The Science is Settled: GW is Conspiracy/Fraud (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

I have to give the NY Times a bit of credit for at least reporting this issue. How can new organizations like the BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN continue to ignore this story? Instead they continue to put out the global warming fear-mongering propaganda leading up to the Hopenchangen summit as if nothing is wrong.

 

[Jobber]

Fox news picks up on the Data Dumping story.

Link

 

[Ozymandias]

I have to give the NY Times a bit of credit for at least reporting this issue. How can new organizations like the BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN continue to ignore this story? Instead they continue to put out the global warming fear-mongering propaganda leading up to the Hopenchangen summit as if nothing is wrong.

It's the London Times. The NY Times has swallowed the whole line, the reel, the rod and the arm of the fisherman.

 

[Sarnoff]

Fox news picks up on the Data Dumping story.

Link

So it didn't really happen after all?[/chunkysoup]

 

[Gigantomachia]

Humans have no influence on the planet.

Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[Hang 10]

Humans have no influence on the planet. Move along, nothing to see here.

Humans absolutely are causing climate change! Oh, you want proof? I'd show you but the my dog ate it.

 

[pantagrapher]

Where’s the data?

Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record — group @ 27 November 2009

Much of the discussion in recent days has been motivated by the idea that climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw data upon which scientific conclusions are based. This is a powerful meme and one that has clear resonance far beyond the people who are actually interested in analysing data themselves. However, many of the people raising this issue are not aware of what and how much data is actually available.

Therefore, we have set up a page of data links to sources of temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, model outputs, model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes involved in reconstructions etc. We have made a start on this on a new Data Sources page, but if anyone has other links that we’ve missed, note them in the comments and we’ll update accordingly.

The climate science community fully understands how important it is that data sources are made as open and transparent as possible, for research purposes as well as for other interested parties, and is actively working to increase accessibility and usability of the data. We encourage people to investigate the various graphical portals to get a feel for the data and what can be done with it. The providers of these online resources are very interested in getting feedback on any of these sites and so don’t hesitate to contact them if you want to see improvements.

Link plus discussion in comments.

 

[jon_mx]

Where’s the data?

Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record — group @ 27 November 2009

Much of the discussion in recent days has been motivated by the idea that climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw data upon which scientific conclusions are based. This is a powerful meme and one that has clear resonance far beyond the people who are actually interested in analysing data themselves. However, many of the people raising this issue are not aware of what and how much data is actually available.

Therefore, we have set up a page of data links to sources of temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, model outputs, model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes involved in reconstructions etc. We have made a start on this on a new Data Sources page, but if anyone has other links that we’ve missed, note them in the comments and we’ll update accordingly.

The climate science community fully understands how important it is that data sources are made as open and transparent as possible, for research purposes as well as for other interested parties, and is actively working to increase accessibility and usability of the data. We encourage people to investigate the various graphical portals to get a feel for the data and what can be done with it. The providers of these online resources are very interested in getting feedback on any of these sites and so don’t hesitate to contact them if you want to see improvements.

Link plus discussion in comments.

If they hadn't been stonewalling for 15-20 years, they would almost sound sincere. It is funny how only after their games has been exposed do they start to open up.

 

[Statorama]

It still doesn't invalidate the years of research in climate that backs up concerns about our environment.

See, this is what you and guys like Matthias don't get. If the research is a fraud, by it's very nature it's invalidated."Of course there is man made climate change, look at all this data""Hasn't all of that data been compromised and manipulated in order to make climate change look legitimate?""Well, yeah, but that doesn't invalidate the years of research they put into it"

 

[jonessed]

Where’s the data?

Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record — group @ 27 November 2009

Much of the discussion in recent days has been motivated by the idea that climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw data upon which scientific conclusions are based. This is a powerful meme and one that has clear resonance far beyond the people who are actually interested in analysing data themselves. However, many of the people raising this issue are not aware of what and how much data is actually available.

Therefore, we have set up a page of data links to sources of temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, model outputs, model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes involved in reconstructions etc. We have made a start on this on a new Data Sources page, but if anyone has other links that we’ve missed, note them in the comments and we’ll update accordingly.

The climate science community fully understands how important it is that data sources are made as open and transparent as possible, for research purposes as well as for other interested parties, and is actively working to increase accessibility and usability of the data. We encourage people to investigate the various graphical portals to get a feel for the data and what can be done with it. The providers of these online resources are very interested in getting feedback on any of these sites and so don’t hesitate to contact them if you want to see improvements.

Link plus discussion in comments.

If they hadn't been stonewalling for 15-20 years, they would almost sound sincere. It is funny how only after their games has been exposed do they start to open up.

My understanding is that most everyone is working with the same general data set (for historical trends anyway). Once the source that created that set is tainted/destroyed everything after that point is now based on a giant assumption.You don't destroy raw data. It's unheard of.

 

[tommyboy]

in my understanding of science, if the facts don't fit the hypotheses then the hypotheses is wrong.

end of story

 

[StrikeS2k]

Are there really people still supporting this junk science?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…

Wow! The scandal just gets juicier and juicier. Now it seems that the Kiwis may have been at it too – tinkering with raw data to make “Global Warming” look scarier than it really is. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That; Ian Wishart)

.............................

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...-shame-deepens/

 

[StrikeS2k]

It still doesn't invalidate the years of research in climate that backs up concerns about our environment.

See, this is what you and guys like Matthias don't get. If the research is a fraud, by it's very nature it's invalidated."Of course there is man made climate change, look at all this data""Hasn't all of that data been compromised and manipulated in order to make climate change look legitimate?""Well, yeah, but that doesn't invalidate the years of research they put into it"

What you don't get is that you don't need research to know that the Earth is changing in a way that is not positive for our existence. All you need is a sliver of awareness and slightly more common sense.

Right. And we should research what is changing and appropriate mesaures to mitigate or reverse that change. And that research should be politic free and not based on junk science and manipulated data. Can we agree on that?

 

[Bonzai]

It still doesn't invalidate the years of research in climate that backs up concerns about our environment.

See, this is what you and guys like Matthias don't get. If the research is a fraud, by it's very nature it's invalidated."Of course there is man made climate change, look at all this data""Hasn't all of that data been compromised and manipulated in order to make climate change look legitimate?""Well, yeah, but that doesn't invalidate the years of research they put into it"

Do you realize that there are thousands of people around the world doing research, in varying disciplines for years on end, that supports climate change? It's not like one agency can screw up and and then we can say that climate change is a fraud.

 

[StrikeS2k]

It still doesn't invalidate the years of research in climate that backs up concerns about our environment.

See, this is what you and guys like Matthias don't get. If the research is a fraud, by it's very nature it's invalidated."Of course there is man made climate change, look at all this data""Hasn't all of that data been compromised and manipulated in order to make climate change look legitimate?""Well, yeah, but that doesn't invalidate the years of research they put into it"

Do you realize that there are thousands of people around the world doing research, in varying disciplines for years on end, that supports climate change? It's not like one agency can screw up and and then we can say that climate change is a fraud.

I just posted a link showing a second agency screwing up. And you do realize that all these "agencies" talk to each other, share data and other information. It's not like they're all doing completely independent research. The leaked E-mails prove this. We should determine the extent of this fraud before making massive changes to our economy on the basis of potentially worthless data and conclusions.

 

[StrikeS2k]

It still doesn't invalidate the years of research in climate that backs up concerns about our environment.

See, this is what you and guys like Matthias don't get. If the research is a fraud, by it's very nature it's invalidated."Of course there is man made climate change, look at all this data""Hasn't all of that data been compromised and manipulated in order to make climate change look legitimate?""Well, yeah, but that doesn't invalidate the years of research they put into it"

What you don't get is that you don't need research to know that the Earth is changing in a way that is not positive for our existence. All you need is a sliver of awareness and slightly more common sense.

Right. And we should research what is changing and appropriate mesaures to mitigate or reverse that change. And that research should be politic free and not based on junk science and manipulated data. Can we agree on that?

Yes.

So cap and trade should be a dead issue until we get to the bottom of all the fraud being perpetrated by pro AGW scientists, correct?

 

[Bonzai]

It still doesn't invalidate the years of research in climate that backs up concerns about our environment.

See, this is what you and guys like Matthias don't get. If the research is a fraud, by it's very nature it's invalidated."Of course there is man made climate change, look at all this data"

"Hasn't all of that data been compromised and manipulated in order to make climate change look legitimate?"

"Well, yeah, but that doesn't invalidate the years of research they put into it"

Do you realize that there are thousands of people around the world doing research, in varying disciplines for years on end, that supports climate change? It's not like one agency can screw up and and then we can say that climate change is a fraud.

I just posted a link showing a second agency screwing up. And you do realize that all these "agencies" talk to each other, share data and other information. It's not like they're all doing completely independent research. The leaked E-mails prove this. We should determine the extent of this fraud before making massive changes to our economy on the basis of potentially worthless data and conclusions.

That link you posted is to a bunch of climate skeptics messing with people that got exposed. They're not climate scientists. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/ne..._science_co.php

 

[pantagrapher]

It still doesn't invalidate the years of research in climate that backs up concerns about our environment.

See, this is what you and guys like Matthias don't get. If the research is a fraud, by it's very nature it's invalidated."Of course there is man made climate change, look at all this data"

"Hasn't all of that data been compromised and manipulated in order to make climate change look legitimate?"

"Well, yeah, but that doesn't invalidate the years of research they put into it"

Do you realize that there are thousands of people around the world doing research, in varying disciplines for years on end, that supports climate change? It's not like one agency can screw up and and then we can say that climate change is a fraud.

I just posted a link showing a second agency screwing up. And you do realize that all these "agencies" talk to each other, share data and other information. It's not like they're all doing completely independent research. The leaked E-mails prove this. We should determine the extent of this fraud before making massive changes to our economy on the basis of potentially worthless data and conclusions.

I guess we need to determine if this agency really "screwed up." One chart uses data that have been adjusted, one doesn't. What we need to determine is what adjustment was made to the raw data to make the first chart and if that is a legitimate adjustment. I would even wager that this information is readily available if we know where to look for it. Do you know?

 

[jon_mx]

Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…

Wow! The scandal just gets juicier and juicier. Now it seems that the Kiwis may have been at it too – tinkering with raw data to make “Global Warming” look scarier than it really is. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That; Ian Wishart)

.............................

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...-shame-deepens/

Great quote from the article...

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.

 

[jon_mx]

So cap and trade should be a dead issue until we get to the bottom of all the fraud being perpetrated by pro AGW scientists, correct?

No.Global Warming has proponents, has data, has support, far above and beyond one center. It is, to the extent that is possible in something is observational and not experimental science, established. If the Anti-Global Warming crowd wants to win the debate, then it should win it within the scientific community, not by hacking e-mails and cluttering football boards. If it does that, then I'll agree with you.

You realize the corrupted/lost CRU data is the linchpin of global warming debate? They are the ones who have established that the earth is warming. They are the ones who tell us this year is the warmest year on record. The whole theory of global warming falls apart if it is untrue. I think the whole theory is absurd. I have never heard a decent explanation for why CO2 has historically lagged temperature increases. If CO2 has the effect the global warmers have told us, our climate would have spiraled out of control a billion years ago when CO2 levels were much higher.

 

[tommyboy]

the people that are pro-GW in this debate seem to be unaware that the central piece of their proof of GW has dumped their raw data and been shown to be manipulating data. The East Anglia climate research unit is the Microsoft of climate/global warming. They are the ones that influence the IPCC and the UN, they are the ones the world turns to for conclusions.

This would be like people talking about how great Enron is after they went bankrupt and were indicted.

 

[Phurfur]

and all of the world leaders will ignore this information in Copenhagen. I am sure they won't even question it.

 

[Mark Wimer]

The fraud has been naked for years, now. The Anthropromorphic Climate-Warming believers have long behaved more like a religious cult than scientists, shouting down and ostracizing anyone who dares to challenge their version of the "earth-centered cosmos" theory (yes, that's an analogy to the behavior of the Catholic Church contra Gallileo - climate warming believers have long treated sceptics in a similar manner).

The destruction of ALL the original data points by UEA CRU just confirms their bias. They made sure there is no data left to interpret from a non-biased viewpoint.

They are selling a BIG LIE in the best BIG LIE tradition.

 

[tommyboy]

I confess to being less of a "global warming skeptic" than I believe my fellow Power Liners, John and Scott, are. But I become pretty skeptical pretty quickly when I read that scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) - the ones whose email correspondence reveals less than a solid commitment to honesty in science - have admitted that much of the raw data upon which their conclusions regarding global warming over the past 150 years are based was thrown out by the CRU. They claim that the documents were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Without the underlying data, other scientists cannot check the work that gives rise to the CRU's findings of a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. As the Times of London points out, these findings "are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity."

In the law, the discovery of this sort of intentional document destruction would quite likely give rise to some form of "adverse inference instruction," wherein the judge would instruct or encourage the jury to assume that the discarded evidence was harmful to the case of the party that destroyed it. I might be hesitant to apply this logic to the world of scientific inquiry were it not for the fact that the CRU scientists have demonstrated as little regard for honest adjudication of their position as your run-of-the-mill spoliator of evidence.

To be sure, the current head of the CRU was not in charge when the data were thrown away in the 1980s. Moreover, climate change was not such a heavily politicized issue in those days.

Still, Roger Pielke, the Colorado professor who asked for the records, is quite correct when he says that the CRU is basically insisting that we trust it, a demand that's inconsistent with the scientific method for resolving debates.

One need not be a hard-core global warming skeptic to question whether we should alter the way we live in response to predictions based on findings that cannot be checked because the raw data was intentionally destroyed by the outfit that made the findings.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025051.php

 

[Bonzai]

I confess to being less of a "global warming skeptic" than I believe my fellow Power Liners, John and Scott, are. But I become pretty skeptical pretty quickly when I read that scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) - the ones whose email correspondence reveals less than a solid commitment to honesty in science - have admitted that much of the raw data upon which their conclusions regarding global warming over the past 150 years are based was thrown out by the CRU. They claim that the documents were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Without the underlying data, other scientists cannot check the work that gives rise to the CRU's findings of a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. As the Times of London points out, these findings "are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity."

In the law, the discovery of this sort of intentional document destruction would quite likely give rise to some form of "adverse inference instruction," wherein the judge would instruct or encourage the jury to assume that the discarded evidence was harmful to the case of the party that destroyed it. I might be hesitant to apply this logic to the world of scientific inquiry were it not for the fact that the CRU scientists have demonstrated as little regard for honest adjudication of their position as your run-of-the-mill spoliator of evidence.

To be sure, the current head of the CRU was not in charge when the data were thrown away in the 1980s. Moreover, climate change was not such a heavily politicized issue in those days.

Still, Roger Pielke, the Colorado professor who asked for the records, is quite correct when he says that the CRU is basically insisting that we trust it, a demand that's inconsistent with the scientific method for resolving debates.

One need not be a hard-core global warming skeptic to question whether we should alter the way we live in response to predictions based on findings that cannot be checked because the raw data was intentionally destroyed by the outfit that made the findings.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025051.php

The raw data still exists. It's just not housed at the CRU. Anyone wanting to reconstruct the CRU models could do so by going to the originators of the raw data and reassembling them. The CRU isn't an information gathering organization, their job is to collate the information.This link has already been posted, but if you keep posting the same thing, I might as well too.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...#comment-145948

 

[StrikeS2k]

So cap and trade should be a dead issue until we get to the bottom of all the fraud being perpetrated by pro AGW scientists, correct?

No.Global Warming has proponents, has data, has support, far above and beyond one center. It is, to the extent that is possible in something is observational and not experimental science, established.

If the Anti-Global Warming crowd wants to win the debate, then it should win it within the scientific community, not by hacking e-mails and cluttering football boards. If it does that, then I'll agree with you.

You can keep shouting this. It doesn't make it true. And the links posted in this thread are just continued evidence being compounded that proves that nothing has as yet been established. You sound like the people who just got exposed by Climategate.

 

[StrikeS2k]

So cap and trade should be a dead issue until we get to the bottom of all the fraud being perpetrated by pro AGW scientists, correct?

No.Global Warming has proponents, has data, has support, far above and beyond one center. It is, to the extent that is possible in something is observational and not experimental science, established.

If the Anti-Global Warming crowd wants to win the debate, then it should win it within the scientific community, not by hacking e-mails and cluttering football boards. If it does that, then I'll agree with you.

You can keep shouting this. It doesn't make it true. And the links posted in this thread are just continued evidence being compounded that proves that nothing has as yet been established. You sound like the people who just got exposed by Climategate.

No; it is true.If the data is wrong or has been monkeyed with or the science is bad or if there is huge cabal conspiracy theory going on, then the truth of the matter will play out within the science community. When 80% of scientists do not believe in global warming and 20% do instead of the other way around, then I'll sign up. But I don't take my scientific truths from random conservative blogs no matter how many times you guys try to repeat it.

Got a link to this?

 

[jonessed]

I confess to being less of a "global warming skeptic" than I believe my fellow Power Liners, John and Scott, are. But I become pretty skeptical pretty quickly when I read that scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) - the ones whose email correspondence reveals less than a solid commitment to honesty in science - have admitted that much of the raw data upon which their conclusions regarding global warming over the past 150 years are based was thrown out by the CRU. They claim that the documents were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Without the underlying data, other scientists cannot check the work that gives rise to the CRU's findings of a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. As the Times of London points out, these findings "are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity."

In the law, the discovery of this sort of intentional document destruction would quite likely give rise to some form of "adverse inference instruction," wherein the judge would instruct or encourage the jury to assume that the discarded evidence was harmful to the case of the party that destroyed it. I might be hesitant to apply this logic to the world of scientific inquiry were it not for the fact that the CRU scientists have demonstrated as little regard for honest adjudication of their position as your run-of-the-mill spoliator of evidence.

To be sure, the current head of the CRU was not in charge when the data were thrown away in the 1980s. Moreover, climate change was not such a heavily politicized issue in those days.

Still, Roger Pielke, the Colorado professor who asked for the records, is quite correct when he says that the CRU is basically insisting that we trust it, a demand that's inconsistent with the scientific method for resolving debates.

One need not be a hard-core global warming skeptic to question whether we should alter the way we live in response to predictions based on findings that cannot be checked because the raw data was intentionally destroyed by the outfit that made the findings.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025051.php

The raw data still exists. It's just not housed at the CRU. Anyone wanting to reconstruct the CRU models could do so by going to the originators of the raw data and reassembling them. The CRU isn't an information gathering organization, their job is to collate the information.This link has already been posted, but if you keep posting the same thing, I might as well too.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...#comment-145948

Meh... realclimate was the website that the emails said would toe the line for them no matter what. They went so far as to state that it used a facade of impartiality to give it more credibility. You have a better source?

 

[StrikeS2k]

No; it is true.

If the data is wrong or has been monkeyed with or the science is bad or if there is huge cabal conspiracy theory going on, then the truth of the matter will play out within the science community. When 80% of scientists do not believe in global warming and 20% do instead of the other way around, then I'll sign up. But I don't take my scientific truths from random conservative blogs no matter how many times you guys try to repeat it.

Got a link to this?

Google does.Here's a sample.

(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.

Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.

"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.

"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran

Maybe we need an updated survey in lieu of recent developments, eh? I'll bet you a grand the results would be less favorable to AGW. You up for it?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Maybe we need an updated survey in lieu of recent developments, eh? I'll bet you a grand the results would be less favorable to AGW. You up for it?

More favorable? You mean that the results move at least 0.1% in your favor? No thanks.If you want to say more favorable in the sense that you would get > 51% in the next major survey I'll take the action.But in any case, I'm not going for a cause. I'm not fighting "for" global warming. I'm just following the wisdom of the scientific community. If they decide that it isn't so, then I'm happy to take their word for it.

About what I figured you'd say.

 

[Bonzai]

I confess to being less of a "global warming skeptic" than I believe my fellow Power Liners, John and Scott, are. But I become pretty skeptical pretty quickly when I read that scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) - the ones whose email correspondence reveals less than a solid commitment to honesty in science - have admitted that much of the raw data upon which their conclusions regarding global warming over the past 150 years are based was thrown out by the CRU. They claim that the documents were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Without the underlying data, other scientists cannot check the work that gives rise to the CRU's findings of a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. As the Times of London points out, these findings "are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity."

In the law, the discovery of this sort of intentional document destruction would quite likely give rise to some form of "adverse inference instruction," wherein the judge would instruct or encourage the jury to assume that the discarded evidence was harmful to the case of the party that destroyed it. I might be hesitant to apply this logic to the world of scientific inquiry were it not for the fact that the CRU scientists have demonstrated as little regard for honest adjudication of their position as your run-of-the-mill spoliator of evidence.

To be sure, the current head of the CRU was not in charge when the data were thrown away in the 1980s. Moreover, climate change was not such a heavily politicized issue in those days.

Still, Roger Pielke, the Colorado professor who asked for the records, is quite correct when he says that the CRU is basically insisting that we trust it, a demand that's inconsistent with the scientific method for resolving debates.

One need not be a hard-core global warming skeptic to question whether we should alter the way we live in response to predictions based on findings that cannot be checked because the raw data was intentionally destroyed by the outfit that made the findings.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025051.php

The raw data still exists. It's just not housed at the CRU. Anyone wanting to reconstruct the CRU models could do so by going to the originators of the raw data and reassembling them. The CRU isn't an information gathering organization, their job is to collate the information.This link has already been posted, but if you keep posting the same thing, I might as well too.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...#comment-145948

Meh... realclimate was the website that the emails said would toe the line for them no matter what. They went so far as to state that it used a facade of impartiality to give it more credibility. You have a better source?

Where did you read this?Here are the site's data sources: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-...limate_data_raw

 

[StrikeS2k]

But in any case, I'm not going for a cause. I'm not fighting "for" global warming. I'm just following the wisdom of the scientific community. If they decide that it isn't so, then I'm happy to take their word for it.

Right. That same "wisdom" that can't explain why global temps have been stagnant for the last 10 years. That same "wisdom" with the great buggy computer models that couldn't predict this stagnation. Yet we should make major changes without even being able to explain something that should be so simple if the science on it was "established".Please.

 

[StrikeS2k]

But in any case, I'm not going for a cause. I'm not fighting "for" global warming. I'm just following the wisdom of the scientific community. If they decide that it isn't so, then I'm happy to take their word for it.

Right. That same "wisdom" that can't explain why global temps have been stagnant for the last 10 years. That same "wisdom" with the great buggy computer models that couldn't predict this stagnation. Yet we should make major changes without even being able to explain something that should be so simple if the science on it was "established".Please.

This isn't the same thing as rolling a ball down a plane and measuring the acceleration, you know. Not being 100% correct or being able to explain everything down to the degree does not invalidate the whole model.Or should I just say, "Right. Random Internet guy has better 'wisdom' than the entire scientific community who spends their life doing this. Please. "

Oh, now it's the ENTIRE scientific community. That sure changed rapidly!!!!!!

 

[jonessed]

I confess to being less of a "global warming skeptic" than I believe my fellow Power Liners, John and Scott, are. But I become pretty skeptical pretty quickly when I read that scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) - the ones whose email correspondence reveals less than a solid commitment to honesty in science - have admitted that much of the raw data upon which their conclusions regarding global warming over the past 150 years are based was thrown out by the CRU. They claim that the documents were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Without the underlying data, other scientists cannot check the work that gives rise to the CRU's findings of a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. As the Times of London points out, these findings "are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity."

In the law, the discovery of this sort of intentional document destruction would quite likely give rise to some form of "adverse inference instruction," wherein the judge would instruct or encourage the jury to assume that the discarded evidence was harmful to the case of the party that destroyed it. I might be hesitant to apply this logic to the world of scientific inquiry were it not for the fact that the CRU scientists have demonstrated as little regard for honest adjudication of their position as your run-of-the-mill spoliator of evidence.

To be sure, the current head of the CRU was not in charge when the data were thrown away in the 1980s. Moreover, climate change was not such a heavily politicized issue in those days.

Still, Roger Pielke, the Colorado professor who asked for the records, is quite correct when he says that the CRU is basically insisting that we trust it, a demand that's inconsistent with the scientific method for resolving debates.

One need not be a hard-core global warming skeptic to question whether we should alter the way we live in response to predictions based on findings that cannot be checked because the raw data was intentionally destroyed by the outfit that made the findings.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025051.php

The raw data still exists. It's just not housed at the CRU. Anyone wanting to reconstruct the CRU models could do so by going to the originators of the raw data and reassembling them. The CRU isn't an information gathering organization, their job is to collate the information.This link has already been posted, but if you keep posting the same thing, I might as well too.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...#comment-145948

Meh... realclimate was the website that the emails said would toe the line for them no matter what. They went so far as to state that it used a facade of impartiality to give it more credibility. You have a better source?

Where did you read this?Here are the site's data sources: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-...limate_data_raw

They are pretty clear about their intentions in this email:To: Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa

Subject: update

Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500

Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Cc: Gavin Schmidt

guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we

put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre

thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go

there personally, but so I'm informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way

you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about

what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any

questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you

might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold

comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think

they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd

like us to include.

You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a

resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put

forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our

best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to use the RC

comments as a megaphone...

mike

--

Michael E. Mann

Associate Professor

Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I don't really care about this issue and have never really taken a stance one way or the other, since I've never bothered to investigate it, but I have a question: What specifically was the dataset that has been destroyed? And why was it only available to this particular group of people? I mean, we're talking about global temperatures here, right? I'd think the raw data would be widely available.

 

[jonessed]

I don't really care about this issue and have never really taken a stance one way or the other, since I've never bothered to investigate it, but I have a question: What specifically was the dataset that has been destroyed? And why was it only available to this particular group of people? I mean, we're talking about global temperatures here, right? I'd think the raw data would be widely available.

The original data was on tape, hand-written documents, etc. The UEA compiled the data for their models and then destroyed it. The request was made for the specific data used in said models (which they obviously don't have) to verify the results.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I don't really care about this issue and have never really taken a stance one way or the other, since I've never bothered to investigate it, but I have a question: What specifically was the dataset that has been destroyed? And why was it only available to this particular group of people? I mean, we're talking about global temperatures here, right? I'd think the raw data would be widely available.

The original data was on tape, hand-written documents, etc. The UEA compiled the data for their models and then destroyed it. The request was made for the specific data used in said models (which they obviously don't have) to verify the results.

What data? What was it? Where did they acquire it? I assume these questions can be answered. If they can't, then it doesn't matter if the data were destroyed.

 

[Statorama]

The very least we can ask of scientists is to report data accurately.

 

[jonessed]

I don't really care about this issue and have never really taken a stance one way or the other, since I've never bothered to investigate it, but I have a question: What specifically was the dataset that has been destroyed? And why was it only available to this particular group of people? I mean, we're talking about global temperatures here, right? I'd think the raw data would be widely available.

The original data was on tape, hand-written documents, etc. The UEA compiled the data for their models and then destroyed it. The request was made for the specific data used in said models (which they obviously don't have) to verify the results.

What data? What was it? Where did they acquire it? I assume these questions can be answered. If they can't, then it doesn't matter if the data were destroyed.

Research stations, measurements from tree rings, ice cores, temperature readings, etc. They compile numerous types of data from numerouse sources and normalize it all to fit the model. The problem is noone can verify what they did to the data to get their current data set.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I don't really care about this issue and have never really taken a stance one way or the other, since I've never bothered to investigate it, but I have a question: What specifically was the dataset that has been destroyed? And why was it only available to this particular group of people? I mean, we're talking about global temperatures here, right? I'd think the raw data would be widely available.

The original data was on tape, hand-written documents, etc. The UEA compiled the data for their models and then destroyed it. The request was made for the specific data used in said models (which they obviously don't have) to verify the results.

What data? What was it? Where did they acquire it? I assume these questions can be answered. If they can't, then it doesn't matter if the data were destroyed.

Research stations, measurements from tree rings, ice cores, temperature readings, etc. They compile numerous types of data from numerouse sources and normalize it all to fit the model. The problem is noone can verify what they did to the data to get their current data set.

Who cares what they did to it? If they compiled the data from numerous sources why doesn't someone else just compile it again?

 

[Bonzai]

I don't really care about this issue and have never really taken a stance one way or the other, since I've never bothered to investigate it, but I have a question: What specifically was the dataset that has been destroyed? And why was it only available to this particular group of people? I mean, we're talking about global temperatures here, right? I'd think the raw data would be widely available.

The original data was on tape, hand-written documents, etc. The UEA compiled the data for their models and then destroyed it. The request was made for the specific data used in said models (which they obviously don't have) to verify the results.

What data? What was it? Where did they acquire it? I assume these questions can be answered. If they can't, then it doesn't matter if the data were destroyed.

The data in question is the "raw" data that the CRU gathered from a multitude of sources (weather stations, satellite feeds, etc) to create their models. After the CRU collated the data, they dumped it. While the CRU no longer has the data, it's still available at the original sources. Therefore, any science that the CRU has engaged in can be replicated/falsified.

 

[jonessed]

I don't really care about this issue and have never really taken a stance one way or the other, since I've never bothered to investigate it, but I have a question: What specifically was the dataset that has been destroyed? And why was it only available to this particular group of people? I mean, we're talking about global temperatures here, right? I'd think the raw data would be widely available.

The original data was on tape, hand-written documents, etc. The UEA compiled the data for their models and then destroyed it. The request was made for the specific data used in said models (which they obviously don't have) to verify the results.

What data? What was it? Where did they acquire it? I assume these questions can be answered. If they can't, then it doesn't matter if the data were destroyed.

Research stations, measurements from tree rings, ice cores, temperature readings, etc. They compile numerous types of data from numerouse sources and normalize it all to fit the model. The problem is noone can verify what they did to the data to get their current data set.

Who cares what they did to it? If they compiled the data from numerous sources why doesn't someone else just compile it again?

Because the data was given to the UEA and they destroyed it. Some of the stations and individuals the data was collected from aren't even around anymore. It can't be compiled again. Not in its entirety anyway.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Research stations, measurements from tree rings, ice cores, temperature readings, etc. They compile numerous types of data from numerouse sources and normalize it all to fit the model. The problem is noone can verify what they did to the data to get their current data set.

Who cares what they did to it? If they compiled the data from numerous sources why doesn't someone else just compile it again?

Because the data was given to the UEA and they destroyed it. Some of the stations and individuals the data was collected from aren't even around anymore. It can't be compiled again. Not in its entirety anyway.

See, I have a hard time believing that the raw data don't still exist in multiple places. You don't go to the trouble of collecting data, give it to one person/organization, and then destroy your own copy.

 

[Bonzai]

Because the data was given to the UEA and they destroyed it. Some of the stations and individuals the data was collected from aren't even around anymore. It can't be compiled again. Not in its entirety anyway.

You're trying to imply that he data was "entrusted" to the CRU and that it was their responsibility to house it. That's misleading.

 

[Sarnoff]

While the CRU no longer has the data, it's still available at the original sources. Therefore, any science that the CRU has engaged in can be replicated/falsified.

Sweet, who wants to lead an expedition to go get tree ring samples, arctic ice cores, and whatever else was folded into this data just to replicate their tainted results?

 

[jonessed]

Research stations, measurements from tree rings, ice cores, temperature readings, etc. They compile numerous types of data from numerouse sources and normalize it all to fit the model. The problem is noone can verify what they did to the data to get their current data set.

Who cares what they did to it? If they compiled the data from numerous sources why doesn't someone else just compile it again?

Because the data was given to the UEA and they destroyed it. Some of the stations and individuals the data was collected from aren't even around anymore. It can't be compiled again. Not in its entirety anyway.

See, I have a hard time believing that the raw data don't still exist in multiple places. You don't go to the trouble of collecting data, give it to one person/organization, and then destroy your own copy.

The data was collected 25 years ago on microfiche, tape, and hand-written documents. The UEA was where all of the data was being collected. It's not really surprising that noone can collect a warehouse of obscure data again. At least not to me. That would be an impossible task.

 

[Mark Wimer]

I don't really care about this issue and have never really taken a stance one way or the other, since I've never bothered to investigate it, but I have a question: What specifically was the dataset that has been destroyed? And why was it only available to this particular group of people? I mean, we're talking about global temperatures here, right? I'd think the raw data would be widely available.

The original data was on tape, hand-written documents, etc. The UEA compiled the data for their models and then destroyed it. The request was made for the specific data used in said models (which they obviously don't have) to verify the results.

What data? What was it? Where did they acquire it? I assume these questions can be answered. If they can't, then it doesn't matter if the data were destroyed.

Research stations, measurements from tree rings, ice cores, temperature readings, etc. They compile numerous types of data from numerouse sources and normalize it all to fit the model. The problem is noone can verify what they did to the data to get their current data set.

Bingo. And now they've destroyed all the "original" data and are insisting that the scientific community accept their "normalized" data without access to the original data. Oh, and they destroyed the original data that they fed into their "normalized" models and they CAN'T offer that now that it is destroyed. It is not simply a record of temperatures at various points of the globe, as some apologists in this thread have suggested. What has been destroyed is the "source" data as unwound by jonessed above, some of which cannot be replicated - and no one at UEA CRU can specify which data informs various parts of their model anymore - they've "normalized" it all.

 

[jonessed]

Because the data was given to the UEA and they destroyed it. Some of the stations and individuals the data was collected from aren't even around anymore. It can't be compiled again. Not in its entirety anyway.

You're trying to imply that he data was "entrusted" to the CRU and that it was their responsibility to house it. That's misleading.

They used the data in their models. It's their responsibiltiy to document the study so it can be replicated. This is a basic tenet of any scientific study.

 

[Mark Wimer]

Because the data was given to the UEA and they destroyed it. Some of the stations and individuals the data was collected from aren't even around anymore. It can't be compiled again. Not in its entirety anyway.

You're trying to imply that he data was "entrusted" to the CRU and that it was their responsibility to house it. That's misleading.

They used the data in their models. It's their responsibiltiy to document the study so it can be replicated. This is a basic tenet of any scientific study.

Again, this is exactly on point. If we're doing real science here, the data should be available to the ENTIRE scientific community, not "normalized" and then destroyed.