The Gaming Den

You know, you can apply for FOI requests from the UEA online. Theres an online form here, and if a large community like 4chan or something decides to spam it with lots of different requests then they are obliged to answer them all within 20 days.

The only thing stopping them is if they think it is a vexatious request since the act says

Section 14: Vexatious or repeated requests

59. Subsection (1) states that an authority is not obliged to comply with vexatious requests. This is not intended to include otherwise valid requests in which the applicant happens to take an opportunity to vent his frustration.

60. Subsection (2) states that an authority does not have to comply with repeated or substantially similar requests from the same person other than at reasonable intervals.

So, it seems entirely possible that hundreds of FOI acts could be made in a day. It probably happened just after "climategate" came out in the news.

[url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Vexatious wrote:Vexatious[/url]]1 a : causing vexation : distressing <vexatious delays> b : intended to harass <a vexatious lawsuit>
2 : full of disorder or stress : troubled <a vexatious period in her life>

— vex·a·tious·ly adverb

— vex·a·tious·ness noun

So in theory they do not have to respond to FOI requests that are intended to harass them like the 4chan example.

FrankTrollman wrote:So Draco: do you accept that your original statement that it was no actual work for a scientist at EAU to get hit with multiple FOI requests a day was wrong? If not, why not?

-Username17

I'll cop to being wrong there. I'm not going to back down on upholding FOI being important enough that its worth following the legal process completely.

Draco_Argentum wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:So Draco: do you accept that your original statement that it was no actual work for a scientist at EAU to get hit with multiple FOI requests a day was wrong? If not, why not?

-Username17

I'll cop to being wrong there. I'm not going to back down on upholding FOI being important enough that its worth following the legal process completely.

So do you concede that someone venting their frustration and saying "why don't we just delete all that data and stop worrying about it?" in a private email is perfectly understandable, and that if years later they still had not actually done it that it is not an actual black mark on anyone's record?

If not, why not?

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:So do you concede that someone venting their frustration and saying "why don't we just delete all that data and stop worrying about it?" in a private email is perfectly understandable, and that if years later they still had not actually done it that it is not an actual black mark on anyone's record?

Nope, I never have and I never will. Then again, I work with financial data where information to the correct data is worth millions of dollars to people, so lawyers would hang someone up to dry if someone even attempted to be so stupid as to admit that even in a private email.

P.S. "had no actually done it," implies that the raw data is actually available ... that's certainly news to me. AFAIK only the adjusted data is still available, with the scientists saying "opps we lost it, he he he he" like giddy schoolgirls.

Tzor wrote:P.S. "had no actually done it," implies that the raw data is actually available ... that's certainly news to me.

On the off chance that you're not being completely disingenuous, the raw data has always been available. The temperatures come from meteorological organizations from a variety of countries. So you can just ask for them. But sure, if you want the raw data for some reason, Here They Are.

Not of course, that any of the CRU's detractors have any actual use for raw climate data. It's just something to yell about to imply that science was done improperly and we can discount the findings. But the answer to "Show me the data!" is now and always has been "OK, here it is." The hilarious thing is that the next thing that inevitably comes out of the detractor's mouth is not "I read he data and..." but simply another "Show me the data!" as if nothing had happened. Which of course, from their perspective, nothing did. It's not like they read the data at any point.

-Username17

Heck, I used tools from the university of utah to create a weather profile for every location that I was looking to buy a house at.

The raw information is totally available. For free. The original intent of the internet lives!

-Crissa

FrankTrollman wrote:So do you concede that someone venting their frustration and saying "why don't we just delete all that data and stop worrying about it?" in a private email is perfectly understandable, and that if years later they still had not actually done it that it is not an actual black mark on anyone's record?

Frank, thats such a complete connotation change you've made with your paraphrase that its totally disingenuous. The actual quote is more along the lines of 'please delete emails of this specific topic'.

Here it is again "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis."

AR4 is "Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" according to wikipedia.

This isn't some frustrated rant, which I could understand even if it was an unfortunate specter later on when the denialists seize on it. What we have here is a calm and very targeted request. It references a specific discussion. You reinterpreting it as all data is trying way to hard to give the guy who wrote it a pass.

So no, I won't concede anything of the sort since that isn't what happened.

tzor wrote:Nope, I never have and I never will. Then again, I work with financial data where information to the correct data is worth millions of dollars to people, so lawyers would hang someone up to dry if someone even attempted to be so stupid as to admit that even in a private email.

P.S. "had no actually done it," implies that the raw data is actually available ... that's certainly news to me. AFAIK only the adjusted data is still available, with the scientists saying "opps we lost it, he he he he" like giddy schoolgirls.

While I'm here. Its science, if you don't present the data all the other scientists point and say, 'lol noob'. Thats why noone respects homeopathy, they steadfastly refuse to even have data.

FrankTrollman wrote:On the off chance that you're not being completely disingenuous, the raw data has always been available. The temperatures come from meteorological organizations from a variety of countries. So you can just ask for them. But sure, if you want the raw data for some reason, Here They Are.

Wow, that's like 12 raw data sets. Impressive.

• GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
• USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1 and v.2)
• World Monthly Surface Station Climatology UCAR
• Antarctic weather stations
• European weather stations (ECA)
• Italian Meterological Society IMS
• Satellite feeds (AMSU, SORCE (Solar irradiance), NASA A-train)
• Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab)
• World Glacier Monitoring Service
• Argo float data
• International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) (Oceanic in situ observations)
• AERONET Aerosol information

I'm impressed.

Draco_Argentum wrote:Frank, thats such a complete connotation change you've made with your paraphrase that its totally disingenuous. The actual quote is more along the lines of 'please delete emails of this specific topic'.

Here it is again "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis."

AR4 is "Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" according to wikipedia.

This isn't some frustrated rant, which I could understand even if it was an unfortunate specter later on when the denialists seize on it. What we have here is a calm and very targeted request. It references a specific discussion. You reinterpreting it as all data is trying way to hard to give the guy who wrote it a pass.

So no, I won't concede anything of the sort since that isn't what happened.

The irony is, that if someone tried to do that in the corporate world they would be arrested for a white colar crime and wind up doing hard time if convicted. (I believe this was the case with the Enron trials.)

See the following web page from Law Practice Today Electronic Document Retention Policies (And Why Your Clients Need Them) from January 2004.

I suppose that science is difference than the corporate world; a scientist is an honorable person; they are all honorable persons.

No. If someone said "can you delete these emails?" in an email, they would not be arrested. Especially if, years later, the emails in question had not been deleted.

The answer to the question of "Can you delete these emails?" is "No." If someone hears that response and apparently reacts accordingly, THERE IS NO CRIME.

Asking if an illegal activity is something you can do is not a crime. Actually doing an illegal activity is a crime. Thought crime is not crime. Yet.

-Username17

You can also delete emails willy-nilly if you're in the White House, even if you shouldn't. That shit is okay, but scientists discussing deleting bullshit is a horrible no-no.

Oh come on now, "Can you..." is boss-speak (looks like someone needs to see Office Space...). Note he follows it up with "Keith will do likewise." It's not a hypothetical "Can this be done?" question at all.

Doom314 wrote:Oh come on now, "Can you..." is boss-speak (looks like someone needs to see Office Space...). Note he follows it up with "Keith will do likewise." It's not a hypothetical "Can this be done?" question at all.

Got a better explanation for why they demonstrably and provably did not do it?

-Username17

I haven't seen any other e-mails regarding AR4. The quoted reference doesn't address data, it addresses e-mails.

So, let me put the ball back in your court...Can you produce these, and Kevin's, allegedly deleted e-mails? Along with a reasonable case that what's produced really is all the referenced e-mails?

FrankTrollman wrote:Got a better explanation for why they demonstrably and provably did not do it?

Since we are talking about the emails can I see how you can demonstrate that they in fact did not "do it."

...Even though the emails we're reading aren't even applicable under the FOI requests.

-Crissa

What about the courts? Deleting official emails is, in the corporate and governmental world a capital offense and the only way you can get away from it is if you pwn the federal government.

Those weren't official emails. They weren't budgets or data. They aren't the president; they don't have to keep their private email.

They just do, because it's easier than not.

-Crissa

Doom314 wrote:So, let me put the ball back in your court...Can you produce these, and Kevin's, allegedly deleted e-mails? Along with a reasonable case that what's produced really is all the referenced e-mails?

I've been trying to get into wikileaks for that purpose. They're still in fundraiser mode so no Frank can't, and neither can I.

Conspiracy to commit is often criminalised, largely on the grounds that society doesn't want to let people off scott free when someone is caught organising a crime they haven't committed yet.

Frank, 'can you?' means are you able to sometimes. Sometimes it means do it. Since its coupled with 'Keith will' we can be damn sure that it was intended as a request, not a query.

Koumei wrote:

tzor wrote:What about the courts? Deleting official emails is, in the corporate and governmental world a capital offense and the only way you can get away from it is if you pwn the federal government.

...are you sure about that?

That would be awesome! Finally, hundreds of chances to kill Dick Cheney!

Shiritai wrote:That would be awesome! Finally, hundreds of chances to kill Dick Cheney!

I think you mean hundreds of reasons its not a capital offense.

Koumei wrote:

tzor wrote:What about the courts? Deleting official emails is, in the corporate and governmental world a capital offense and the only way you can get away from it is if you pwn the federal government.

...are you sure about that?

Oops: Having seen the Mikado last weekend it takes a few weeks for that effect to wear off.

Really, I could have thought it involved boiling oil or melted lead, or was that compassing the death of the heir apparent?