From Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit blog (remember -- you are now entering a parallel universe, prepare yourself):
OK, folks, guess what. I'm now in possession of a CRU version giving data for every station in their station list .
In their refusal letter, the Met Office described adverse consequences of disclosing CRU station data, an event that apparently would let loose the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
The Met Office stated:
Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released. …They continued:
If any of this information were released, scientists could be reluctant to share information and participate in scientific projects with the public sector organisations based in the UK in future. It would also damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector and could show the Met Office ignored the confidentiality in which the data information was provided.
the effective conduct of international relations depends upon maintaining trust and confidence between states and international organisations. This relationship of trust allows for the free and frank exchange of information on the understanding that it will be treated in confidence. If the United Kingdom does not respect such confidences, its ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations may be hampered.And that's not all. There's more:
Competitors/ Collaborators could be damaged by the release of information which was given to us in confidence and this will detrimentally affect the ability of the Met Office (UK) to co-operate with meteorological organisations and governments of other countries. This could also provoke a negative reaction from scientist globally if their information which they have requested remains private is disclosed.
to release it without authority would seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions.CRU was a less dramatic but still very clear about the consequences:
we feel that there is a strong public interest in upholding contract terms governing the use of received information. To not do so would be to potentially risk the loss of access to such data in future.Just to prove that I have actual CRU station data, here is the 60th series (Lund Sweden), covering the period 1753-1773: sensitive information indeed.
1753 -1.8 -1.3 3.7 7.6 11.5 14.6 16.7 15.9 13.4 9.9 3.2 -3.0It's hard to imagine that my being in possession of CRU station data would "damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector", interfere with the "effective conduct of international relations", "hamper the ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations" and "seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions."
1754 -1.0 -1.4 -1.2 5.6 12.9 15.2 15.1 15.5 11.9 10.1 4.7 1.9
1755 -3.8 -5.3 0.8 7.9 12.0 17.8 18.2 15.4 12.1 8.4 3.7 2.0
1756 1.9 2.3 2.5 4.2 9.9 17.6 19.4 15.6 14.1 9.2 1.8 -0.1
1757 -2.8 0.7 1.4 8.2 10.7 18.2 21.4 17.6 13.6 5.2 6.0 1.3
1758 -3.9 -2.0 0.7 3.3 13.9 16.7 16.0 16.8 11.8 6.7 4.5 1.0
1759 2.4 2.3 3.4 6.2 10.2 17.4 20.1 18.1 13.1 9.1 2.1 -2.0
1760 -4.0 -1.0 0.7 6.1 11.8 19.2 18.2 17.1 15.3 8.5 4.0 2.5
1761 0.6 1.2 5.0 6.8 12.9 18.0 17.3 18.3 15.2 6.3 5.1 -0.6
1762 1.1 -0.7 -1.8 8.1 11.5 17.0 17.4 14.2 12.4 4.8 4.1 0.5
1763 -3.9 0.5 0.5 4.6 11.2 14.9 17.8 16.9 11.5 7.7 2.8 3.0
1764 -0.1 3.0 1.4 5.6 12.5 13.6 20.5 16.3 11.8 7.6 2.4 0.1
1765 -0.3 -2.3 2.9 6.9 10.2 15.3 15.9 16.9 11.9 9.0 4.5 -0.2
1766 -1.8 -2.7 2.1 8.1 11.9 17.3 18.8 17.2 13.8 8.7 5.8 -0.9
1767 -6.1 -0.6 2.1 2.7 9.8 13.9 16.4 17.3 15.0 8.9 6.4 0.4
1768 -5.5 -3.1 -2.4 5.1 10.7 16.3 17.9 17.1 12.5 8.2 4.9 2.1
1769 0.6 -0.5 2.3 5.7 11.3 15.6 17.6 15.9 13.6 5.2 2.6 3.2
1770 -2.3 0.0 -2.9 4.5 11.5 15.1 18.1 18.1 15.4 10.5 2.5 1.5
1771 -3.8 -3.8 -3.9 2.2 12.4 18.0 17.2 15.1 12.5 10.1 2.8 2.5
1772 -1.6 -2.1 -1.1 4.7 10.0 16.2 17.8 17.1 13.6 11.0 7.2 2.9
1773 1.0 -0.9 1.6 7.3 14.1 15.9 18.1 18.0 14.5 11.2 5.0 2.6
But that's what the Met Office says.
Given such dramatic adverse consequences, I wonder what they'll do. Will they investigate? I wonder what the form of investigation will be. Will they do it Jack Nicholson-style?
I'll keep my eye out for secret agents from MI-5. The data's in a safe place, but I doubt that I would bear up well under waterboarding.
And by the way, just because I've got a version of the data doesn't mean that I'm going to give up trying to get the data through FOI. Quite the opposite.
July 25th, 2009 | Category: FOIA
Next we have the junk science promoter, Anthony Watts, talking about a "mole" with access to the CRU data:
As some WUWT readers may have learned from reading Climate Audit, an anonymous source deep within Hadley CRU has provided Steve McIntyre a copy of a data file he has been seeking but has had his FOI requests to Hadley seeking the same file, rebuked.
I’ve seen the data. As I posted last night on Climate Audit:
You know, not everyone in every organization believes in everything the organization does. This is why we have leaks in the White House and people like “Deep Throat” that provide evidential tidbits with guidance like “follow the money”.While the CRU data file is not the most current, it is the most current one the mole could produce for us.
Steve has shared this data and the source with me, as a way of verification, and I can vouch for both the validity of the data and of the source ip address. It truly comes from deep within the organization. – Anthony
But most importantly this will not deter Steve in his FOI requests, he writes:
And by the way, just because I’ve got a version of the data doesn’t mean that I’m going to give up trying to get the data through FOI. Quite the opposite.Indeed. Better to get it through the front door.
I mentioned to Steve this morning via email that in addition to verifying the source, I was able to come up with a photo of the “anonymous” mole in CRU. I’ve sent him a copy.
h/t to commenter John S. at Climate Audit for the “Deep Cool” moniker.
Next we have another mention of the "mole" on July 28, 2009:
Met Office/CRU Finds the MoleMore news on the Met Office/CRU molehunt.
Late yesterday (Eastern time), I learned that the Met Office/CRU had identified the mole. They are now aware that there has in fact been a breach of security. They have confirmed that I am in fact in possession of CRU temperature data, data so sensitive that, according to the UK Met Office, my being in possession of this data would, "damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector", interfere with the "effective conduct of international relations", "hamper the ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations" and "seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions."
Although they have confirmed the breach of security, neither the Met Office nor CRU have issued a statement warning the public of the newCRU_tar leak. Nor, it seems, have they notified the various parties to the alleged confidentiality agreements that there has been a breach in those confidentiality agreements, so that the opposite parties can take appropriate counter-measures to cope with the breach of security by UK institutions. Thus far, the only actions by either the Met Office or CRU appear to have been a concerted and prompt effort to cover up the breach of security by attempting to eradicate all traces of the mole's activities. My guess is that they will not make the slightest effort to discipline the mole.
Nor have either the Met Office or CRU have contacted me asking me not to further disseminate the sensitive data or to destroy the data that I have in my possession.
By not doing so, they are surely opening themselves up to further charges of negligence for the following reasons. Their stated position is that, as a "non-academic", my possession of the data would be wrongful (a position with which I do not agree, by the way). Now that they are aware that I am in possession of the data (and they are aware, don't kid yourselves), any prudent lawyer would advise them to immediately to notify me that I am not entitled to be in possession of the data and to ask/instruct me to destroy the data that I have in my possession and not to further disseminate the sensitive data. You send out that sort of letter even if you think that the letter is going to fall on deaf ears.
Since I am always eager to help climate scientists with these conundrums, I'll help them out a little here. If, prior to midnight Eastern time on Thursday July 30, 2009, a senior executive of the Met Office or the University of East Anglia notifies me that I am in wrongful possession of the data and directly requests me to destroy my copies of the CRU station data in question and thereby do my part in the avoidance of newCRU_tar proliferation, I will do so.
I will, of course, continue my FOI requests since I do not believe, for a minute, that their excuses have any validity nor am I convinced that the alleged confidentiality agreements actually exist nor, if they exist, am I convinced that they prohibit the provision of the data to me.
What a jerk!