“Deep Cool” – the Mole within Hadley CRU

As some WUWT readers may have learned from reading Climate Audit, an anonymous source deep within Hadley CRU has provided Steve McIntyre a copy of a data file he has been seeking but has had his FOI requests to Hadley seeking the same file, rebuked.

I’ve seen the data. As I posted last night on Climate Audit:

You know, not everyone in every organization believes in everything the organization does. This is why we have leaks in the White House and people like “Deep Throat” that provide evidential tidbits with guidance like “follow the money”.

Steve has shared this data and the source with me, as a way of verification, and I can vouch for both the validity of the data and of the source ip address. It truly comes from deep within the organization. – Anthony

While the CRU data file is not the most current, it is the most current one the mole could produce for us.

But most importantly this will not deter Steve in his FOI requests, he writes:

And by the way, just because I’ve got a version of the data doesn’t mean that I’m going to give up trying to get the data through FOI. Quite the opposite.

Indeed. Better to get it through the front door.

I mentioned to Steve this morning via email that in addition to verifying the source, I was able to come up with a photo of the “anonymous” mole in CRU. I’ve sent him a copy.

Stay tuned.

h/t to commenter John S. at Climate Audit for the “Deep Cool” moniker.

About these ads

154 thoughts on ““Deep Cool” – the Mole within Hadley CRU

  1. We have sources at EPA and now Hadcrut. These people, and they should be applauded, obviously feel their organization is up to no good. Like my father always told me , “do the right thing”. I’m glad that there are still people out there with a conscience.

    REPLY: I don’t know that the source has a conscience, per se. “Impartiality” might be a better word. – Anthony

  2. Ooh this just keeps getting better and better. I hope you’re taking notes for when they write the screenplay. It’ll make a great movie – working title ‘Deep Climate’ !

  3. Well at least something may certainly sizzle this year, as the weather isn’t so far!

    It’s a dead cert, Met Office predict very mild winter, “again”!

  4. Well, I am certainly relieved that sanity has won out at some level of the government in the UK. I don’t think anyone wants to “prove” anything so much as there are questions people want to answer. For example, why the growing divergence between HadCRU and the satellite data?

    I don’t think anyone is out to show the met office data or HadCRU to be “wrong”, they simply want to understand the different results. The satellite data are, I believe (correct me if I am wrong), openly available to anyone. Now the other data can be looked at and the cause of the difference be learned.

    People will decide for themselves if one of the two are “incorrect”. For now it is what it is.

  5. There is never a wrong time to do the right thing.

    I praise the courage of individuals from within these organizations who have the integrity to stay true to their values and ethics.

    They very well may firmly believe in AGW, but with a strong and overriding capacity to discern between right and wrong.

  6. Can it be determined from the data file how much the ‘official’ record is being altered?
    You have my undivided attention.

  7. Let’s lay off adding extra detail on this, such as “the latest version the person could get”
    or that a photo from the web is available. That just narrows down the list of suspects for the leadership of those delinquent organizations, who will certainly retaliate ruthlessly against anyone who thwarts them.

  8. OT but I get this message from McAfee: surfacestations.org

    When we tested this site we found links to scala.com, which we found to be a distributor of downloads some people consider adware, spyware or other potentially unwanted programs.

    Is this old news to you?

    Reply: I see you are correct, but I can’t find source of the link, Anthony you should probably take a look. Scan the files for scala.com. I’m sure it is innocuous, but it is probably not necessary to put up a red flag like that. ~ charles the moderator

  9. imapopulist (10:21:52) :

    There is never a wrong time to do the right thing.

    Amen to that.

  10. Interesting word – “ConScience”:

    [Conscience]
    “Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin conscientia, from conscient-, consciens, present participle of conscire to be conscious, be conscious of guilt…”

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscience

    [Con]
    “Abbreviation of Latin contra (“‘against’”)…

    Verb
    to con
    1.(transitive, slang) To trick or defraud…

    [Science]
    “c.1300, “knowledge (of something) acquired by study,” also “a particular branch of knowledge,” from O.Fr. science, from L. scientia “knowledge,” from sciens (gen. scientis), prp. of scire “to know,” probably originally “to separate one thing from another, to distinguish,” related to scindere “to cut, divide,”…

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Science

  11. You know, not everyone in every organization believes in everything the organization does. This is why we have leaks in the White House and people like “Deep Throat” that provide evidential tidbits with guidance like “follow the money”.

    Unfortunately, that thinking has been misdirected by people who feel they have the right, if not the obligation to the common good, to publicize secrets. Just because you don’t agree with a government policy or activity, doesn’t mean you’re allowed to unilaterally declassify sensitive national security information. The difference between whistle-blower and traitor had better be clear.

  12. Skeptic Tank,

    Taxpayers are being cheated and deceived by people on the public payroll. This isn’t sensitive national security information, this is the weather. How can the government make the weather a national security issue?

    Unless… click

  13. I applaud the mole. It means that there are those still in the “belly of the beast” who still believe in the scientific process.

    If my Anti-AGW beliefs are to be proven wrong, it has to be with solid, unadulterated science. That’s what I expect and demand, and that’s what is damned short supply, recently.

    Otherwise, though, this is way more fun that climate science is supposed to be.! :D

  14. @ Skeptic Tank (10:58:52) :

    Hellllloooo … we’re talking temperature data here … data that is in many respects driving huge policy decisions and driving our lives. We’re not talking about design specs for the next generation of ICBM’s. We’re talking about validation of the very data that we see and feel every day and that is beginning to affect every aspect of our lives.

    My hat goes off to these “moles” and would encourage every attempt be made to protect these people and their integrity. To me, these people are heroes! Reminds me of the movie U-571 and things like that.

  15. Smokey, I didn’t mean to imply that climate data is sensitive or should be kept secret. To the contrary, this type of data, for the purpose of scientific validation, should be available upon request or even without request. Admittedly, my post was off-topic.

  16. Anthony, O/T, but John Slayton and I have positively identified the volunteer observer at the last unsurveyed site in Colorado (Durango). The site is at a private residence, and I was unable to contact them prior to surveying the Telluride, Hermit and Del Norte locations. On John’s last road trip, he actually stopped at a neighbor’s house in the area, but they had no current knowledge of where the site had been moved to. (A very short move, it turns out.) John has spoken directly with the observer, and she is willing to allow the site survey. BUT-John is on another road trip in Idaho surveying more sites and he lives in CA, and I am 7-8 hours away from Durango. (Durango is in the SW corner of the state, and I am just north of Denver.)

    We are hoping that another volunteer who is much closer to Durango can finish up this last Colorado location. I had noticed a commenter mentioning on WUWT that they lived in the 4 Corners area, which is much closer to the site. Perhaps they can step up. In any case, if someone is willing to do the last site survey, we will provide the necessary contact information.

    If anyone is in a position to survey this last Colorado site, please contact Anthony, and have him share my contact info. (Anthony, e-mail and/or phone info is fine.)

    Finally, a big thanks to John, and all of the other volunteers who are helping to complete the surface stations survey. Speaking for myself, the surveys I did were fascinating. Seeing the sites first hand, up close, and using the knowledge I have gained from lurking here on WUWT, I was immediately able to see significant deficiencies in 2 out of the 3 sites I surveyed. Really, it’s one thing to read or look at pictures of a deficient site, but it has a much larger impact seeing it in person. If you’ve been wanting to do a survey for the project, but haven’t been able to do so for one reason or another, better act now or your chance to participate will be gone. You’ll be glad you did.

    Cross posted to “Tips and Notes”

    Dan Murphy

  17. Excellent – as a UK citizen (but not subject) I am pleased that there’s at least one publically funded scientist prepared to release this data for independent review. But it is still a disgrace that the FOI requests were denied. It seems the BBC also has someone prepared to think independently – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8167209.stm – kudos to Steven Sackur.

  18. Skeptic Tank (10:58:52) :

    “Unfortunately, that thinking has been misdirected by people who feel they have the right, if not the obligation to the common good, to publicize secrets. Just because you don’t agree with a government policy or activity, doesn’t mean you’re allowed to unilaterally declassify sensitive national security information. ”

    I totally agree with you. But all we are talking about here are temperature records. Thermometer readings. Raw data. Made by (most probably) individuals with no agenda other than to record how cold it got or how hot it got on any given day. Raw data -that’s all we want.

    But if Steve McIntyre finds that this raw data has been in any way doctored…

  19. crosspatch (10:17:26) :

    “Well, I am certainly relieved that sanity has won out at some level of the government in the UK.”

    Don’t blink; you’ll miss it.

  20. Wow, you need to pop over to ClimateAudit.org and read Steve’s post on the matter. I cannot believe such attempts are being made to keep temperature data a secret.

    I smell lots of rats here … cannot wait until analysis of the data can be completed. This is a best selling spy novel in the making!

  21. This is starting to look like a game show contest. One where the mole, if found out gets “executed”, not the contestants.

  22. I have worked in more than 50 countries and in none of those countries where I have needed met data has it been available free of charge. Long-term data are needed for water resources studies, irrigation system design, dam design etc. Despite the fact that the purposes for which data are needed are ones which benefit the country and that the data collection has been publically funded it is normal to pay for such data.

    The CRU has been able to get a lot of this data from met services without payment on the understanding that it is not released, which if done would undermine the ability of met services to charge.

    I am therefore repeating the warning I gave on Climate Audit that putting this data in public domain might mean that useful sources of data dry up and were are left with only the data provided by Hansen and his team.

    Most of the comments I got to my similar post on Climate Audit were negative so let me make it clear I am not endorsing the current situation; we do have to recognise it exists and the dangers of bypassing it for short-term gain.

  23. Be careful of your mole. If you are careless with him you may never get another. The data will be booby trapped, don’t reveal it as supplied. Steve M was wrong to reveal even the fragment he did. You were wrong to reveal you know his identity so precisely, you should next time make the polite fiction that it is an anonymous tip through a third party. Or, hopefully, your post about knowing him and having seen a photo is a polite fiction. One certainly hopes so.

    There is a lot of money but maybe more important, a lot of pride and a lot of sincere conviction and a lot of reputations going around on this one. It can get very ugly. It is not a joke at all. You need to be very very careful with your sources.

  24. “But if Steve McIntyre finds that this raw data has been in any way doctored”

    They are chiropractors at Hadley. They don’t “doctor”, they perform “adjustments”.

  25. Thanks for this Anthony. I would still like your readers to submit FOI to CRU for release of the data. We only need 10 or so more volunteers. We have to get the data by proper processes. We have to demonstrate that climate data should be open and transparent. The same goes for Climate code. I’ll keep pushing for Open Access, Open science even if Moles provide data. If we come to rely on moles, then moles will come under pressure and institutions will put more legal roadblocks in the way.

  26. If you have his IP address because he sent you (Steve) the info from his job, that’s a really bad idea for “Deep Cool”. If his superiors find out (and they can if they want) he could be fired immediately….

  27. I am British, living inEngland and paying what I consider to be exorbitant taxes. Some of my tax money goes to to keep the Met Office alive.
    How dare they claim priviledge in the data I have helped to pay for? That data belongs to the public and in the public realm.

    Steve and Anthony, please don’t give up with your FOI requests. Each time that you make one it gets harder for the Met Office to deny it!!

  28. “Deep Cool” is a cute name, but we don’t know if the mole is in any way associated with cooling. In addition to scientific motives, there may also be political motives. The UK government has recently given plenty of reason for many people to dislike improper denial of FOI requests.

  29. Andrew P (11:16:41) :

    ‘…UK citizen (but not subject)…’

    What part of ‘HM Revenue & Customs’ do you not understand? Opting out is not on the menu I’m afraid (until you have organized a revolution I guess).

  30. OT – I find it amusing that the Google ad featured at the top of this column is for the UK Met Office.

    On a more serious note (from the point of view of a UK tax payer) why are they paying my money to Google to advertise their existence. Folks, please don’t click on the link – UK plc can’t afford it even though (apologies to Anthony, but I’ll click on more of the alternative links to compensate for loss of revenue)!

    Back on topic, does this action mean that now the “confidential” information supplied to the met office has been moved effectively into the public domain, that the owners of the source data may refuse to collborate with the Met Office in future, as implied in the response to Mr McIntyre?

    So, another positive outcome then.

  31. Skeptic Tank (10:58:52) : “Unfortunately, that thinking has been misdirected by people who feel they have the right, if not the obligation to the common good, to publicize secrets. Just because you don’t agree with a government policy or activity, doesn’t mean you’re allowed to unilaterally declassify sensitive national security information. The difference between whistle-blower and traitor had better be clear.”

    The bureaucrats are the ones with the misdirected thinking. Unfortunately, governments at all levels are using just this data to drive policy that affects us all. We have a right to know if the data is any good or not since we will be paying a heavy price for it. A little anarchy here is a good thing, IMO. If the Met Office won’t make this public, the data should be barred from use in climate models or any other scientific endeavor. It ain’t science if it can’t be verified and replicated.

  32. Well, if I had a “Hit The Mole” game on my computer, Id’ delete it, in honor of “our” 007 in Hadley. But in one way (only one) I agree with Skeptic Tank in that the sword can cut both ways and we need to be cautious in our praise of do-gooders just because he/she is on “our” side THIS time. The reason being the next time it could be someone on the other side that is DEEP inside AND doesn’t respect the safety protocols and decides to “save” the world and sets lose something that goes far beyond what they thought it would – – and results in killing us all.

    Praise not the friend that does wrong for your good, least next he doth wrong to you – for a better friend.

    you can quote me on that….

  33. “I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.” H. L. Mencken

  34. I hope the mole, whom deserves our thanks and whom I hope is reading this blog to witness our appreciation, delivered enough information to be useful. I shall be watching this space very closely.

  35. Hi-Sci-Fi (10:54:25) :
    Interesting word – “ConScience”:
    [Conscience]
    “Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin conscientia, from conscient-, consciens, present participle of conscire to be conscious, be conscious of guilt…”

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscience

    [Con]
    “Abbreviation of Latin contra (“‘against’”)…

    Actually, using the Latin, “con” is better translated as “with,” so “with knowledge.”
    Mike
    grammar n*zi being helpful

    So now that we have the data, might we run it through the GISS Model E, (for a true picture of the future) or maybe have Jeff, Jeff, and Ryan examine the data and show ‘em how it can be done right, as per Dr Steig et al.

    Sure wish I hadn’t slept through tensor calculus.

  36. Skeptic Tank (10:58:52) :

    Unfortunately, that thinking has been misdirected by people who feel they have the right, if not the obligation to the common good, to publicize secrets… The difference between whistle-blower and traitor had better be clear.

    Too often “secrets” and “national security” fall victim to personal temptation. If government uses secrecy to avoid scrutiny or gain unreported profit – it is the people they purport to serve that are damaged. In the case of “climate” that damage has an enormous, far-reaching price tag. Government, like the private sector is susceptible to building fiefdoms benefiting a chosen few. When built with public funds under the color of “government” – it is an abuse of promise. Eventually, it will be found out and corrected.

    Anthony, we should be circumspect with regard to verifying individuals by IP address. They, like any data, are easily manipulated.

  37. The United Kingdom of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and “Myanmar” (aka Hadley CRU). For a great and historic constitutional monarchy this is unseemly behavior. This has been a curious case from the beginning as those reading on CA know. “Curiouser and curiouser don’t you think?”

  38. Neil Hyde’s petition to Downing Street re UK Met Office refusal to release CRU data.
    I’ve tried 3 times to sign this petition , I fill in the boxes click ‘sign’ get the message that an e-mail has been sent and for me to confirm my signing. To date NO EMAIL to confirm. Is this site being deliberately blocked and have any others had the same problem?

  39. @John Good ,

    I would like to know that too !! One of the signatories is Peter Lilley, who I have sent links for both this thread , and the climate audit one. Hopefully he will follow up.

    I do worry about the moles IP being bandied about in emails, for his sake .

  40. crosspatch,

    I refer you to a song which was popular in my youth:-

    One, two, three, four…
    Hrmm!
    One, two, (one, two, three, four!)

    Let me tell you how it will be;
    There’s one for you, nineteen for me.
    ‘Cause I’m the taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the taxman.

    Should five per cent appear too small,
    Be thankful I don’t take it all.
    ‘Cause I’m the taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the taxman.

    if you drive a car, car – I’ll tax the street;
    if you try to sit, sit – I’ll tax your seat;
    if you get too cold, cold – I’ll tax the heat;
    if you take a walk, walk – I’ll tax your feet.

    Taxman!

    ‘Cause I’m the taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the taxman.

    Don’t ask me what I want it for, (ah-ah, mister Wilson)
    If you don’t want to pay some more. (ah-ah, mister heath)
    ‘Cause I’m the taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the taxman.

    Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
    Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
    ‘Cause I’m the taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the taxman.
    And you’re working for no one but me.
    Taxman!

    You have now MET the TAXMAN and he is green.

  41. This is why totalitarian tendencies fail in the end.
    People are people and under no circumstance you can control them against their will.
    Anyhow, not on the long run.
    We had to deal with lying left and lying right in the past and we deal with it now.
    No matter how much propoganda they make.
    We will turn every lie into a monument that marks the grave of their sick schemes.

    This is about our future, our freedom and prosperity.

    I am very grateful fot those that risk their careers and stick out their necks.
    I am also grateful for those who use their knowledge and skills and invest their time, very often without any financial compensation, to provide us with the right data that allows us to distinguish between the propaganda and the facts that make out the real world.

    Thanks very much to all of you..

  42. This reminds me of an”Equalizer” episode or something of the sort.Loved that
    well-written series . Ive held that deep within, even the most dishonest organizations
    there are good people….
    Sometimes the good guys win..

  43. For those who think that knowledge of the weather is not a big deal for National Security, I invite you to read Patton’s prayer. His was a tactical knowledge (or hope ), but knowing more about the weather and the possible future climate than your opponents is absolutely of National Security interest in more ways than you might imagine.

    “Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of Thy great goodness, to restrain these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend. Grant us fair weather for Battle. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call Thee that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies, and establish Thy justice among men and nations. Amen.” (G. Patton)

  44. Careful its not a false “made better” or “false worse” copy sent to make you look silly!
    Has happened twice recently in Australian politics!

  45. Stephen Brown (13:24:15) :I would suggest a “good taxman” will tax carbon trading, so making it only a marginal business (or should I say “swindle”?)

  46. “Curiousgeorge”

    Weather IS a big deal for National Security if it is in the context of the weather right now or the weather forecast for the immediate future. Knowing what the weather was a month ago, however, is of no tactical advantage whatsoever. You can not base an operation today on what the weather was last month.

  47. It seems the British people are very angry with their ruling elite – this leak follows several others,including the release of the CD exposing the expenses fiddles being perpetrated by Members of Parliament.

    So WUWT should keep on filing Information Requests – if they are denied, they are quite likely to get replies by the back door.

    I would support michel’s advice at 11:40: be very protective of your mole.

  48. Curious george,

    You miss the point about Patton and other national security minded individuals. Obviously it doesn’t really matter to them what the real weather conditions are, they can always pray to their particular god and victory will be theirs.

  49. @crosspatch
    “There are plans afoot to tax the very view from your window.”

    We already have that one!

    (In the eightees they also taxed dogs, they had them wear a necklace with a tax receipt, am I kidding? Nope!)

    /Rob from Sweden

  50. Dan Murphy,
    I posted in Tips and Notes that I would be willing to run down to Durango on any convenient day for the observer, if no one closer speaks up. Any excuse to put the fly rod in the car and take off for a few hours. Just tell me what to do.

  51. I hope your bragging about someone’s photo doesn’t lead to them getting fired.

    You’d better treat your helpers with caution, respect and professional judgement.

  52. Weather data may certainly be of strategic interest, not just tactical. The Russian scientific establishment does not seem to have bought in to the AGW scenario and the Russian government has made great efforts to make Western Europe heavily dependent on their natural gas supply. They seem to be anxious for us to adopt AGW mitigation efforts while setting themselves up to benefit economically and geo-politically from the consequences of failure of those efforts.

  53. I would recommend also noting that while a “mole” may be bringing out valuable information from a secretive base that is determined to hide its publicly–paid, non-classified data; that same “mole” may be a double agent bringing out only the message (“corrected”, corrupted, incomplete or invalid data) that the politicians within the enclave want released.

    Such a person may be honest and acting from morally correct motives that are intended to reveal errors – or deliberate omissions – to the public eye that were being covered up by the “politically corrupt” masters inside the fence. He (she ?) might also be bringing out a time bomb set to allow the receivers to be arrested or charged, or merely embarrassed in public by other files revealed by the inmates (er, doctors) running the government’s asylum.

  54. “In the eightees they also taxed dogs, they had them wear a necklace with a tax receipt, am I kidding? Nope!”

    We have that in the US. Every two years I must pay a “license” fee for my dog to my county and I get a tag with the license number. We call it something different (license vs. tax) but it is effectively the same thing.

  55. The obfuscation of data from which “scientific” claims and conclusions are drawn is the way science is properly done. Right? These people should be laughed out of the arena, laughed out of funding, laughed out of a job. A common shoplifter has more integrity.

  56. @Crosspatch & Dave. No, I did not miss the point. Pattons prayer was merely offered as a well known example of the interest the military has in matters of weather and the ability to forecast it. Future climate and weather is of major interest not only to the military in the tactical sense, but also to a nation in the strategic sense.

    If you think this is a joke take a look thru DARPA.gov for Climate Forecasting, and other key words. One of the items you will run across is this interesting presentation from last year. http://www.darpa.mil/Docs/Next_Generation_Computing_200807180930584.pdf

    Keep in mind that what you can access is not classified.

  57. If you think about it the weather in the UK would have been a state secret when say, Napoleon or Hitler, was contemplating an invasion so a FOI denial might have made sense in 1939

    One would thing that the global weather would not be of much use ton an invader… unless …. unless…. the invader is coming from another planet.

    Deep space meets deep cool.

  58. With freedom comes a great price. Freedom in a society allows those who do wrong the ability to move undetected. To give the government the ability to monitor us so that they can track the evildoers means we relinquish a good deal of our freedom. Where do we draw the line? I understand where Skeptic Tank is coming from, which I understand to be “loose lips sink ships”. James Bond struggled with his license to kill. The mole in this situation probably knows full well the implications of his/her actions, and realizes that it could cost him/her their job and/or future. Hopefully this is real and not some deception to discredit SM and AW, as Ian Holton has suggested. Either way this plays out, it should be VERY interesting.

  59. Good work with acquiring that data. Hopefully it proves to be valuable.

    I have a suggestion for another expose which will be preemptive related to the next area of focus by politicians (SST’s) in pressing the GW/Carbon Trading agenda as illustrated here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14504

    This may have been covered here but it should be revisited. Argo sensors are the most accurate sensors for reading SST’s globally, they replaced XBT’s. A couple of years ago they began reporting widespread cooling of SST’s which Josh Willis (NASA scientist) reported and made public. Please read this article related to the subsequent data manipulation: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/

    There was a huge furor over his findings (for obvious reasons) – as a result he went on a mission to ‘correct’ the data… after he had gone public and had plans to present his findings at a convention in days (obviously he was convinced). He ‘corrected’ his science by throwing out the ‘really’ cold sensors due to what he claimed as ‘bad data’ due to other readings in the areas (What readings? Better than Argo? Huh?) After throwing the coldest cutting-edge-of-technology Argo sensors out there was still a cooling effect. Hmmmm? It appears that the XBT sensors (pulled on a line from trade ships – not automated and dropping to depths of 2000 meters reading temps along the way, submerging and reporting back day-in-day-out like Argo) were proven to read warm in past studies – so of course he used them to ‘correct’ the data from Argo (it appears to me that he merged the two). Next time you get a Catscan and don’t like the results you may want to consider an X-ray for a second opinion.

    I’d like someone to see about accessing Argo data. I’d also like to see Willis called to task and made to answer questions related to how he justified the manipulation of Argo data via omitting sensors and using outdated technology. Did he apply this method to the years they showed warmth? What scientific basis did he have to throw out the data? Were the sensors replaced? They seem to be accurate: http://www.seabird.com/technical_references/LongtermTSstabilityAGUDec08Handout2Pages.pdf

    If something is to be done, this seems to be a good place to start – or maybe Steve M would like to look into it. Either way, SST’s are going to be the next big ‘reason’ used by politicians to further the cause – we should get a jump on them.

  60. So one English mole leaked the Expense Claims of British MPs and we found out about their moat cleaning “expenses”.

    Now another English mole has leaked what Prof Jones has been hiding for a long time.

    So what’s in Prof Jones’ moat ?

  61. @rephelen, yes he did. However, we don’t really need to pray for it anymore. Here’s an interesting item from Darpa in addition to the previous presentation I offered. http://www.darpa.mil/DARPATech2007/proceedings/dt07-sto-w-ricklin-haze.pdf . The point being that we have technology such as this to mitigate the effects of the atmosphere, and can therefore control the battlefield.

    Going beyond that, to strategic interests, knowledge of regional climates allows planners to take advantage of logistical difficulties of opponents in many areas. And also to feed into GDP estimates of other nations, political capabilities, discontent among their populations that may be to our advantage, and so on.

  62. “John Good (13:03:27) :

    Neil Hyde’s petition to Downing Street re UK Met Office refusal to release CRU data.
    I’ve tried 3 times to sign this petition , I fill in the boxes click ’sign’ get the message that an e-mail has been sent and for me to confirm my signing. To date NO EMAIL to confirm. Is this site being deliberately blocked and have any others had the same problem?”

    I have just signed with no problems.

  63. I’m happy the data is now available to people who may analyze it in an unbiased way.

    I’m unhappy that WUWT and others have given too many hints regarding the source. That source deserves the best protection. Better that nothing was said about the source — or, something so broad as to be useless in pinpointing the possible source. E.g. if something must be said, say no more than that the source was “European” — giving no hint that the person was an “insider”.

  64. “If you think about it the weather in the UK would have been a state secret when say, Napoleon or Hitler, was contemplating an invasion so a FOI denial might have made sense in 1939″

    But I would bet the met office would gladly have given the Germans last year’s data with a more recent date on it :)

  65. As to the “Canary Trap” scenario suggested by various people, here and at Climate Audit, I would suggest that, as Watts and McIntyre have identified the mole between themselves, I would think they probably have met Deep Cool somewhere in their professional lives; so they must have a measure of the reliability of Deep Cool.

  66. crosspatch (13:02:54) :

    Apparently not exorbitant enough. There are plans afoot to tax the very view from your window

    Ha! Mere pikers! The Brits have the advantage of this scheme. In the 18th century, they actually taxed THE WINDOWS themselves!

    Unintended tax-avoiding consequence: People bricked up their windows. You can still see the effects today on 18th Century buildings in the UK, with apparently “false” windows; i.e. bricked-up.

  67. MattN @11:49:40

    For Deep Cool’s organization (HCRU or MO?) to fire (gender neutral) them, or charge them, probably under the Official Secrets Act, they will bring incredible international attention to themselves and this whole debate. Booker will write a piece in the Daily Telegraph. Lords may ask questions in the house.

    No, this incident will be carefully noted and ignored by Deep Cool’s employer; they will try to bury it, not promote it.

  68. Robert Wood (15:30:23)

    Yes, the article I linked makes mention of the window tax at the end.

  69. I’m with Robert A. Cook PE’s post. If this were a counter-espionage plot, other version(s) are forthcoming — tougher to tell what’s real. This unauthorized release appears to be brave and admirable; however, it’s still possible it’s a plant. Won’t stop good analysis on that data, but the front door pursuit is still required to avoid an embarrassing conclusion(s) and announcement(s).

  70. Too bad moles are necessary. But, like, you know, war is war. And (as we have become sadly aware) climate is far too important to be left to the climatologists . . .

    Really, it’s one thing to read or look at pictures of a deficient site, but it has a much larger impact seeing it in person. If you’ve been wanting to do a survey for the project, but haven’t been able to do so for one reason or another, better act now or your chance to participate will be gone. You’ll be glad you did.

    You said it, brother. I had a blast from both sides–onsite surveys and the virtual kind (contacting the curators and locating the sites on Google and/or Bing/Live Earth). After over 200 surveys (mostly virtual), the thrill never fades. Best “treasure hunt” ever!

  71. Robert A Cook PE (14:27:44) : “; that same “mole” may be a double agent bringing out only the message (”corrected”, corrupted, incomplete or invalid data) that the politicians within the enclave want released.”

    Yes, they knew we wanted the data so they may have sent bad data, but we knew that they knew and that the data may have been tainted, but they knew that we knew that they knew so they sent good data, but we knew that they knew that we knew that they knew……..

  72. Ron (11:40:06) :

    I have worked in more than 50 countries and in none of those countries where I have needed met data has it been available free of charge. Long-term data are needed for water resources studies, irrigation system design, dam design etc. Despite the fact that the purposes for which data are needed are ones which benefit the country and that the data collection has been publically funded it is normal to pay for such data.

    The CRU has been able to get a lot of this data from met services without payment on the understanding that it is not released, which if done would undermine the ability of met services to charge.

    I understand this, but what’s the alternative?

    We have a very influential data product used as an input to climate models and it cannot be checked for data quality or statistical or mathematical integrity. We have no way of knowing if weights or adjustments are applied and how they affect the result.

    The UK Government should have instigated a proper review of this data product – instead they have allowed civil servants to block any academic request for any number of spurious reasons.

    None of this does any good.

    If the data is proprietary then it should be released for a fee or not used to make a data product which has public policy impact, and this product clearly has substantial policy impact.

    In the first instance, Jones should release which temperature series he is using. He may have confidentiality agreements to the data, but to the provenance of the data?

  73. Hopefully, Steve and Anthony will be able to untangle the data and see what processing was done to the data and what other errors exist.

    Someone above mentioned the differing trend between the satellite measurements and Hadcrut3 (GISS and NCDC), [it is not that much although the most recent month or two differential is troubling] but the real issue is how much they have adjusted the historical temperature series prior to 1979 when the satellites came on stream. [Actually, UAH didn’t start producing the data until 1989 so that is the date when the satellite measurements became available to keep Hadcrut and GISS honest.)

    If the data is complete enough and can be analyzed properly, I think we will find that something on the order of 0.3C of the trend since 1880 is based on unjustified adjustments and/or bad station cherrypicking by Mr. Jones.

  74. mccall @15:59:06
    … it’s still possible it’s a plant.

    Yes. But this will become apparent in McIntyre’s analyses; which, sometimes, I feel like it’s pulling teeth. But, his statistical sense, and professional role, is to detect fraud – er – exageration.

  75. Gene Nemetz (15:08:06) David Appell tried to pull a fast one over on Anthony on this site about a month ago. He buried a comment directed at Anthony in a thread that was long past current on this site. I caught it and informed Anthony. Mr. Appell turned tail and ran like a scared little girl when confronted. This revealed the true nature of his (Appell’s) character and lack of knowledge on anything “climate”. The fact that he (Appell) was published in Scientific American reveals that the name of that publication is an oxymoron (heavy on the moron). I have seen this done to my father many times. Dirty, unsavory tactics. Speaks volumes about the people involved and the absence of science or ethics.

  76. Tom in Florida @16:01:11

    I like your humour, but it isn’t real. As I posted in a previous post (sorry for the redundant English) the HCRU or Met Office, will want to bury this story, not promote it.

  77. AGW must be like a religion. The old Catholic order wouldn’t let their congregations read the Bible lest they misinterpreted the Word.

    On the mole, let’s hope s/he is AOK but I would advise caution and I agree with Ian Holton. The opposition leader in Australia was set up with a false email. You would need to be careful that the data has not been ‘managed’ before being fed to the mole in order that Steve may reach a damning conclusion that he might throw his hat on – and then be discredited!

    Be very careful – these sort would love to have Steve et al out of their hair.

  78. Steve McIntyre MUST obtain an official data from CRU. If not, any resulting analysis will be subject to easy criticism from naysayers, who will claim that he got unreliable data “out of the back of a van”. That’s how the politics play out in science.

    REPLY: One need not worry about this, the source is indeed official. – Anthony

  79. Molegate!

    This just might have the sort of thing the msm can’t resist! Either way this goes (Canary or squab) this will indeed be interesting.

  80. David Ball, you should explain your comment better. Why is ‘directing a comment at Anthony’ a “fast one”, and how does it reveal a lack of knowedge about climate?

  81. Allen63 (15:11:31) :

    I’m happy the data is now available to people who may analyze it in an unbiased way.

    I’m unhappy that WUWT and others have given too many hints regarding the source. That source deserves the best protection. Better that nothing was said about the source — or, something so broad as to be useless in pinpointing the possible source. E.g. if something must be said, say no more than that the source was “European” — giving no hint that the person was an “insider”.

    I agree, Anthony’s attitude to those who wish to remain annonymous has been repeatedly revealed as suspect – vide recent comments on Flanagan – who for aught I know may be the most annoying person in the universe – but he surely doesn’t deserve a ‘gay’ outing excercise. Coy remarks about the veracity of this source are part of the same deal – cavalier with other peoples privacy, not very nice, and pretty arrogant in my view. Curious that I logged in tonight thinking about commenting that AW was not about to encourage any moles with his attitude to annonimity. Fools rush in I guess…. and bigger fools get them locked up….

    REPLY: Be it known that I am quite sure that the source does not care one way or the other. – Anthony

  82. I would bet $ 100 that the “value added data” has a higher warming trend than the original data set.

  83. “Skeptic Tank (10:58:52) :The difference between whistle-blower and traitor had better be clear.”

    Traitor??? Haha thanks for the good laugh on that point! I mean we are not talking Benedict Arnold or Jane Fonda here….

    It’s just weather data for christs sakes. Gimme a break LOL

    CHRIS
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  84. Curious that I logged in tonight thinking about commenting that AW was not about to encourage any moles with his attitude to annonimity.

    jh: We’re ‘way past the point where “gentlemen do not read each other’s mail”. I regret it. I’m sure Anthony does, too. It should not have come to this. But there it is, then.

    St. Mac is not at risk. If the data turns out to be a plant (which I thoroughly doubt), he just says so and moves on. And how would HadCRU be able to claim it is a plant without ponying up the straight dope? No, I think this is the real gold dust, here.

    Besides, what pools are there to muddy? What wells to poison? After all, it’s not an ongoing intelligence operation.

  85. Ron @11:40:06

    I hear your argument but reject it. As a snide aside, I suspect that those organizations that demand cash for the data are, in fact, the providers of the lowest quality data.

    Now, to the facts. Claims are beibng made about the change in global temperature. Shouldn’t we all see the evidence for these claims?

    If we are not allowed to see the evidence (data) then we are rightly suspicious.

  86. Anthony, in a tactical sense was it wise to “megaphone” the events?
    Would it be worth keeping it for analysis quietly.
    Finder keeper and the keeper is the “know-er”
    but they don’t know what you do know…
    Sorry for the cryptic langwitch.

  87. @MySearch4Truth (15:04:16) :

    I don’t understand how discovering that XBTs read “too warm” leads to a “correction” that *increases* ARGO temperatures.

  88. From those two most recent comments by
    Anthony, I am getting the impression
    that we are being gulled. I suspect that
    Steve and/or Anthony found a public and published
    copy from some existing website (somewhere
    on the Met site maybe?).

  89. Maggy,

    Great, thanks!

    Go to the surfacestations.org gallery (link in the right hand column on this page) and enter “Hermit” into the search field. Look at the survey report for the Hermit site for my contact information. If you would, please try for me any time during the day tomorrow. Like you said, any excuse to go fishing!

    Dan

  90. Sadly, enough info has been released on this site – that the friendly source inside Hadley CRU is now likely under investigation for violating the offical secrets act – or whatever it’s now called.

    Given the current mindest inside goverment circles, I wouldn’t be surprised if charges of treason and terrorsim were leveled against the brave soul.

    On the bright side, a trial – even under english law – might be a golden opportunity to get the the truth.

  91. If the data were for sale and St. Mac was getting out of paying for it, that would be one thing. But the data is being refused.

    This is not like releasing sensitive commercial data under confidentiality agreement for purposes of private commercial enterprise. This is vital data, released in adjusted form, being used to determine extraordinarily costly public policy.

  92. I was also somewhat surprised by Anthony’s and Steve’s seemingly cavalier attitude regarding the source’s identity. It seemed they might be endangering the individual by telling us so much about him/her.

    I’m now sensing that the source is not someone who might be jeopardized if his/her identity was discovered. That possibly the individual investigated the refusals to provide the data and decided there would be no harm if the data were made available. And that he had the authority to make the decision to release the data.

    Just a guess.

  93. INGSOC (17:20:25) :

    Molegate!

    Coldgate.
    Chillgate.
    Snowgate.
    Icegate.
    Warmgate.
    Weathergate.
    Climategate.

  94. I have full confidence that Anthony and Steve know what they are doing, and we shouldn’t be concerning ourselves with the issue of the mole and his vulnerability. They know the facts, and will act responsibly.

  95. The other side, those that want to obfuscate, lie and
    distort will have some other idea.

    Not quite poetry…

    Don’t try and fool
    tis not “Deep Cool”
    The mole
    is “Deep Coal”

    Some time this week Prince Charles will be making
    public comments about how the coal business is
    trying to distort the global warming data in the UK.
    How about a 100 hour countdown?

  96. ________________________
    Molon Labe (18:34:06) :

    @MySearch4Truth (15:04:16) :

    I don’t understand how discovering that XBTs read “too warm” leads to a “correction” that *increases* ARGO temperatures.
    ________________________

    Molon,

    Here is an excerpt from an article posted on the NASA website:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php

    “Basically, I used the sea level data as a bridge to the in situ [ocean-based] data,” explains Willis, comparing them to one another figuring out where they didn’t agree. “First, I identified some new Argo floats that were giving bad data; they were too cool compared to other sources of data during the time period. It wasn’t a large number of floats, but the data were bad enough, so that when I tossed them, most of the cooling went away. But there was still a little bit, so I kept digging and digging.”

    The digging led him to the data from the expendable temperature sensors, the XBTs. A month before, Willis had seen a paper by Viktor Gouretski and Peter Koltermann that showed a comparison of XBT data collected over the past few decades to temperatures obtained in the same ocean areas by more accurate techniques, such as bottled water samples collected during research cruises. Compared to more accurate observations, the XBTs were too warm. The problem was more pronounced at some points in time than others.

    The Gouretski paper hadn’t rung any alarm bells right away, explains Willis, “because I knew from the earlier analysis that there was a big cooling signal in Argo all by itself. It was there even if I didn’t use the XBT data. That’s part of the reason that we thought it was real in the first place,” explains Willis.

    But when he factored the too-warm XBT measurements into his ocean warming time series, the last of the ocean cooling went away.”
    _______________________________

    Maybe I misstated my concern but there is no doubt in my mind that this needs to be scrutinized and investigated further. Argo sensor data was discarded and it appears that XBT data was merged with the model in order to tone down the rather profound ‘cooling’ Argo reported back. Willis had written a paper ( http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Papers/heat_2006.pdf ) and was planning to speak at a conference on his results before the likes of Rush and other ‘scary’ realist/denialist/skeptic types blew the lid off the story and alerted the powers that be of the implications. There was quite simply a cover-up and it wasn’t a very good one.

    There is more to be learned and I may be mistaken but judging by our success with surface temperature (based on some politicians now openly deeming surface temperatures irrelevant in favor of the ‘longer-term’ implications for rising SST’s) I just think things like this should be put on the front-burner.

    We need to get to the bottom of what Willis did to ‘correct’ the paper he published… and resulted in his scrambling to modify his public presentation a few days later.

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/argo/argoGE.htm

    ecco.jpl.nasa.gov/~jwillis/willis_sea_level.ppt

    I think this demands a great deal of attention. This should be easy to expose compared to the last few scandals – NASA no less… go figure.

  97. I have to agree with those who think too much has been said about the mole.

    The important facts are that a mole has delivered a version of the CRU database to Mr. McIntyre and he and Anthony have determined that the data is probably the real deal.

    Now in the coming months we will see what Mr. Jones does to make his numbers confess as the audit reveals the truth. I suspect it will be the usual sloppy work we have come to expect of climate science, but maybe Mr. Jones will surprise us all.

  98. Allen68, I raised the same concern on Climate Audit. Far too much info has been given for my comfort. Expert technical advice should be sought on securing the trail as far as possible now.

  99. Anthony, I don’t know if the mole cares one way or the other, but it is wise to assume that as they are doing their business in secret they don’t want to get caught. In these circumstances the less said about the mole the better.

  100. kasphar (17:03:50) :

    “AGW must be like a religion. The old Catholic order wouldn’t let their congregations read the Bible lest they misinterpreted the Word.”

    This is just not true, books were incredibly expensive in those days, as they all had to be handwritten, and they were only chained up to prevent theft, which was common with books in those days.

  101. We still need a few ( around 5) volunteers over at CA to send FOI to
    CRU. Please take the time to do an FOI request.

  102. Robert Wood (15:30:23)

    Window tax – bricked up windows

    Than the bricks were taxed which led to bigger bricks. Another adjustment to the data.

  103. Sounds like the story of the soviet nail factory. They had a quota for a minimum number of nails. So they sent in a zillion tiny half-inch slivers.

    As a result, the order came down that instead of a minimum number, a minimum weight of nails would be required. The next shipment consisted of foot-long iron spikes.

    “AGW must be like a religion. The old Catholic order wouldn’t let their congregations read the Bible lest they misinterpreted the Word.”

    This is just not true, books were incredibly expensive in those days, as they all had to be handwritten, and they were only chained up to prevent theft, which was common with books in those days.

    Come to think of it, I could see some problems with letting the hoi polloi (those that could read) getting ahold of Leviticus.

    “Thou shalt not suffer a sensor within 80 cubits of a heat source to live.”

  104. I think GerryM is right; why are you publicising all this? Even the most stupid journalist knows you do not go around talking about your sources!

  105. evanmjones (23:04:36) :

    “Thou shalt not suffer a sensor within 80 cubits of a heat source to live.”

    In the words of Bill Cosby, “Riiight. What’s a cubit?”

  106. The Met Climate Data Affair has all the trappings of a great spy movie, with The Mole being played by Sean Connery, the first and greatest 007 actor.

    http://www.seanconnery.com/

    I could see The Mole skimming across the English Channel in a speedboat, then driving an exotic sports car, only to leap atop a speeding train to deliver the climate data, which if you believe half of the posters on Climate Audit, constitutes top-secret information that could jeopardize national security.

    Or, a la ClimateGate, The Mole’s face is obscured by shadow as he E-mails the data to his climate connection, defiantly hitting ‘send’ with infinite satisfaction.

    The plot thickens with the evil but bumbling James Hansen, who could be played by Joe Pesci of ‘Home Alone’ fame.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Pesci

    This could be the beginning of the end for the AGW scam, with increased scrutiny of GISS data. Billions are at stake, and reputations will hang in the balance. Beware of planted data and the possibility that The Mole is a double-agent. :)

  107. @David.
    Bibles were chained up to prevent the ungodly nicking them, true, but the Church forbade the translation into the vernacular so that hoi polloi couldn’t “mistranslate” it and get wrong ideas. Hence burning John Wycliffe at the stake and all the other caring attentions on behalf of a loving God. Thinking about it, although the Koran can be freely translated, only the original classical arabic version is authoritative.

  108. David and evanmjones:

    The Church definitely did not want the common people reading the Bible and to that end opposed translations of it into the vernacular. William Tyndale translated the Bible into English, printed it in the Low Countries and smuggled copies into England. He was excommunicated, caught, convicted of heresy and burnt at the stake in 1536.

  109. Maybe we should start a global inventory of Jones’ station sitings, just in case Anthony doesn’t have enough to do already. A quick look at the Finnish stations on the Mole’s list tells us that at least 6 of the 14 are at airports.

    Some pictures can be found at: http://www.fmi.fi/saa/havainto_93.html

    28360 674 -267 179 Sodankylae FINLAND Rural
    28750 650 -255 13 Oulu FINLAND Rural-industrial?
    28960 660 -292 263 Kuusamo FINLAND Airport
    28970 643 -277 132 Kajaani FINLAND Airport
    29110 631 -218 4 VAASA AIRPORT FINLAND Airport
    29170 629 -277 119 Kuopio FINLAND Rural?
    29290 627 -296 117 JOENSUU————- FINLAND—?
    29350 622 -257 137 Jyvaeskylae FINLAND Airport
    29430 615 -238 85 Tampere FINLAND Airport
    29580 611 -282 105 Lappeenranta FINLAND Airport?
    29630 608 -235 104 JOKIOINEN OBSERVATOR FINLAND Rural
    29720 605 -223 51 Turku FINLAND Airport?
    29740 603 -250 53 HELSINKI-VANTAA AIRP FINLAND Airport
    29780 602 -250 4 Helsinki/Kaisaniemi FINLAND Urban park

    The coordinates do not quite match, so the ones with ? are my guesses. Helsinki-Vantaa is the only really international airport here, but the others do have tarmac, too.

  110. I can’t help but notice the stark contrasts displayed in this post.

    On one hand, we have wonderful surfacestations.org volunteers such as Dan Murphy (see Dan Murphy (11:15:55) :), who is giving of his time and talents (and is probably absorbing some costs personally), all in an effort to better understand the siting issues associated with the current USHCN – a job, I might add, that is supposed to be done by our lazy government employees at NOAA, but isn’t.

    On the other, we have Dr. Phil Jones, a career climate “scientist”, who is paid a nice six figure salary + benefits by his government, attempting to limit access to climate data for no good reason except his own arrogance and pride…

  111. I think of it all more as –

    “”Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the meme maths outgave.”

    C.L. Dodgson, 1872, an Englishman.

  112. Geoff Sherrington (05:18:10) :

    One of my favourite poems – Jaberwocky. Sheer genius. It is mentioned in the film “Pimpernel Smith”.

    Of course C.L. Dodgson is better known as Lewis Carroll and his best known work is “Alice in Wonderland”. He was also a mathematician!

  113. I’m a bit late to this post, but as a professional scientist I find this entire scenario to be bizarre beyond all limits. It’s just temperature data! As a previous poster noted, this isn’t the test data on the new fighter. My guess is that farmers around the world have the same temperature data noted on their calendars which they have stored in their basement, and it probably is of just as good quality.

    If anything, this James Bond plot line just proves that the AGW people are not at all concerned with science. It’s all about money and power; that’s the ONLY reason to keep such mundane data secret. The tactic here at WUTW seems to be to fight this fight on the scientific, rational level. I generally agree with that, but this incident shows that larger forces are at work here than just a scientific debate. And yes, Steve should never have revealed anything about the mole; it really puts this person in jeopardy.

  114. Is this not a huge indicator that in actual fact Global Warming is a big farce and the data proves it so they hide the data to ensure whatever global warming scams they are involved in are kept going , Wheres theres money like that always expect lies and every trick in the book plus some to prevent access to that data that proves them WRONG in a HUGE fashon

  115. What’s a cubit?

    The length of a forearm. (A bit over a foot.)

    We’ve got Cardinal Fang on the lookout for the CRN3-5 heresy.

  116. Alan (19:16:11) wrote :

    “Sadly, enough info has been released on this site – that the friendly source inside Hadley CRU is now likely under investigation for violating the offical secrets act – or whatever it’s now called.

    Given the current mindest inside goverment circles, I wouldn’t be surprised if charges of treason and terrorsim were leveled against the brave soul.

    On the bright side, a trial – even under english law – might be a golden opportunity to get the the truth.”

    The mole may be subject to internal dicipline if they dare, but it will never come to court. Do not forget that the Sepaker tried to have the revelation by The Telegraph of MP’s expenses subject to court proceedings, but the prosecution concluded it was not in the public interest. There is no chance that the mole would ever face court proceedings over this. There is no perceived danger to national interest here.

  117. Frank K said:


    On the other, we have Dr. Phil Jones, a career climate “scientist”, who is paid a nice six figure salary + benefits by his government, attempting to limit access to climate data for no good reason except his own arrogance and pride…

    I think there is a more mundane reason than that. That six figure salary and the multiplier he is able to achieve because of his position.

    Follow the money.

  118. For those posters commenting on the National Security, tactical, and strategic intelligence aspects of weather:

    I spent about 9 years of my life as a weatherman flying Strategic and Tactical Reconnaissance.

    Then as now, the exchange around the world, of almost all weather reports, in “near” time, on WMO circuits was practiced. Most of the world’s current weather reports can be found on the internet these days.

    Strategic and Tactical Recon have been largely overwhelmed these days by satellite data.

    I find it difficult to believe that any of the data requested by Steve McIntyre, especially data that had been previously released to Ga. Tech, could possibly be classified. Further, bear in mind that it is quite unlikely that the source of any clandestine data would be a part of the data itself.

    If that “unclassified” assumption is wrong, then why wouldn’t the agency in possession of the data just say that it is not available because of its security classification except for those with the proper security clearance and on a strict need-to-know basis?

    All this “spooky” stuff about weather data fails the smell test.

  119. Oh, this is just to precious.

    Meanwhile those afraid of criticism get videos withdrawn because of “copyright”. Of all the lame arsed excuses.

    [REPLY - Not at all comparable. All surfacestation data is online and available to the public for legitimate independent review. Go. See. When analysis of data is released, all data and methods will be available as well. Note also that on RC or equivalent, critical comments of like nature rarely, if ever, se the light of day. ~ Evan]

  120. Rod Smith (09:22:06) :
    Not classified but commercial data:

    From Climate audit:

    http://eca.knmi.nl/documents/ECAD_report_2008.pdf


    Climate variables
    At present the data set includes series of nine climate variables: daily …
    About 52% of the series is publicly available from the ECA&D website. The other 48% comes with restrictions: these series are for ECA&D indices calculations and gridding purposes only.

    Data flow
    Participant data comes in various file formats. Importing this data into the database tables is done by running relevant scripts for the conversions. The conversions differ for each data source. Dependent on the permissions granted by the data providers, data series can either be: public, or for indices plus gridding only.
    Public data are published on the web in addition to the indices results.

    So it seems that half the european data was not available becuse of restrictions by the supplier.

  121. I have had some communication off line indicating that this issue will be raised in the UK Parliament when it returns, if there has been no resolution.

  122. With people in high places making serious proposals to do planetary scale geo engineering to “mitigate global warming,” any true environmentalist would have to question AGW Hysteria and where it is apparently leading. AGW Hysteria may be more of a threat, per se, to the environment than the worst industrial excesses of the 20th century, Within orgs that are generally biased in favor of “the environment” / deep ecology, it stands to figure that there must be individuals who see the ironic threat of AGW Hysteria and are now starting to spring into action.

  123. Although some might not be noticing, I have noticed several sites around the internet with mysterious blocks saying that they are unsafe. Especially ones that market organic foods as well as sites like yours that oppose much of the propoganda. I am curious if this is becoming more than a trend and is a concerted attack. Has anyone else had difficulties with sites?

  124. Tom in Florida (16:01:11) :

    …but they knew that we knew that they knew so they sent good data, but we knew that they knew that we knew that they knew…

    Which brings this series to mind…

  125. This may be slightly OT, but has anyone checked out the freeze-frost records for the US and other countries? It seems to me that if we really are seeing significant warming it would be reflected in the records for first and last freezes and frosts. Those records are probably less likely to be politicized because (a) farmers and thus food supply depend on them, and (b) Incorrect info/manipulation is more easily detected. It either frosts/freezes or it doesn’t and if recording stations are routinely reporting frosts/freezes where the surrounding area isn’t getting them or the other way around, then farmers are more likely to notice/react.

    I don’t know what the current state of freeze-frost records are, but a quick web search turned up this data set from the late 1980’s. There is also a bibliography that looks interesting.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/freezefrost/freezefrost.pdf

  126. “What is the temperature today?

    Sorry, thats forbidden knowledge.

    OK. What is the weather forecast tomorrow?

    Sorry, we’re not authorised to say. It puts us at risk of breach of contract.”

    Ok, this is a logical scenario if the logic the met office uses was applied to what they make available.. Yet clearly they don’t. yet they’re willing to tell us their erroneous or otherwise projected ever increasing temperatures for the next 100 years everywhere in the world.

  127. REPLY: One need not worry about this, the source is indeed official. – Anthony

    Then this really isn’t too good to be true?

  128. Barry R. (14:30:09) – Look further. U.S. growing regions were recently moved north. Just in time for farmers to complain how late the growing season has started.

  129. Gene Nemetz (17:23:08) Done. Now let us see if they have the cobbles to post it. I will be very surprised if they do.

  130. What’s missing here are some additional context facts; recognizing that the data are not UK data per se. Data from many countries has been collected and collated at the CRU (Univ. of East Anglia) and which feeds into some of the UK Met Office work. Some of this data were collected under the arrangement that the source data were not to be made public because of commercial or other interests. Outside of the USA this is quite common — that national meteorological services (tasked with maintaining a national observing system and archive) treat their data as a commercial product — and so they will not release it to just anyone. The fact that I and others think this is wrong and inhibits science is not the issue, the reality is that many countries are not willing to freely release their data. So the CRU and Met Office are between the rock and a hard place; publicize the data and risk ruining their relationships with the data sources, or hold onto the data so that they can keep the data stream flowing and be able to produce the valuable derivative products.

  131. LOL, I’ll be interested to see how this plays out. My predictions…you’re going to get your hands on some bit of obsolete data and then make egregious claims not founded by your newly acquired “hot” dataset.

    But your whole “mole” at Hadley is a great news story to make it sound like scientists are dissenting from the status quo. Cling to whatever tendrils of evidence you can to support your preconceived thesis.

  132. Sorry, shoreliner11, it is you who have to produce evidence to support your failing theory. Competent people understand that the true driver(s) of climate are not fully understood. Anyone who tells you different is lying. AGW is failing on all fronts and you don’t have the guts to face up to that.

  133. Hummmm it seems we have found one of the benefactors of global warming here that true
    shoreliner11 Ehh! .

    It’s a pity this global warming is going to turn round and issue a few wet kipper slaps before too long now as the facts come out that AGW should in fact be AGC cooling not warming .

    And any how there is one thing that everyone but a few seems to sweep under the carpet the fact that this is a perfectly natural thing that happens every 10,000 or so years , Stop trying to extract profit from an natural occurance ( we have enough of that with people charging for natural gas )

Comments are closed.