From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: santer1@llnl.gov
Subject: Re: [Fwd: FOI Request]
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:27:10 -0700
Cc: "Thomas.R.Karl" <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>, Karen Owen <Karen.Owen@noaa.gov>, Sharon Leduc <Sharon.Leduc@noaa.gov>, "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@metoffice.gov.uk>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@univie.ac.at>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@llnl.gov>, Tom Wigley <wigley@cgd.ucar.edu>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@noaa.gov>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@frii.com>, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@noaa.gov>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@llnl.gov>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Steve Klein <klein21@mail.llnl.gov>, carl mears <mears@remss.com>, Doug Nychka <nychka@ucar.edu>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>, Steven Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@yale.edu>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@remss.com>, "David C. Bader" <bader2@llnl.gov>, Professor Glenn McGregor <g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz>, "Bamzai, Anjuli" <Anjuli.Bamzai@science.doe.gov>

<x-flowed>
Hmmm. I note the following ,,,

"at which I can be contacted between 9 and 7 pm Eastern Daylight Time"

Is this a 22 hour, or, for people with time machine, a negative 2 hour
window?

Joking aside, it seems as a matter of principle (albeit a principle yet 
to be set by the courts) that provision of primary data sources that are 
sufficient to reproduce the results of a scientific analysis is all that 
is necessary under FOI.

It also seems that judgment of what correspondence is central to the
analysis can only be made by the persons involved. As a participant in
many of these inter-author communications, I do not recall any that
would give information not already contained in the published paper.

Tom.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Ben Santer wrote:
> Dear Tom,
> 
> Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre's twin requests under 
> the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre's request (1), 
> no "monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models" was 
> "sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA 
> employees between 2006 and October 2008".
> 
> As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him 
> yesterday, all of the raw (gridded) model and observational data used in 
> the 2008 Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper 
> are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit 
> us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper are 
> sound, he has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit. 
> Providing Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw 
> model data (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and 
> synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the 
> very purpose of an audit.
> 
> I note that David Douglass and colleagues have already audited our 
> calculation of synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model data. 
> Douglass et al. obtained "model average" trends in synthetic MSU 
> temperatures (published in their 2007 IJoC paper) that are virtually 
> identical to our own.
> 
> McIntyre's request (2) demands "any correspondence concerning these 
> monthly time series between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et 
> al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008". I do not know 
> how you intend to respond this second request. You and three other NOAA 
> co-authors on our paper (Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, and John Lanzante) 
> probably received hundreds of emails that I sent to you in the course of 
> our work on the IJoC paper. I note that this work began in December 
> 2007, following online publication of Douglass et al. in the IJoC. I 
> have no idea why McIntyre's request for email correspondence has a 
> "start date" of 2006, and thus predates publication of Douglass et al.
> 
> My personal opinion is that both FOI requests (1) and (2) are intrusive 
> and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific 
> justification or explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre 
> is pursuing a calculated strategy to divert my attention and focus away 
> from research. As the recent experiences of Mike Mann and Phil Jones 
> have shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be followed 
> by further requests for computer programs, additional material and 
> explanations, etc., etc.
> 
> Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing 
> the serious scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am 
> unwilling to waste more of my time fulfilling the intrusive and 
> frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme irony is that Mr. 
> McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the 
> Douglass et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et 
> al. relied on a seriously flawed statistical test, and reached incorrect 
> conclusions on the basis of that flawed test.
> 
> I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of 
> Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our 
> scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He 
> has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the 
> currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our 
> scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven 
> McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we 
> send to our scientific colleagues.
> 
> In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of 
> climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style 
> investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to 
> send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the 
> primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely 
> available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the 
> future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email 
> correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should 
> not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully.
> 
> I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine 
> how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive 
> from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming.
> 
> I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper, to my 
> immediate superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE 
> headquarters, and to Professor Glenn McGregor (the editor who was in 
> charge of our paper at IJoC).
> 
> I'd be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I'm sorry 
> that the tone of this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after 
> today's events, I must assume that any email I write to you may be 
> subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre's 
> "ClimateAudit" website.
> 
> With best personal wishes,
> 
> Ben
> 
> Thomas.R.Karl wrote:
>> FYI --- Jolene can you set up a conference call with all the parties 
>> listed below including Ben.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:     FOI Request
>> Date:     Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:00 -0500
>> From:     Steve McIntyre <stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca>
>> To:     FOIA@noaa.gov
>> CC:     Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nov. 10, 2008
>>
>>  
>>
>> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>>
>> Public Reference Facility (OFA56)
>>
>> Attn: NOAA FOIA Officer
>>
>> 1315 East West Highway (SSMC3)
>>
>> Room 10730
>>
>> Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
>>
>>  
>>
>> Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
>>
>>  
>>
>> Dear NOAA FOIA Officer:
>>
>>  
>>
>> This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Santer et al, Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in
>>
>> the tropical troposphere, (Int J Climatology, 2008), of which NOAA 
>> employees J. R. Lanzante,  S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R. Karl were 
>> co-authors, reported on a statistical analysis of the output of 47 
>> runs of climate models that had been collated into monthly time series 
>> by Benjamin Santer and associates.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I request that a copy of the following NOAA records be provided to me: 
>> (1) any monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate 
>> models sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to 
>> NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008; (2) any correspondence 
>> concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other 
>> coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and 
>> October 2008.
>>
>>  
>>
>> The primary sources for NOAA records are J. R. Lanzante,  S. Solomon, 
>> M. Free and T. R. Karl.
>>
>>  
>>
>> In order to help to determine my status for purposes of determining 
>> the applicability of any fees, you should know that I have 5 
>> peer-reviewed publications on paleoclimate; that I was a reviewer for 
>> WG1; that I made a invited presentations in 2006 to the National 
>> Research Council Panel on Surface Temperature Reconstructions and two 
>> presentations to the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the 
>> House Energy and Commerce Committee.
>>
>>  
>>
>> In addition, a previous FOI request was discussed by the NOAA Science 
>> Advisory Board’s Data Archiving and Access Requirements Working Group 
>> (DAARWG). http:// www. 
>> joss.ucar.edu/daarwg/may07/presentations/KarL_DAARWG_NOAAArchivepolify-v0514.pdf. 
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>> I believe a fee waiver is appropriate since the purpose of the request 
>> is academic research, the information exists in digital format and the 
>> information should be easily located by the primary sources.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I also include a telephone number (416-469-3034) at which I can be 
>> contacted between 9 and 7 pm Eastern Daylight Time, if necessary, to 
>> discuss any aspect of my request.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thank you for your consideration of this request.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I ask that the FOI request be processed promptly as NOAA failed to 
>> send me a response to the FOI request referred to above, for which Dr 
>> Karl apologized as follows:
>>
>>  
>>
>> due to a miscommunication between our office and our headquarters, the 
>> response was not submitted to you. I deeply apologize for this 
>> oversight, and we have taken measures to ensure this does not happen 
>> in the future.
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Stephen McIntyre
>>
>> 25 Playter Blvd
>>
>> Toronto, Ont M4K 2W1
>>
>>  
>>
> 
> 

</x-flowed>

