data.
As for the "number of FoI requests they would've received and their tone", that sounds like something apache can handle:
GET /public_data/hockey_stick.tar.gz HTTP/1.1
Host: www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
Tone: HIGHLY VITRIOLIC
If the point is to independently verify the results, you should write your own code to grind it and compare it to CRU's results.
anthonyb already quoted the relevant section: Writing computer code to process the data "took less than two days and produced results similar to other independent analyses. No information from CRU was needed to do this".
If a qualified researcher can reproduce the results in two days, I'd suggest that anyone who can't is not sufficiently qualified to be evaluating the research's efficacy in the first place.
I disagree that source code release should not be required, but that's a side issue.
The main point I'm making here is this: the title of this article (and the report) is just not true. The CRU folks withhold source code and data, and the report even admits this.
Not only did they not respond simply because of the "number" or "tone" of requests, but they actively avoided releasing data. From one of their emails: "And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them [...] If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."
If the data you need to reproduce their results is publicly available, then it isn't withheld, is it?
The purpose of the three separate inquiries was to separate fact from out-of-context quotes like the ones you're still trying to leverage.
I think the results are clear. The researchers should have been more open, but they didn't do anything unethical and anyone qualified could have reproduced their results using widely publicly available data.
If I don't give you data, but maybe you can scrape a bunch of websites to get it, then yes, I withheld it. Hence, the title is misleading. The title didn't claim assorted weather stations did not withhold data, it claims the CRU did not. The text of the report admits they did.
The data they used is publicly available and the inquiry board noted that the results were easily reproduced by qualified individuals.
The fact that CRU didn't want to deal with "the contrarians" by holding their (unqualified) hands through the process is not a surprise.
What more do you want? The inquiry board said CRU should be more open. They should. But anyone qualified could reproduce their results with the public data. Hardly a damning conclusion.
you lose credibility by interjecting small jabs and opinions (ie, "unqualified") and irrelevant commentary (ie, the relevance of the surprise-factor is...?)
i personally think the whole issue is silly because laymen are not familiar with the typical processes in academia.
but my opinion aside, regardless of its convenience for the scientists involved and regardless of its irrelevance to the validity of the scientific argument, the intention is clear from the above linked emails to hide data from the "contrarians".
> you lose credibility by interjecting small jabs and opinions (ie, "unqualified")
Your comment is amusing given your 'dumbest argument ever' intro, but regardless, that wasn't a jab (or even my own opinion):
"Asked whether it would be reasonable to conclude that anyone claiming instrumental records were unavailable or vital code missing was incompetent, another panel member, Professor Peter Clarke from Edinburgh University, said: "It's very clear that anyone who'd be competent enough to analyse the data would know where to find it. It's also clear that anyone competent could perform their own analysis without let or hindrance.""
Hardly. If independent scientists working for 2 days can replicate CRU's results, why all the screaming and shouting over withholding data? Just replicate the results, see if they align with what's been published, and move on.
if it's so easy to find, then why is it being deleted from the ftp server? (see email)
i don't personally care. think/believe/dream what you want.
(i do get particularly peeved when people use language manipulations like "screaming and shouting" to make their point appear sensible because they are clearly not screaming and shouting.)
Go look at places like climateaudit.org. Plenty of screaming and shouting there. "Fraud", etc. If they'd only put 2 days worth of that energy into something productive...
The issue is that most of the people attacking them have already made their mind up and are looking for any opening that they can find. They don't care about the source code or data, and if they were freely available, it would've been something else (eg. hundreds of "climate skeptics" asking stupid questions, or calling CRU over and over). It's like arguing with proponents of Intelligent Design - the more data you give them, the more they can take out of context.
Comments
No, you obviously didn't read the paragraph you quoted. It suggests that in addition to withholding data, they also withheld source code. The fact that maybe you could recreate the code or download data from elsewhere does not change the fact that the CRU did withhold both source code and data.
As for the "number of FoI requests they would've received and their tone", that sounds like something apache can handle:
If the point is to independently verify the results, you should write your own code to grind it and compare it to CRU's results.
anthonyb already quoted the relevant section: Writing computer code to process the data "took less than two days and produced results similar to other independent analyses. No information from CRU was needed to do this".
If a qualified researcher can reproduce the results in two days, I'd suggest that anyone who can't is not sufficiently qualified to be evaluating the research's efficacy in the first place.
I disagree that source code release should not be required, but that's a side issue.
The main point I'm making here is this: the title of this article (and the report) is just not true. The CRU folks withhold source code and data, and the report even admits this.
Not only did they not respond simply because of the "number" or "tone" of requests, but they actively avoided releasing data. From one of their emails: "And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them [...] If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."
If the data you need to reproduce their results is publicly available, then it isn't withheld, is it?
The purpose of the three separate inquiries was to separate fact from out-of-context quotes like the ones you're still trying to leverage.
I think the results are clear. The researchers should have been more open, but they didn't do anything unethical and anyone qualified could have reproduced their results using widely publicly available data.
If I don't give you data, but maybe you can scrape a bunch of websites to get it, then yes, I withheld it. Hence, the title is misleading. The title didn't claim assorted weather stations did not withhold data, it claims the CRU did not. The text of the report admits they did.
As for my "out-of-context" quote, here is the context: http://junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/1107454306.txt . Why don't you explain to me how this was not a conspiracy to withhold data?
> As for my "out-of-context" quote, here is the context: http://junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/1107454306.txt . Why don't you explain to me how this was not a conspiracy to withhold data?
The data they used is publicly available and the inquiry board noted that the results were easily reproduced by qualified individuals.
The fact that CRU didn't want to deal with "the contrarians" by holding their (unqualified) hands through the process is not a surprise.
What more do you want? The inquiry board said CRU should be more open. They should. But anyone qualified could reproduce their results with the public data. Hardly a damning conclusion.
this is the dumbest argument ever.
you lose credibility by interjecting small jabs and opinions (ie, "unqualified") and irrelevant commentary (ie, the relevance of the surprise-factor is...?)
i personally think the whole issue is silly because laymen are not familiar with the typical processes in academia.
but my opinion aside, regardless of its convenience for the scientists involved and regardless of its irrelevance to the validity of the scientific argument, the intention is clear from the above linked emails to hide data from the "contrarians".
case closed.
> this is the dumbest argument ever.
I'd say this argument is dumb-er.
> you lose credibility by interjecting small jabs and opinions (ie, "unqualified")
Your comment is amusing given your 'dumbest argument ever' intro, but regardless, that wasn't a jab (or even my own opinion):
"Asked whether it would be reasonable to conclude that anyone claiming instrumental records were unavailable or vital code missing was incompetent, another panel member, Professor Peter Clarke from Edinburgh University, said: "It's very clear that anyone who'd be competent enough to analyse the data would know where to find it. It's also clear that anyone competent could perform their own analysis without let or hindrance.""
that is irrelevant to the OP's point
Hardly. If independent scientists working for 2 days can replicate CRU's results, why all the screaming and shouting over withholding data? Just replicate the results, see if they align with what's been published, and move on.
if it's so easy to find, then why is it being deleted from the ftp server? (see email)
i don't personally care. think/believe/dream what you want.
(i do get particularly peeved when people use language manipulations like "screaming and shouting" to make their point appear sensible because they are clearly not screaming and shouting.)
Go look at places like climateaudit.org. Plenty of screaming and shouting there. "Fraud", etc. If they'd only put 2 days worth of that energy into something productive...
o the haters, they keep hating
The issue is that most of the people attacking them have already made their mind up and are looking for any opening that they can find. They don't care about the source code or data, and if they were freely available, it would've been something else (eg. hundreds of "climate skeptics" asking stupid questions, or calling CRU over and over). It's like arguing with proponents of Intelligent Design - the more data you give them, the more they can take out of context.