Speaking of evil doers,
How not to frame an FOI request - if you really want information
Sou | 5:06 PM
I don't normally bother too much with the denier blogger "Steve Goddard". Even among mainstream deniers he's viewed as shonky. However, something popped up at WUWT today (archived here) which is a great example of how deniers manufacture situations to suit their message, and how some disinformers (like Eric Worrall) misrepresent other deniers when it suits them.
This is what happened. "Steve Goddard" and someone I've never heard of, Kent Clizbe (a shady character), submitted an FOIA request to NOAA (the "Steve Goddard" version is archived here). They asked for a huge amount of information going back in history, minus the kitchen sink.
Here is their request as reported by Kent Clizbe - my formatting:
This message is to confirm your request submission to the FOIAonline application: View Request. Request information is as follows:
• Tracking Number: DOC-NOAA-2014-001602
• Requester Name: Kent Clizbe
• Date Submitted: 09/07/2014
• Request Status: Submitted Description: 1. Temperature Data Record Adjustments: Rationale, Methodology, Discussions–USG employees and others For the NOAA/National Climactic Data Center: Please provide Internal and external e-mails, letters, phone logs, memos, and other communications, from, to, and between: government employees, external consultants, experts, advisors, or other parties regarding the rationale, methodology, and other issues concerning adjustments/homogenization or other changes to both the US and global temperature record data, from the beginning of the adjustments through today. 2. Temperature Data Computer Code Used to Process/Adjust/Homogenize US Temperature Data
Please provide the complete source code used for processing raw US temperature data.
Let's break that down. First of all, they requested a whole heap of information from the NOAA/National Climatic Data Center. They wanted this information: from the beginning of the adjustments through today.
Notice that the request wasn't for temperature data. That's already available from the NOAA.
How many years of letters, memos and phone logs plus more?
The duo did not make it very clear how many years of data they were wanting. They referred to "the NOAA/National Climactic Data Center" but didn't indicate whether records were also sought for information prior to NOAA taking over the NCDC. All they wrote to indicate the time span was: from the beginning of the adjustments through today.
I've looked over the timeline of the development of the US weather service, but I'm not sure when scientists began making "adjustments". I did find a paper about Milan temperature records, which reports adjustments made way back in 1835, to correct the data. So it's likely that various adjustments have been made by record keepers around the world, including the USA, ever since record-keeping began.
If they were wanting all correspondence and records back to when the US government first set up a weather service in 1870, then the request would span up to 145 years of records.
If they were looking for all correspondence and records back to when the National Weather Records Center was established, the request would span 64 years, back to 1951.
If they were just wanting correspondence and records from when the NCDC itself was established, then they'd be looking at records going back 45 years, back to 1970. I expect that the search, particularly for the first couple of decades, would entail hard copy searches as well as digitised data.
In summary, the information they sought could be over a 145, 64 or 45 year period.
Now as I've pointed out, it's not temperature data they are seeking. Nor are they seeking adjustments to temperature data per se. In addition to asking for "complete source code used for processing raw US temperature data", what they are wanting is at least 45 years (and maybe 145 years) of:
- Internal emails
- External emails
- Internal letters
- External letters
- Phone logs
- Memos
Plus they want other communications going back up to 145 years, and at least 45 years, regarding the:
- rationale,
- methodology, and
- other issues
...concerning adjustments/homogenization or other changes to both the US and global temperature record data. These "other communications" to include those from, to and between - over from 45 to maybe 145 years:
- government employees,
- external consultants,
- experts,
- advisors, or
- other parties.
Not a fishing expedition - a desire to be stonewalled
Clearly neither "Steve Goddard" or Kent Clizbe were really looking for any material. What they wanted was a letter to wave about to claim they were being stonewalled.
They weren't.
NOAA replied, setting out the anticipated costs of meeting their query. As long as "Steve" and Kent were willing to pay, the NOAA was happy to meet the request.
Turns out that "Steve" and Kent aren't willing to pay. The NOAA's polite letter informed them that "NOAA has determined that the cost for searching for responsive documents will far exceed $25.00". The fee for trawling through various archived locations around the country, for documents dating back over anything from 45 years to 145 years, would be a major effort. It is expected to cost $262,000 just for the search, plus additional for copying each search item retrieved. The NOAA estimated the search itself would take about 1.9 person years, which seems about right. That would be around six months full time work for four people, if they were diligent.
Reading between the lines of their letter, the NOAA recognised that the FOIA request may have been broader than "Steve" and Kent required for their purpose. They offered to arrange a teleconference with the NOAA lead responsible for their FOIA request, if "Steve" and Kent decided to narrow the search.
The denier duo were not stonewalled. NOAA was happy to comply, as long as it was compensated for the work. "Steve Goddard" made it plain that information as such was not what he was really seeking. What he was wanting was an excuse to complain, so he could write:
NOAA is desperate to hide their data tampering, and is taking a new tack to defeat FOIA requests.
"Steve" designed his FOIA request in such a manner that he must have known (or ought to have known) it would cost the earth and take an age to fulfil it. All so he could claim, wrongly, that the FOIA was out to "defeat" FOIA requests.
How Eric Worrall spins it wrongly at WUWT
Anthony Watts posted a silly piece by Eric Worrall (archived here), who thinks all that is required is "zipping up a few raw data files". He's wrong of course.
"Steve Goddard's" FOIA request was not seeking raw data files.
The raw data files are freely available. There is no need for the NOAA to "zip them". And there are more than a few "raw data files". For example:
- here is the portal to the Automated Weather Observing System - where the data can be downloaded via ftp. It includes data going back to 1901.
- here is the portal to the Automated Surface Observing System
- here is the portal to all the land-based data, which includes raw data.
No matter how much raw temperature data is zipped or unzipped, it won't contain 45 years or 145 years of:
- Internal emails
- External emails
- Internal letters
- External letters
- Phone logs
- Memos
...and other communications over a period from 45 to maybe 145 years, from, to and between:
- government employees,
- external consultants,
- experts,
- advisors, or
- other parties.
Nor will it include "the complete source code used for processing raw US temperature data."
The NOAA has an extensive FAQ on temperature data. It provides information on how the US temperature data is processed, in papers by Matthew J. Menne and colleagues - here and here.
blog.hotwhopper.com |
