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

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I guess I'm disputing that this was their data, rather than readily available data that they acquired from other sources. In my line of work, I use data from other agencies all the time, and when I'm done doing the analysis I often delete the raw data (because I can always get it again, and more importantly if someone else wanted it they could get it too).

I just saw this on the UAE website (which I understand is not necessarily an unbiased source), I added the bold font for emphasis:

CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available (28 November)

Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.

“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.

The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements. Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.

The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).

“We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data,” continued Professor Davies.

The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations.

“CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS),” concluded Professor Davies.

See what I mean? I highly doubt that this random University was the sole proprietor of all this raw data. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Bonzai]

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?

If their results are tainted, then they would be falsified in the process of replication.

 

[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?

If their results are tainted, then they would be falsified in the process of replication.

 

[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.

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.

The data is available. It's just not housed at CRU. What's odd is that if you're so suspicious of the CRU, why are you disappointed to find that they aren't the only resource for climate change data?

There's plenty of data out there to conduct competing research. Go for it.

 

[Bonzai]

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?

If their results are tainted, then they would be falsified in the process of replication.

OK

 

[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?

Strike? You there?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Raw data?

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight, but this whole "they destroyed the data!" angle seems like a pretty farfetched attempt to argue a political point. I don't doubt that some scientists manipulated/misrepresented their results, but the idea that a handful of people had the only copies of this data and destroyed it is ridiculous, IMO.

 

[tommyboy]

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. "

maybe the "entire" scientific community shouldn't put their faith in groups that destroy data, hide data, manipulate data, avoid Freedom of Information requests, use "impartial" websites to smear and/or promote certain ideas, and generally act like a criminal organization.then the "science" can stand alone, instead of what we have here. If you want science to be trusted, then produce sound science and let the results speak for themselves. We don't need certain scientists deciding for us what we should or shouldn't think. Do the research, post the results, and let others either falsify or confirm your findings. And when you're wrong, admit it.

 

[tommyboy]

People seem to be missing the real issue in the CRU emails. Gavin over at realclimate keeps distracting people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other, and what Trenberth said, and the Nature “trick”, and the like. Those are side trails. To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency.

Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking the FOIA allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record (HadCRUT3) was valid science.

This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct.

As far as I know, I am the person who made the original Freedom Of Information Act to CRU that started getting all this stirred up. I was trying to get access to the taxpayer funded raw data out of which they built the global temperature record. I was not representing anybody, or trying to prove a point. I am not funded by Mobil, I’m an amateur scientist with a lifelong interest in the weather and climate. I’m not “directed” by anyone, I’m not a member of a right-wing conspiracy. I’m just a guy trying to move science forwards.

The recent release of the hacked emails from CRU has provided me with an amazing insight into the attempt by myself, Steve McIntyre, and others from CA and elsewhere to obtain the raw station data from Phil Jones at the CRU. We wanted the data that was used to make the global temperature record that is relied on to claim “unprecedented” global warming. I want to give a chronological account of the interactions. While we don’t know if all of these emails are valid, the researchers involved such as Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann that clearly indicate that they think they are authentic They certainly fit with my experience. I have only included the relevant parts of emails, and indicated where I have snipped by an ellipsis (…).

The story actually starts with Warwick Hughes, a climate researcher who had previously been in cordial contact with Phil Jones, the lead researcher of the CRU. I find only one email in the archive (0969308954) where Phil emails Warwick, from 2000. This is in response to some inconsistencies that Warwick had found in Phil’s work:

Warwick Hughes to Phil Jones, September ‘04:

Dear Phillip and Chris Folland (with your IPCC hat on),

Some days ago Chris I emailed to Tom Karl and you replied re the grid cells in north Siberia with no stations, yet carrying red circle grid point anomalies in the TAR Fig 2.9 global maps. I even sent a gif file map showing the grid cells barren of stations greyed out. You said this was due to interpolation and referred me to Phillip and procedures described in a submitted paper. In the last couple of days I have put up a page detailing shortcomings in your TAR Fig 2.9 maps in the north Siberian region, everything is specified there with diagrams and numbered grid points.

[1] One issue is that two of the interpolated grid cells have larger anomalies than the parent cells !!!!?????

This must be explained.

[2] Another serious issue is that obvious non-homogenous warming in Olenek and Verhojansk is being interpolated through to adjoining grid cells with no stations, like cancer.

[3] The third serious issue is that the urbanization affected trend from the Irkutsk grid cell neare Lake Baikal, looks to be interpolated into its western neighbour.

I am sure there are many other cases of this, 2 and 3 happening.

Best regards,

Warwick Hughes (I have sent this to CKF)

Phil to Warwick, same email:

Warwick,

I did not think I would get a chance today to look at the web page. I see what boxes you are referring to. The interpolation procedure cannot produce larger anomalies than neighbours (larger values in a single month). If you have found any of these I will investigate. If you are talking about larger trends then that is a different matter. Trends say in Fig 2.9 for the 1976-99 period require 16 years to have data and at least 10 months in each year. It is conceivable that at there are 24 years in this period that missing values in some boxes influence trend calculation. I would expect this to be random across the globe.

Warwick,

Been away. Just checked my program and the interpolation shouldn’t produce larger anomalies than the neighbouring cells. So can you send me the cells, months and year of the two cells you’ve found ? If I have this I can check to see what has happened and answer (1). As for (2) and (3) we compared all stations with neighbours and these two stations did not have problems when the work was done (around 1985/6). I am not around much for the next 3 weeks but will be here most of this week and will try to answer (1) if I get more details. If you have the names of stations that you’ve compared Olenek and Verhojansk with I would appreciate that.

Cheers

Phil

OK, so far we have a couple of scientists discussing issues in a scientific work, no problem. But as he found more inconsistencies, in order to understand what was going on, in 2005 Warwick asked Phil for the dataset that was used to create the CRU temperature record. Phil Jones famously replied:

Subject: Re: WMO non respondo

… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …

Cheers Phil

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-...okole%E2%80%A6/

 

[Bonzai]

People seem to be missing the real issue in the CRU emails. Gavin over at realclimate keeps distracting people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other, and what Trenberth said, and the Nature “trick”, and the like. Those are side trails. To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency.

Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking the FOIA allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record (HadCRUT3) was valid science.

This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct.

As far as I know, I am the person who made the original Freedom Of Information Act to CRU that started getting all this stirred up. I was trying to get access to the taxpayer funded raw data out of which they built the global temperature record. I was not representing anybody, or trying to prove a point. I am not funded by Mobil, I’m an amateur scientist with a lifelong interest in the weather and climate. I’m not “directed” by anyone, I’m not a member of a right-wing conspiracy. I’m just a guy trying to move science forwards.

The recent release of the hacked emails from CRU has provided me with an amazing insight into the attempt by myself, Steve McIntyre, and others from CA and elsewhere to obtain the raw station data from Phil Jones at the CRU. We wanted the data that was used to make the global temperature record that is relied on to claim “unprecedented” global warming. I want to give a chronological account of the interactions. While we don’t know if all of these emails are valid, the researchers involved such as Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann that clearly indicate that they think they are authentic They certainly fit with my experience. I have only included the relevant parts of emails, and indicated where I have snipped by an ellipsis (…).

The story actually starts with Warwick Hughes, a climate researcher who had previously been in cordial contact with Phil Jones, the lead researcher of the CRU. I find only one email in the archive (0969308954) where Phil emails Warwick, from 2000. This is in response to some inconsistencies that Warwick had found in Phil’s work:

Warwick Hughes to Phil Jones, September ‘04:

Dear Phillip and Chris Folland (with your IPCC hat on),

Some days ago Chris I emailed to Tom Karl and you replied re the grid cells in north Siberia with no stations, yet carrying red circle grid point anomalies in the TAR Fig 2.9 global maps. I even sent a gif file map showing the grid cells barren of stations greyed out. You said this was due to interpolation and referred me to Phillip and procedures described in a submitted paper. In the last couple of days I have put up a page detailing shortcomings in your TAR Fig 2.9 maps in the north Siberian region, everything is specified there with diagrams and numbered grid points.

[1] One issue is that two of the interpolated grid cells have larger anomalies than the parent cells !!!!?????

This must be explained.

[2] Another serious issue is that obvious non-homogenous warming in Olenek and Verhojansk is being interpolated through to adjoining grid cells with no stations, like cancer.

[3] The third serious issue is that the urbanization affected trend from the Irkutsk grid cell neare Lake Baikal, looks to be interpolated into its western neighbour.

I am sure there are many other cases of this, 2 and 3 happening.

Best regards,

Warwick Hughes (I have sent this to CKF)

Phil to Warwick, same email:

Warwick,

I did not think I would get a chance today to look at the web page. I see what boxes you are referring to. The interpolation procedure cannot produce larger anomalies than neighbours (larger values in a single month). If you have found any of these I will investigate. If you are talking about larger trends then that is a different matter. Trends say in Fig 2.9 for the 1976-99 period require 16 years to have data and at least 10 months in each year. It is conceivable that at there are 24 years in this period that missing values in some boxes influence trend calculation. I would expect this to be random across the globe.

Warwick,

Been away. Just checked my program and the interpolation shouldn’t produce larger anomalies than the neighbouring cells. So can you send me the cells, months and year of the two cells you’ve found ? If I have this I can check to see what has happened and answer (1). As for (2) and (3) we compared all stations with neighbours and these two stations did not have problems when the work was done (around 1985/6). I am not around much for the next 3 weeks but will be here most of this week and will try to answer (1) if I get more details. If you have the names of stations that you’ve compared Olenek and Verhojansk with I would appreciate that.

Cheers

Phil

OK, so far we have a couple of scientists discussing issues in a scientific work, no problem. But as he found more inconsistencies, in order to understand what was going on, in 2005 Warwick asked Phil for the dataset that was used to create the CRU temperature record. Phil Jones famously replied:

Subject: Re: WMO non respondo

… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …

Cheers Phil

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-...okole%E2%80%A6/

Why didn't he just send fake raw data that agreed with his models?Seems to me that Jones is just annoyed that a competitor is mooching off of his research and trying to make him do extra work. Not admirable, but not diabolical.

This idea that all the data concerning climate change is held at the CRU simply isn't true. If it was, that would be concerning. In order to really hold the CRU accountable, competing scientists need to gather their own data and conduct their own research (which has already been done by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies).

 

[Anthony Borbely]

No. You don't need certain scientists deciding for you what you should or shouldn't think. You have Fox News and the RNC for that.

 

[Phurfur]

People seem to be missing the real issue in the CRU emails. Gavin over at realclimate keeps distracting people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other, and what Trenberth said, and the Nature “trick”, and the like. Those are side trails. To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency.

Subject: Re: WMO non respondo

… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …

Cheers Phil

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-...okole%E2%80%A6/

Spoken like a true scientist in the search of the truth for the betterment of mankind.

 

[jon_mx]

No. You don't need certain scientists deciding for you what you should or shouldn't think. You have Fox News and the RNC for that.As I told Strike, if this fundamentally changes the way that the scientific community views Global Warming, then I'm more than happy to change my view. But if all it does is rile up some right-wing wingnuts who wouldn't know good science from bad if it was looking them in the face, then I don't give it much weight, no matter how many e-mails they copy and paste onto a fantasy football message board.

I have been on this global warming scam for over 10 years. Fox News and the RNC has been #####footing around global warming for a long time. It has only been the last couple of years where Fox and the RNC are finally standing up even in the slightest way against this scam.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Pretty crazy how the "it's all a fraud" crowd keep projecting their behavior in this very thread (religious fanaticism, fear mongering, jumping to rash conclusion, relying on biased sources, shouting down opposition, etc.) on their opponents. Maybe this will turn out to be a gotcha moment in the debate and the tides will turn to more modest models, but nothing that has been posted so far in this thread as evidence of this "major conspiracy" is all that compelling in the big picture so far. Maybe instead of all the high five "I knew it" hysterics one of you would like to layout a real argument as to how these three or four pieces (E-Mails, New Zealand temperatures, data not taken to new facilities, ???) adds up to much of anything. Seriously, this is what constitutes proof? Is it any wonder that the vast majority of educated people around the world dismiss your arguments? I'm not even saying you are wrong. I'm not very well informed in this area of science and I need to make a lay person's decision on who to trust. Based on your nonsense in this thread I'm suppose to trust you guys as authorities? Sure these few science institutions really look bad at the moment, but you guys are looking worst.

 

[Hang 10]

Raw data?

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight, but this whole "they destroyed the data!" angle seems like a pretty farfetched attempt to argue a political point. I don't doubt that some scientists manipulated/misrepresented their results, but the idea that a handful of people had the only copies of this data and destroyed it is ridiculous, IMO.

I think the point you're missing is that if you have a theory, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. What you don't do is destroy all the original data (that took years to compile) and then tell people that it's up to them reresearch 20+ year old data.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

maybe the "entire" scientific community shouldn't put their faith in groups that destroy data, hide data, manipulate data, avoid Freedom of Information requests, use "impartial" websites to smear and/or promote certain ideas, and generally act like a criminal organization....

Ok, on the FOIA point I have to shrug. Anybody subject to FOIA avoids having to provide the inforamtion. The people that request the information are usually a pain in the ###. As far as the other stuff, I wouldn't describe it as criminal. To me that sounds like good old American capitalism. Why do you hate America?

 

[Phurfur]

Pretty crazy how the "it's all a fraud" crowd keep projecting their behavior in this very thread (religious fanaticism, fear mongering, jumping to rash conclusion, relying on biased sources, shouting down opposition, etc.) on their opponents. Maybe this will turn out to be a gotcha moment in the debate and the tides will turn to more modest models, but nothing that has been posted so far in this thread as evidence of this "major conspiracy" is all that compelling in the big picture so far. Maybe instead of all the high five "I knew it" hysterics one of you would like to layout a real argument as to how these three or four pieces (E-Mails, New Zealand temperatures, data not taken to new facilities, ???) adds up to much of anything. Seriously, this is what constitutes proof? Is it any wonder that the vast majority of educated people around the world dismiss your arguments? I'm not even saying you are wrong. I'm not very well informed in this area of science and I need to make a lay person's decision on who to trust. Based on your nonsense in this thread I'm suppose to trust you guys as authorities? Sure these few science institutions really look bad at the moment, but you guys are looking worst.

What???

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Raw data?

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight, but this whole "they destroyed the data!" angle seems like a pretty farfetched attempt to argue a political point. I don't doubt that some scientists manipulated/misrepresented their results, but the idea that a handful of people had the only copies of this data and destroyed it is ridiculous, IMO.

I think the point you're missing is that if you have a theory, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. What you don't do is destroy all the original data (that took years to compile) and then tell people that it's up to them reresearch 20+ year old data.

I'm not missing that point at all. I agree that the results this group of scientists has presented can't be trusted. What I don't understand is the "OMG they destroyed the data, global warming is hox!" crowd. Or, rather, I do understand the crowd, but I don't agree with their highly politicized and logically flawed argument.I'm not asking anyone to "reresearch" anything. The raw data are still available. New models can be built. Other models likely have already been built. I think it's a bit ridiculous to ascribe the entire weight of global warming research to this one group of allegedly fraudulent scientists, and come to the faulty conclusion that because they have not presented the data they used, global warming itself is a fraud. It's an argumentum ad logicam.

 

[Bonzai]

Raw data?

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight, but this whole "they destroyed the data!" angle seems like a pretty farfetched attempt to argue a political point. I don't doubt that some scientists manipulated/misrepresented their results, but the idea that a handful of people had the only copies of this data and destroyed it is ridiculous, IMO.

I think the point you're missing is that if you have a theory, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. What you don't do is destroy all the original data (that took years to compile) and then tell people that it's up to them reresearch 20+ year old data.

They didn't destroy the original data. They destroyed their copy of the original data. If you're really that suspicious of them, why trust the data that they collected in the first place? If we're not bothering to check with the original suppliers of the data, couldn't the CRU just have made up all the original raw data? To the paranoid, it should be comforting that the raw data lies apart from the CRU and that we're not dependent on the CRU as the only source of information.

 

[Hang 10]

Raw data?

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight, but this whole "they destroyed the data!" angle seems like a pretty farfetched attempt to argue a political point. I don't doubt that some scientists manipulated/misrepresented their results, but the idea that a handful of people had the only copies of this data and destroyed it is ridiculous, IMO.

I think the point you're missing is that if you have a theory, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. What you don't do is destroy all the original data (that took years to compile) and then tell people that it's up to them reresearch 20+ year old data.

I'm not missing that point at all. I agree that the results this group of scientists has presented can't be trusted. What I don't understand is the "OMG they destroyed the data, global warming is hox!" crowd. Or, rather, I do understand the crowd, but I don't agree with their highly politicized and logically flawed argument.I'm not asking anyone to "reresearch" anything. The raw data are still available. New models can be built. Other models likely have already been built. I think it's a bit ridiculous to ascribe the entire weight of global warming research to this one group of allegedly fraudulent scientists, and come to the faulty conclusion that because they have not presented the data they used, global warming itself is a fraud. It's an argumentum ad logicam.

Do you think it's possible that someone else collecting data, might find different results 20 years later? Do you think it's possible variables might be introduced that could change the data collected? If either of these answers are "yes", then it's a pointless exercise. The CRU would most likely just claim the data collection was skeptic bias and dismiss any conclusion there after.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Raw data?

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight, but this whole "they destroyed the data!" angle seems like a pretty farfetched attempt to argue a political point. I don't doubt that some scientists manipulated/misrepresented their results, but the idea that a handful of people had the only copies of this data and destroyed it is ridiculous, IMO.

I think the point you're missing is that if you have a theory, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. What you don't do is destroy all the original data (that took years to compile) and then tell people that it's up to them reresearch 20+ year old data.

I'm not missing that point at all. I agree that the results this group of scientists has presented can't be trusted. What I don't understand is the "OMG they destroyed the data, global warming is hox!" crowd. Or, rather, I do understand the crowd, but I don't agree with their highly politicized and logically flawed argument.I'm not asking anyone to "reresearch" anything. The raw data are still available. New models can be built. Other models likely have already been built. I think it's a bit ridiculous to ascribe the entire weight of global warming research to this one group of allegedly fraudulent scientists, and come to the faulty conclusion that because they have not presented the data they used, global warming itself is a fraud. It's an argumentum ad logicam.

Do you think it's possible that someone else collecting data, might find different results 20 years later? Do you think it's possible variables might be introduced that could change the data collected? If either of these answers are "yes", then it's a pointless exercise. The CRU would most likely just claim the data collection was skeptic bias and dismiss any conclusion there after.

I don't know what you're talking about here.The point is, if these scientists don't produce their raw data, it doesn't matter if they destroyed them or made fifty copies and sealed them in fifty different vaults for safekeeping. Either way we, at the very least, employ a lot of caution when evaluating their results, and more likely we can dismiss them altogether.

That doesn't mean the raw data don't still exist, and it doesn't mean global warming itself is a fraud, both of which are conclusions being presented here. It's silly to believe that UEA had the only copy of all this mysterious data, and it's logically flawed to conclude that because these scientists presented false results, global warming is a hoax.

 

[jon_mx]

Pretty crazy how the "it's all a fraud" crowd keep projecting their behavior in this very thread (religious fanaticism, fear mongering, jumping to rash conclusion, relying on biased sources, shouting down opposition, etc.) on their opponents. Maybe this will turn out to be a gotcha moment in the debate and the tides will turn to more modest models, but nothing that has been posted so far in this thread as evidence of this "major conspiracy" is all that compelling in the big picture so far. Maybe instead of all the high five "I knew it" hysterics one of you would like to layout a real argument as to how these three or four pieces (E-Mails, New Zealand temperatures, data not taken to new facilities, ???) adds up to much of anything. Seriously, this is what constitutes proof? Is it any wonder that the vast majority of educated people around the world dismiss your arguments? I'm not even saying you are wrong. I'm not very well informed in this area of science and I need to make a lay person's decision on who to trust. Based on your nonsense in this thread I'm suppose to trust you guys as authorities? Sure these few science institutions really look bad at the moment, but you guys are looking worst.

BS. I am not a religious fanatic or a fear-monger. The sources I rely on include the Boston Globe, Telegraph, WSJ, SF Chronicle to name a few. The fact that I can't quote the NY Times or CNN is more of an indictment on them, this is a major story they are not reporting on even after a week of fallout. No one is shouting anyone down. You throw all these BS accusation up to try to change the subject. You don't deny any of the facts, you just attack the messenger. This isn't just any science institutions, these are the main players. This goes to the top, the pillars of the movement. If you want to throw up smoke screens and turn it into personal attacks, I am not playing that game.

 

[Hang 10]

I don't know what you're talking about here.

The point is, if these scientists don't produce their raw data, it doesn't matter if they destroyed them or made fifty copies and sealed them in fifty different vaults for safekeeping. Either way we, at the very least, employ a lot of caution when evaluating their results, and more likely we can dismiss them altogether.

We agree then.

That doesn't mean the raw data don't still exist, and it doesn't mean global warming itself is a fraud, both of which are conclusions being presented here. It's silly to believe that UEA had the only copy of all this mysterious data, and it's logically flawed to conclude that because these scientists presented false results, global warming is a hoax.

The raw data that the CRU used doesn't exist. It's gone. Destroyed. That's the point. They had the only copy of the data that they used.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't know what you're talking about here.

The point is, if these scientists don't produce their raw data, it doesn't matter if they destroyed them or made fifty copies and sealed them in fifty different vaults for safekeeping. Either way we, at the very least, employ a lot of caution when evaluating their results, and more likely we can dismiss them altogether.

That doesn't mean the raw data don't still exist, and it doesn't mean global warming itself is a fraud, both of which are conclusions being presented here. It's silly to believe that UEA had the only copy of all this mysterious data, and it's logically flawed to conclude that because these scientists presented false results, global warming is a hoax.

They gather the data from thousands of weather stations around the world. They have been funded millions of dollars to do this. They are the main central data base for all this information. Some of these stations no longer exist. It would take massive efforts and resources to try to recreate this data if it is still even available. The source data is key to verify that their modifications are legitimate, and not some statistical trick to hide a trend. The statements in the emails are disturbing and destroys any confidence one could have in the data that is the main foundation of the whole theory. This is like find out evolutionists created all the bones of ancient creatures. It devastates the theory if the earth is not warming at a rate that can't be attributed to natural variations.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I don't know what you're talking about here.

The point is, if these scientists don't produce their raw data, it doesn't matter if they destroyed them or made fifty copies and sealed them in fifty different vaults for safekeeping. Either way we, at the very least, employ a lot of caution when evaluating their results, and more likely we can dismiss them altogether.

We agree then.

That doesn't mean the raw data don't still exist, and it doesn't mean global warming itself is a fraud, both of which are conclusions being presented here. It's silly to believe that UEA had the only copy of all this mysterious data, and it's logically flawed to conclude that because these scientists presented false results, global warming is a hoax.

The raw data that the CRU used doesn't exist. It's gone. Destroyed. That's the point. They had the only copy of the data that they used.

The point is, if the data they used were not widely available then it doesn't matter what they did with it. I don't understand this idea that they had top secret data that no one else in the world had access to. If they did, then no one would have taken any of their conclusions seriously at the outset. And if they didn't, then the data are still out there and real scientists are still using them.This idea that a handful of possibly fraudulent scientists at a medium-sized university in England had total control over all of the global warming data and research in the world for the past thirty years is pretty ludicrous. It appears this attack on Phil Jones and his colleagues may be warranted. But to extrapolate that to a conclusion that global warming is a hoax is severely flawed logic.

 

[Bonzai]

I don't know what you're talking about here.

The point is, if these scientists don't produce their raw data, it doesn't matter if they destroyed them or made fifty copies and sealed them in fifty different vaults for safekeeping. Either way we, at the very least, employ a lot of caution when evaluating their results, and more likely we can dismiss them altogether.

We agree then.

That doesn't mean the raw data don't still exist, and it doesn't mean global warming itself is a fraud, both of which are conclusions being presented here. It's silly to believe that UEA had the only copy of all this mysterious data, and it's logically flawed to conclude that because these scientists presented false results, global warming is a hoax.

The raw data that the CRU used doesn't exist. It's gone. Destroyed. That's the point. They had the only copy of the data that they used.

The point is, if the data they used were not widely available then it doesn't matter what they did with it. I don't understand this idea that they had top secret data that no one else in the world had access to. If they did, then no one would have taken any of their conclusions seriously at the outset. And if they didn't, then the data are still out there and real scientists are still using them.

Exactly. The data is widely available.

This idea that a handful of possibly fraudulent scientists at a medium-sized university in England had total control over all of the global warming data and research in the world for the past thirty years is pretty ludicrous. It appears this attack on Phil Jones and his colleagues may be warranted. But to extrapolate that to a conclusion that global warming is a hoax is severely flawed logic.

The only thing the CRU seem to be guilty of is acting like elitist jerks. In their defense, it has to be annoying to try to personally explain yourself to every fledgeling scientist trying to make a name for his/herself.

 

[jon_mx]

The point is, if the data they used were not widely available then it doesn't matter what they did with it. I don't understand this idea that they had top secret data that no one else in the world had access to. If they did, then no one would have taken any of their conclusions seriously at the outset. And if they didn't, then the data are still out there and real scientists are still using them.

This idea that a handful of possibly fraudulent scientists at a medium-sized university in England had total control over all of the global warming data and research in the world for the past thirty years is pretty ludicrous. It appears this attack on Phil Jones and his colleagues may be warranted. But to extrapolate that to a conclusion that global warming is a hoax is severely flawed logic.

Perhaps you should read CRU's website....

The area of CRU's work that has probably had the largest international impact was started in 1978 and continues through to the present-day: the production of the world's land-based, gridded (currently using 5° by 5° latitude/longitude boxes) temperature data set. This involved many person-years of painstaking data collection, checking and homogenization. In 1986, this analysis was extended to the marine sector (in co-operation with the Hadley Centre, Met Office from 1989), and so represented the first-ever synthesis of land and marine temperature data - i.e., the first truly global temperature record, demonstrating unequivocally that the globe has warmed by almost 0.8°C over the last 157 years. This work continues year-on-year to update and enhance the record and its publication is eagerly awaited around the world. The most recent innovation has been the development of a comprehensive set of error estimates at the grid-box and larger scales (see Brohan et al. 2006 and IPCC AR4 chapter 3 ).

Besides the global temperature data set, there has been much CRU effort devoted to the compilation of a comprehensive, quality-controlled precipitation data base. This, together with CRU's high-resolution (0.5° by 0.5°) monthly datasets (for maximum and minimum temperature, precipitation, rainday counts, vapour pressure, cloudiness and wind speed) for all the world's inhabited land areas, has provided many researchers, in the UK and overseas, with their basic data for a whole range of studies. It is likely that CRU ranks only behind NCEP/NCAR, ECMWF (ERA-40) and NCDC as the acknowledged primary data source by climate scientists around the world.

 

[Hang 10]

The point is, if the data they used were not widely available then it doesn't matter what they did with it. I don't understand this idea that they had top secret data that no one else in the world had access to. If they did, then no one would have taken any of their conclusions seriously at the outset. And if they didn't, then the data are still out there and real scientists are still using them.

This idea that a handful of possibly fraudulent scientists at a medium-sized university in England had total control over all of the global warming data and research in the world for the past thirty years is pretty ludicrous. It appears this attack on Phil Jones and his colleagues may be warranted. But to extrapolate that to a conclusion that global warming is a hoax is severely flawed logic.

Perhaps you should read CRU's website....

The area of CRU's work that has probably had the largest international impact was started in 1978 and continues through to the present-day: the production of the world's land-based, gridded (currently using 5° by 5° latitude/longitude boxes) temperature data set. This involved many person-years of painstaking data collection, checking and homogenization. In 1986, this analysis was extended to the marine sector (in co-operation with the Hadley Centre, Met Office from 1989), and so represented the first-ever synthesis of land and marine temperature data - i.e., the first truly global temperature record, demonstrating unequivocally that the globe has warmed by almost 0.8°C over the last 157 years. This work continues year-on-year to update and enhance the record and its publication is eagerly awaited around the world. The most recent innovation has been the development of a comprehensive set of error estimates at the grid-box and larger scales (see Brohan et al. 2006 and IPCC AR4 chapter 3 ).

Besides the global temperature data set, there has been much CRU effort devoted to the compilation of a comprehensive, quality-controlled precipitation data base. This, together with CRU's high-resolution (0.5° by 0.5°) monthly datasets (for maximum and minimum temperature, precipitation, rainday counts, vapour pressure, cloudiness and wind speed) for all the world's inhabited land areas, has provided many researchers, in the UK and overseas, with their basic data for a whole range of studies. It is likely that CRU ranks only behind NCEP/NCAR, ECMWF (ERA-40) and NCDC as the acknowledged primary data source by climate scientists around the world.

Wow. Sounds like a lot of time and effort went into all that data collection. It's a shame they didn't have room for it at their new offices.

 

[P Boy]

It's amazing that we still engage in arguments regarding the impact man has on GW. Just looking at two basic and incontrovertible facts should pretty much end any debate as to the significant impact man has on the climate of this planet:

If man were suddenly to become extinct tomorrow - to cease to exist entirely, and therefore to contribute absolutely nothing to greenhouse gases - the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would decrease by about 0.28%. The remaining 99.72% of greenhouse gases would still be emitted by other naturally occurring sources. So if we tried really, really hard as an entire species globally and managed to reduce AGW emmissions by half world-wide (a virtual and unrealistically impossible task even if applied over 50 years) - with all humans in all areas of the globe cooperating - we'd be able to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions to being 99.86% of what they are right now.

In short, our capability to impact the climate is literally insignificant. To think humans can make that much of an impact is shortsighted and not supported by any data.

Secondly in the debate on global warming is that we are currently in an interglacial period of what is a well documented series of ice ages and then interglacial periods between the ice ages over hundreds of thousands of years in the most recent history of the planet. By definition, an interglacial period will have to have a warming period when the previous ice age ends, and then will have a cooling period when the next ice age starts. We are in a period where global temperatures have to go up in the warming period of the interglacial. We couldn't change that no matter how many greenhouse gases we were capable of putting into the atmosphere - which doesn't amount to much when taken in a global context. When the cooling period starts, we won't be able to make any kind of significant impact to affect that either, nor will we be capable of altering the next ice age in any significant manner provided man is still on Earth when it starts. In fact, any impact we could make on the planet as far as global warming is concerned could be considered a positive in terms of existing life in this regard - meaning if we could lessen the impact of the cooling period and the next ice age it would benefit almost all species on Earth.

You can take all the data collection of the past 100 years, +/-, and throw them out in the face of these two incontrovertible facts. Humans simply don't make enough of an impact on the climate to be considered significant. Now don't get me wrong - curtailing man's impact like pollution is a noble cause, as long as it isn't economically crippling to us, but it really just isn't going to make much of a difference other than making us feel good about ourselves. The Earth and its climate managed very well in cycles well before man existed, and it will continue to do so long after man has become extinct.

 

[StrikeS2k]

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?

Strike? You there?

No, wasn't here. Was out watching MNF. In any case no I don't know where to look for this information. I posted a credible link showing an agency inappropriately tweaking temperature data to fit their agenda. People can make of it what they will.

 

[saintfool]

In short, our capability to impact the climate is literally insignificant. To think humans can make that much of an impact is shortsighted and not supported by any data.

i think many people - legislators and scientists alike - point to the significant reduction in acid rain and the decline in sulfur dioxide found in the atmosphere because of environmental reform would argue to contrary.

Countries in the northern hemisphere have significantly cut air pollution, thanks in part to a 1979 treaty, highlighting the potential for a broader climate change pact to be negotiated next month in Copenhagen.

Levels of sulfur dioxide - one of the main causes of acid rain - dropped 70 percent in the European Union and 36 percent in the United States between 1990 to 2006, the Geneva-based Economic Commission for Europe said.

"The acid rain problem is well on the way to being solved," said Martin Williams of Britain's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Britain is one of 51 countries that have adopted the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution.

The amount of NOx, a class of nitrogen oxides that causes smog and is thought to contribute to global warming, has been reduced by 35 percent in the EU and 23 percent in the US during the 16-year period, UNECE said.

link

 

[P Boy]

In short, our capability to impact the climate is literally insignificant. To think humans can make that much of an impact is shortsighted and not supported by any data.

i think many people - legislators and scientists alike - point to the significant reduction in acid rain and the decline in sulfur dioxide found in the atmosphere because of environmental reform would argue to contrary.

Countries in the northern hemisphere have significantly cut air pollution, thanks in part to a 1979 treaty, highlighting the potential for a broader climate change pact to be negotiated next month in Copenhagen.

Levels of sulfur dioxide - one of the main causes of acid rain - dropped 70 percent in the European Union and 36 percent in the United States between 1990 to 2006, the Geneva-based Economic Commission for Europe said.

"The acid rain problem is well on the way to being solved," said Martin Williams of Britain's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Britain is one of 51 countries that have adopted the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution.

The amount of NOx, a class of nitrogen oxides that causes smog and is thought to contribute to global warming, has been reduced by 35 percent in the EU and 23 percent in the US during the 16-year period, UNECE said.

link

That's really, really nice. We can pat ourselves on the back and feel wonderful after knowing this. How exactly does it alter the facts that I posted above?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I think I've qualified every post with this thought, but I'll say it again just to be clear - I don't disagree that anything these UEA scientists have produced should be dismissed if they can't produce their source data and methodology. I only dispute the claim that because these scientists haven't produced the requested data, global warming research is a hoax.

It is likely that CRU ranks only behind NCEP/NCAR, ECMWF (ERA-40) and NCDC as the acknowledged primary data source by climate scientists around the world.

The raw data are out there. Global warming may or may not hold up to honest scientific scrutiny - I admitted at the beginning that I have no real idea. But this whole "destroyed data" argument is a flawed one. An honest observer would realize as much and say so.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If man were suddenly to become extinct tomorrow - to cease to exist entirely, and therefore to contribute absolutely nothing to greenhouse gases - the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would decrease by about 0.28%. The remaining 99.72% of greenhouse gases would still be emitted by other naturally occurring sources. So if we tried really, really hard as an entire species globally and managed to reduce AGW emmissions by half world-wide (a virtual and unrealistically impossible task even if applied over 50 years) - with all humans in all areas of the globe cooperating - we'd be able to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions to being 99.86% of what they are right now.

Without knowing if any of the above is true, this is essentially how I feel about it.My question, however, would be: if all of the relevant data used in the global warming debate has been skewed and destroyed, how do we have any idea that any of the above is actually true? You can't have it both ways - either data exist, in which case we can do analyses and come to reasonable scientific conclusions, or the data don't exist, in which case a statement like the above is just as ridiculous as one claiming that global warming is 99% man-made.

 

[Phurfur]

In short, our capability to impact the climate is literally insignificant. To think humans can make that much of an impact is shortsighted and not supported by any data.

i think many people - legislators and scientists alike - point to the significant reduction in acid rain and the decline in sulfur dioxide found in the atmosphere because of environmental reform would argue to contrary.

Countries in the northern hemisphere have significantly cut air pollution, thanks in part to a 1979 treaty, highlighting the potential for a broader climate change pact to be negotiated next month in Copenhagen.

Levels of sulfur dioxide - one of the main causes of acid rain - dropped 70 percent in the European Union and 36 percent in the United States between 1990 to 2006, the Geneva-based Economic Commission for Europe said.

"The acid rain problem is well on the way to being solved," said Martin Williams of Britain's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Britain is one of 51 countries that have adopted the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution.

The amount of NOx, a class of nitrogen oxides that causes smog and is thought to contribute to global warming, has been reduced by 35 percent in the EU and 23 percent in the US during the 16-year period, UNECE said.

link

and they did it without crippling the economy! I guess people were a lot smarter back then.

 

[P Boy]

If man were suddenly to become extinct tomorrow - to cease to exist entirely, and therefore to contribute absolutely nothing to greenhouse gases - the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would decrease by about 0.28%. The remaining 99.72% of greenhouse gases would still be emitted by other naturally occurring sources. So if we tried really, really hard as an entire species globally and managed to reduce AGW emmissions by half world-wide (a virtual and unrealistically impossible task even if applied over 50 years) - with all humans in all areas of the globe cooperating - we'd be able to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions to being 99.86% of what they are right now.

Without knowing if any of the above is true, this is essentially how I feel about it.My question, however, would be: if all of the relevant data used in the global warming debate has been skewed and destroyed, how do we have any idea that any of the above is actually true? You can't have it both ways - either data exist, in which case we can do analyses and come to reasonable scientific conclusions, or the data don't exist, in which case a statement like the above is just as ridiculous as one claiming that global warming is 99% man-made.

The data collection "supporting" AGW being a significant problem usually has to do with temperature readings and CO2 levels - neither of which impacts the facts above. That AGW supporters make the claim that CO2 levels have never been as high as they are right now is patently ridiculous - they have been 10 times higher or more in the history of the planet when it was in a condition where it supported life and life existed - not to mention that CO2 levels are a lagging and not a leading indicator when it comes to warming temperatures (in other words, increases in temperatures lead to an increase in CO2 levels, not the opposite). It shows an appalling lack of education - or more sinister motives - that anyone would completely ignore the two facts that I listed above and use some corollary and very isolated data to support a theory like important AGW. It's cherry-picking and misinforming at its worst, and the motives quite frankly are very obvious and nefarious.

 

[jon_mx]

If man were suddenly to become extinct tomorrow - to cease to exist entirely, and therefore to contribute absolutely nothing to greenhouse gases - the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would decrease by about 0.28%. The remaining 99.72% of greenhouse gases would still be emitted by other naturally occurring sources. So if we tried really, really hard as an entire species globally and managed to reduce AGW emmissions by half world-wide (a virtual and unrealistically impossible task even if applied over 50 years) - with all humans in all areas of the globe cooperating - we'd be able to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions to being 99.86% of what they are right now.

Without knowing if any of the above is true, this is essentially how I feel about it.My question, however, would be: if all of the relevant data used in the global warming debate has been skewed and destroyed, how do we have any idea that any of the above is actually true? You can't have it both ways - either data exist, in which case we can do analyses and come to reasonable scientific conclusions, or the data don't exist, in which case a statement like the above is just as ridiculous as one claiming that global warming is 99% man-made.

Nobody is saying all the relevant data has been destroyed or is skewed. The biggest questions have always surrounded the ground based temperature data (well, and some of the creative ways used to eliminate the medieval warming period) and how that data is manipulated and the integrity of the poorly maintained stations. It has been an ongoing fight to try to get information from CRU so there methods could be reviewed. It took them forever to accept any impact from the urban island heat effects and then they assumed it was very small. So it is not everything, there is much good data out there. But it is the ground based data which establishes how fast the earth is supposedly warming, which is a crucial point in the whole debate.

 

[saintfool]

That's really, really nice. We can pat ourselves on the back and feel wonderful after knowing this. How exactly does it alter the facts that I posted above?

it's fine that the environment is changing of its own accord. the fact is that our contribution to the changing environment - however obscured in the raw data - is hastening things and altering it in the process. the precedent - a partnership between government, science, and industry that had an almost immediate impact - has been set with the acid rain treaties and regulation.

 

[P Boy]

The Earth and its climate managed very well in cycles well before man existed, and it will continue to do so long after man has become extinct.

Well, I'm not one much for the Gaia, Earth as a living being, theory so all I care about is keeping Earth in a condition such that man does not become extinct, or at least keep it in good enough condition until we can start colonizing other planets.Global Warming as a specific theory there may still be some debate left on, although the scientific community seems pretty heavily weighted (and within climatologists damn near unanimous) that it is actually occurring. But to be dismissive of pollution prevention efforts in general, or only insofar as they aren't economically inconvenient, is to be obtuse in the extreme IMO. Try drinking much of the water that surrounds our land masses. Try taking a look at the fishing stocks. Try visiting Baupol, India, for chrissakes.To put pollution controls on the level of, "Well, it would be nice if" is irresponsible and disrespective of general property rights.

Global warming isn't a theory. It's occurring. It has to in an interglacial period. As a result, it will have impact on life on Earth. It's seriously overstating the impact of man's contribution that is at issue. That man can create relatively minor impact in very localized areas shouldn't surprise anyone. That's hardly evidence that we are altering the climate of the planet. In fact - fact, mind you - that man as a species is substantially altering the climate of the planet is illogical and irrational, and is wholely unsupported. That supporters of AGW have no intention of engaging in debate of the issue because their "science" can be so roundly debunked - and instead rely on frenzied passionate claims with no basis in scientific evidence - only enhances that their position is groundless.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If man were suddenly to become extinct tomorrow - to cease to exist entirely, and therefore to contribute absolutely nothing to greenhouse gases - the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would decrease by about 0.28%. The remaining 99.72% of greenhouse gases would still be emitted by other naturally occurring sources. So if we tried really, really hard as an entire species globally and managed to reduce AGW emmissions by half world-wide (a virtual and unrealistically impossible task even if applied over 50 years) - with all humans in all areas of the globe cooperating - we'd be able to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions to being 99.86% of what they are right now.

Without knowing if any of the above is true, this is essentially how I feel about it.My question, however, would be: if all of the relevant data used in the global warming debate has been skewed and destroyed, how do we have any idea that any of the above is actually true? You can't have it both ways - either data exist, in which case we can do analyses and come to reasonable scientific conclusions, or the data don't exist, in which case a statement like the above is just as ridiculous as one claiming that global warming is 99% man-made.

The data collection "supporting" AGW being a significant problem usually has to do with temperature readings and CO2 levels - neither of which impacts the facts above. That AGW supporters make the claim that CO2 levels have never been as high as they are right now is patently ridiculous - they have been 10 times higher or more in the history of the planet when it was in a condition where it supported life and life existed - not to mention that CO2 levels are a lagging and not a leading indicator when it comes to warming temperatures (in other words, increases in temperatures lead to an increase in CO2 levels, not the opposite). It shows an appalling lack of education - or more sinister motives - that anyone would completely ignore the two facts that I listed above and use some corollary and very isolated data to support a theory like important AGW. It's cherry-picking and misinforming at its worst, and the motives quite frankly are very obvious and nefarious.

Data involving CO2 levels aren't relevant to claims about human contributions to greenhouse gases? I'm not sure I buy that. What are your sources for the facts you presented?

 

[pantagrapher]

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?

Strike? You there?

No, wasn't here. Was out watching MNF. In any case no I don't know where to look for this information. I posted a credible link showing an agency inappropriately tweaking temperature data to fit their agenda. People can make of it what they will.

I thought it was odd that you responded to several posts after mine. The gotcha in the credible, non-political link you posted is that climate scientists have to make adjustments—or, as the blogger cleverly puts it, "manipulate"—raw data. Seriously, this is the scandal? That scientists have to process raw data?ETA: The two charts are actually similar since about 1960, which leads me to believe that whatever adjustment was made had to do with the data collection pre-1960s.

 

[P Boy]

That's really, really nice. We can pat ourselves on the back and feel wonderful after knowing this. How exactly does it alter the facts that I posted above?

it's fine that the environment is changing of its own accord. the fact is that our contribution to the changing environment - however obscured in the raw data - is hastening things and altering it in the process. the precedent - a partnership between government, science, and industry that had an almost immediate impact - has been set with the acid rain treaties and regulation.

Again, that's wonderful news. Seriously. But by what portion a reduction of overall greenhouse gases does that represent?

 

[DrJ]

People seem to be missing the real issue in the CRU emails. Gavin over at realclimate keeps distracting people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other, and what Trenberth said, and the Nature “trick”, and the like. Those are side trails. To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency.

Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking the FOIA allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record (HadCRUT3) was valid science.

This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct.

As far as I know, I am the person who made the original Freedom Of Information Act to CRU that started getting all this stirred up. I was trying to get access to the taxpayer funded raw data out of which they built the global temperature record. I was not representing anybody, or trying to prove a point. I am not funded by Mobil, I’m an amateur scientist with a lifelong interest in the weather and climate. I’m not “directed” by anyone, I’m not a member of a right-wing conspiracy. I’m just a guy trying to move science forwards.

The recent release of the hacked emails from CRU has provided me with an amazing insight into the attempt by myself, Steve McIntyre, and others from CA and elsewhere to obtain the raw station data from Phil Jones at the CRU. We wanted the data that was used to make the global temperature record that is relied on to claim “unprecedented” global warming. I want to give a chronological account of the interactions. While we don’t know if all of these emails are valid, the researchers involved such as Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann that clearly indicate that they think they are authentic They certainly fit with my experience. I have only included the relevant parts of emails, and indicated where I have snipped by an ellipsis (…).

The story actually starts with Warwick Hughes, a climate researcher who had previously been in cordial contact with Phil Jones, the lead researcher of the CRU. I find only one email in the archive (0969308954) where Phil emails Warwick, from 2000. This is in response to some inconsistencies that Warwick had found in Phil’s work:

Warwick Hughes to Phil Jones, September ‘04:

Dear Phillip and Chris Folland (with your IPCC hat on),

Some days ago Chris I emailed to Tom Karl and you replied re the grid cells in north Siberia with no stations, yet carrying red circle grid point anomalies in the TAR Fig 2.9 global maps. I even sent a gif file map showing the grid cells barren of stations greyed out. You said this was due to interpolation and referred me to Phillip and procedures described in a submitted paper. In the last couple of days I have put up a page detailing shortcomings in your TAR Fig 2.9 maps in the north Siberian region, everything is specified there with diagrams and numbered grid points.

[1] One issue is that two of the interpolated grid cells have larger anomalies than the parent cells !!!!?????

This must be explained.

[2] Another serious issue is that obvious non-homogenous warming in Olenek and Verhojansk is being interpolated through to adjoining grid cells with no stations, like cancer.

[3] The third serious issue is that the urbanization affected trend from the Irkutsk grid cell neare Lake Baikal, looks to be interpolated into its western neighbour.

I am sure there are many other cases of this, 2 and 3 happening.

Best regards,

Warwick Hughes (I have sent this to CKF)

Phil to Warwick, same email:

Warwick,

I did not think I would get a chance today to look at the web page. I see what boxes you are referring to. The interpolation procedure cannot produce larger anomalies than neighbours (larger values in a single month). If you have found any of these I will investigate. If you are talking about larger trends then that is a different matter. Trends say in Fig 2.9 for the 1976-99 period require 16 years to have data and at least 10 months in each year. It is conceivable that at there are 24 years in this period that missing values in some boxes influence trend calculation. I would expect this to be random across the globe.

Warwick,

Been away. Just checked my program and the interpolation shouldn’t produce larger anomalies than the neighbouring cells. So can you send me the cells, months and year of the two cells you’ve found ? If I have this I can check to see what has happened and answer (1). As for (2) and (3) we compared all stations with neighbours and these two stations did not have problems when the work was done (around 1985/6). I am not around much for the next 3 weeks but will be here most of this week and will try to answer (1) if I get more details. If you have the names of stations that you’ve compared Olenek and Verhojansk with I would appreciate that.

Cheers

Phil

OK, so far we have a couple of scientists discussing issues in a scientific work, no problem. But as he found more inconsistencies, in order to understand what was going on, in 2005 Warwick asked Phil for the dataset that was used to create the CRU temperature record. Phil Jones famously replied:

Subject: Re: WMO non respondo

… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …

Cheers Phil

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-...okole%E2%80%A6/

Why didn't he just send fake raw data that agreed with his models?Seems to me that Jones is just annoyed that a competitor is mooching off of his research and trying to make him do extra work. Not admirable, but not diabolical.

This idea that all the data concerning climate change is held at the CRU simply isn't true. If it was, that would be concerning. In order to really hold the CRU accountable, competing scientists need to gather their own data and conduct their own research (which has already been done by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies).

Mooching? He states that he believes the goal of the person making the request is to attack and invalidate the research, something he's spent 25 years on. Reading that blog, and it's disgusting. They were trying to figure out how they were going to avoid responding to a freedom of information act before there even was one. It doesn't appear this data was "lost in a move", it appears very possible that they intentionally destroyed this data in response to the FOI request based on their plans and demeanor in those emails. In fact, it seems like they had "loads of" this data on one of their FTP servers mistakenly as late as 2005.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

In short, our capability to impact the climate is literally insignificant. To think humans can make that much of an impact is shortsighted and not supported by any data.

this is a mind bogglingly stupid generalization. ever been to LA or Tokyo? smog is caused by PPM (part per MILLION) emissions caused by humans. you then try to make a case that our contribution to emissions in the range of THOUSANDS of PPM cannot possibly have any effect whatsoever. talk about shortsighted. humans can have a VERY strong influence on the environment. while i agree that our CO2 emissions aren't likely to be a driving cause of climate change, to say that there is no effect is ludicrous. we've successfully poisoned habitats around the globe and caused the extinction of literally hundreds of thousands of species through our actions. to assume no harm and say "lalala it doesn't matter" is the position of recklessness.

 

[jon_mx]

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?

Strike? You there?

No, wasn't here. Was out watching MNF. In any case no I don't know where to look for this information. I posted a credible link showing an agency inappropriately tweaking temperature data to fit their agenda. People can make of it what they will.

I thought it was odd that you responded to several posts after mine. The gotcha in the credible, non-political link you posted is that climate scientists have to make adjustments—or, as the blogger cleverly puts it, "manipulate"—raw data. Seriously, this is the scandal? That scientists have to process raw data?

Processing data is not the scandal, manipulating data to hide the fact that we haven't seen warming in the last 10 years is. When scientists see a trend, it is not their job to adjust the data to hide the trend that doesn't fit their theory. And let's not forget the parts about keeping data from skeptics, changing criteria so skeptics could not get published and showing joy when a skeptical statistician dies. In one cases where the raw data is know, the trend is flat for several decades, but after some magic is applied, it shows a significant upward trend. These guy's livelihood is based on fear-mongering and these emails expose a very corrupt side.

 

[pantagrapher]

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?

Strike? You there?

No, wasn't here. Was out watching MNF. In any case no I don't know where to look for this information. I posted a credible link showing an agency inappropriately tweaking temperature data to fit their agenda. People can make of it what they will.

I thought it was odd that you responded to several posts after mine. The gotcha in the credible, non-political link you posted is that climate scientists have to make adjustments—or, as the blogger cleverly puts it, "manipulate"—raw data. Seriously, this is the scandal? That scientists have to process raw data?

Processing data is not the scandal, manipulating data to hide the fact that we haven't seen warming in the last 10 years is. When scientists see a trend, it is not their job to adjust the data to hide the trend that doesn't fit their theory. And let's not forget the parts about keeping data from skeptics, changing criteria so skeptics could not get published and showing joy when a skeptical statistician dies. In one cases where the raw data is know, the trend is flat for several decades, but after some magic is applied, it shows a significant upward trend. These guy's livelihood is based on fear-mongering and these emails expose a very corrupt side.

Actually, brain trust, both the adjusted and raw data charts show the same brief cooling period that occurred during the past decade. The fear-mongering, data-manipulating climate goblins that haunt your nightmares would have hidden that.

 

[P Boy]

Data involving CO2 levels aren't relevant to claims about human contributions to greenhouse gases? I'm not sure I buy that. What are your sources for the facts you presented?

This is exactly what I am talking about. Why wouldn't you do some research instead of expecting me to present data to you? The data on this is readily available in numerous places, both in pro and anti-AGW arguments. Charts comparing CO2 levels and temperatures invariably show temperatures increasing prior to CO2 levels increasing. Take 10 minutes and do a web search on it. It's easy to find this correlation in many places.

 

[jon_mx]

In short, our capability to impact the climate is literally insignificant. To think humans can make that much of an impact is shortsighted and not supported by any data.

this is a mind bogglingly stupid generalization. ever been to LA or Tokyo? smog is caused by PPM (part per MILLION) emissions caused by humans. you then try to make a case that our contribution to emissions in the range of THOUSANDS of PPM cannot possibly have any effect whatsoever. talk about shortsighted. humans can have a VERY strong influence on the environment. while i agree that our CO2 emissions aren't likely to be a driving cause of climate change, to say that there is no effect is ludicrous. we've successfully poisoned habitats around the globe and caused the extinction of literally hundreds of thousands of species through our actions. to assume no harm and say "lalala it doesn't matter" is the position of recklessness.

I don't see where the disagreement is. I think the effects of C02 are greatly exaggerated and the steps proposed cost us lots and accomplish virtually nothing. There are lots of positive things we could be doing to really improve our environment, cap and trade is not one of them.

 

[P Boy]

In short, our capability to impact the climate is literally insignificant. To think humans can make that much of an impact is shortsighted and not supported by any data.

this is a mind bogglingly stupid generalization. ever been to LA or Tokyo? smog is caused by PPM (part per MILLION) emissions caused by humans. you then try to make a case that our contribution to emissions in the range of THOUSANDS of PPM cannot possibly have any effect whatsoever. talk about shortsighted. humans can have a VERY strong influence on the environment. while i agree that our CO2 emissions aren't likely to be a driving cause of climate change, to say that there is no effect is ludicrous. we've successfully poisoned habitats around the globe and caused the extinction of literally hundreds of thousands of species through our actions. to assume no harm and say "lalala it doesn't matter" is the position of recklessness.

What is mind-boggling stupid is to take a very isolated localized enviromental occurance and project that into some kind of statement about proving that it shows man makes a substantial or even in any way meaningful contribution to global climate change.

 

[jon_mx]

Actually, brain trust, both the adjusted and raw data charts show the same brief cooling period that occurred during the past decade. The fear-mongering, data-manipulating climate goblins that haunt your nightmares would have hidden that.

Thanks for the insults...but this is what I was talking about, not that you care about facts. You just love to demonize people with your childish posts.