In case you are just joining us, here is some background on the story below. I know the identity of the mole. The ball is now in CRU’s court. Steve McIntyre reports below and throws down the gauntlet.
More news on the Met Office/CRU molehunt.
Late yesterday (Eastern time), I learned that the Met Office/CRU had identified the mole. They are now aware that there has in fact been a breach of security. They have confirmed that I am in fact in possession of CRU temperature data, data so sensitive that, according to the UK Met Office, my being in possession of this data would, “damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector”, interfere with the “effective conduct of international relations”, “hamper the ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations” and “seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions.”
Although they have confirmed the breach of security, neither the Met Office nor CRU have issued a statement warning the public of the newCRU_tar leak. Nor, it seems, have they notified the various parties to the alleged confidentiality agreements that there has been a breach in those confidentiality agreements, so that the opposite parties can take appropriate counter-measures to cope with the breach of security by UK institutions. Thus far, the only actions by either the Met Office or CRU appear to have been a concerted and prompt effort to cover up the breach of security by attempting to eradicate all traces of the mole’s activities. My guess is that they will not make the slightest effort to discipline the mole.
Nor have either the Met Office or CRU contacted me asking me not to further disseminate the sensitive data nor to destroy the data that I have in my possession.
By not doing so, they are surely opening themselves up to further charges of negligence for the following reasons. Their stated position is that, as a “non-academic”, my possession of the data would be wrongful (a position with which I do not agree, by the way). Now that they are aware that I am in possession of the data (and they are aware, don’t kid yourselves), any prudent lawyer would advise them to immediately to notify me that I am not entitled to be in possession of the data and to ask/instruct me to destroy the data that I have in my possession and not to further disseminate the sensitive data. You send out that sort of letter even if you think that the letter is going to fall on deaf ears.
Since I am always eager to help climate scientists with these conundrums, I’ll help them out a little here. If, prior to midnight Eastern time on Thursday, a senior executive of the Met Office or the University of East Anglia notifies me that I am in wrongful possession of the data and directly requests me to destroy my copies of the CRU station data in question and thereby do my part in the avoidance of newCRU_tar proliferation, I will do so.
I will, of course, continue my FOI requests since I do not believe, for a minute, that their excuses have any validity nor am I convinced that the alleged confidentiality agreements actually exist nor, if they exist, am I convinced that they prohibit the provision of the data to me.
A picture of the mole can be found here: http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:LxZ3JvggKS-IPM::www.ratemyeverything.net/image/5298/0/Rate_My_Mole.ashx
So does this data endanger the “Alan Parsons Project” ?
We’re secrecy-mad here in the UK. It used to be the case (don’t know if it still is) that the day’s food menu at the Houses of Parliament was a secret. I’m not joking. You struggle to find out anything here as we have a ‘Data Protection Act’. It’s really funny when it comes up against the Freedom of Information!
As for the Met Office, I’m still trying to get them to answer why they still say that “Temperatures are continuing to rise”. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/fact2.html When their own data says they’re not http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt That first link includes, “A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade.” I’ve emailed them a number of times to tell them that that IS NOT the latest decade – and that if they include 2008, it actually shows a fall. But they refuse to reply to my emails now. We also have a problem with the Central England Temperature (CET) – which shows a biased and misleading anomaly. According to them, 2009 is showing as a plus anomaly. But if you average the last 10 years of temperature (which I have done) you get a figure that is almost 2.5 degrees C down!
If the above story had been posted on any other web site I would have suspected tom-foolery, a hoax, a story lifted from the old TV show “Get Smart”.
If I were you I’d say that I would destroy the data and then if they formally request you to do so, I’d ignore them. Wait a second, you might have that in mind and
if so I shouild not have mentioned that. (Backspace Snip, backspace, Snip,,,,,,,,)
according to the UK Met Office, my being in possession of this data would, “damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector”
1.) Too funny.
2.) D’ya think?
The mole is actually a friend of the coal industry, see the documentary movie produced in my homeland, The Mole and the Coal:
I am afraid that the mole, despite his old friendship with kids of three generations, is gonna become politically incorrect.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/mole-and-coal-becomes-politically.html
evanmjones
Waaay too funny.
What I find funniest is the fact that the majority of the climate-change $cientists are completely dependent upon public money – so, in effect, they are all employed by the public sector and must have no trust in themselves.
So what they are saying is that privately generated data used in publicly funded research cannot be divulged? This reminds me of the past when secret use of toxic chemicals were used on unsuspecting victims to determine deleterious affects. We CANNOT allow this kind of research to ever happen again. All data, all methods, and all proposed and current applications MUST be made free to the public, be it privately or publicly generated for public application, or else the public is at risk of being duped as it has in the past, and to GREAT harm!
There is such a thing as informed consent. Before I paid a carbon tax on something someone said was harmful to me, I would insist on informed consent. That means show me the raw data, the methods used, and its applications. For free. Can you imagine taking a drug that has had such a secret past?
I now have an image in my head of Steve M dressed a la Clint Eastwood, the man with no name, complete with poncho and hat. He is calmly chewing his cheroot as he stands outside the Met office waiting for the cowardly bad guys to show. Meanwhile, Anthony Watts (looking remarkably like Lee Van Cleef) is outside the saloon holding the horses.
I wonder what’s going to happen next.
re.: Boudu “…I wonder what’s going to happen next.”
We’ll enjoy the movie. Title “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”
Data is just data.
What makes temperature information ‘sensitive’ ?
How can it’s mere availability have the consequences they describe ?
Only if it has been incorrectly manipulated could it have any damaging effects.
As a lawyer, if asked, I would advise them that when in a hole it is best to stop digging.
Barry Foster – the CRU data has 2 lines of data for each year – the first appears to be an anomaly, the second is?
You’ve got to be kidding.
Put the data up on the Internet!
Now!!!
MattN – Don’t steal the picture. Give people an opportunity to Rate My Mole: http://www.ratemyeverything.net/post/5298/Rate_My_Mole.aspx
I think you done it, Anthony. No ‘soap opera’ could match the intrigue on this one. Your hits are likely to go through the ceiling. Better bring another server online for load balancing. lol
I also hope that Steve is going to get a good look at that dataset before he considers destroying it and at least lets us know in some manner just how bad it is (if it is) even if not in some formal analysis.
You never know how these things can blowup in the MET’s face if they handle this wrongly and the press sees a story.
according to the UK Met Office, my being in possession of this data would, “damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector”
As if any scientist takes seriously anything the MET puts out.
“I wonder what’s going to happen next.” . . . I suggest we use this as fodder for a remake of the classic British Sit Com “Yes Minister”
Working title “Mr. Minister, We Have Been Exposed”
Lots of storyline possibilities.
Episode One, “The Obfuscation Ball” . . . where the Minister’s Staff create ever more whacky ways to refuse to release “secret” data that they have. Rambling memos, incomprehensible rules based on circular logic and magical incantations and spells . . what will they think of next to cover their backsides
Episode Two, “The Great Mole Hunt” . . . . where the British MET hires two those famous WARMongers, Al Gore and Prof. Phil Jones, to find who’s is leaking the badly tortured weather “data” to unwashed “Non-Academics” – and a colonial lower class non-academic to boot. When will those beastly colonials learn their plavce. We only want them around when the Germans get uppity and let their armies march West (we can’t count on the French anymore to stop them)
Anybody want to do Episode 3 ??
They caught the culprit. Quick, Mr. President, call back the bombers!
Somehow a feeling creeps up. What if Steve McIntyre is not the only one who has recieved this data?
The data could become useless for anyone outside, you can’t use it after the Met Office demands it to be destroyed and Steve would look bad because it could suggest that he might have send around copies of that data whereas in fact it is someone else spreading that data.
What if the Met Office did leak those data-sets on purpose? All in all they don’t have to disclose who this mole is and no one will then step forward claiming that he was/is the mole. At that point the Met office can simply claim that measures are being taken and that the mole is being handled out of court and out of sight, or better say nothing at all about this so called mole.
In the meanwhile the Data is quite useless and tainted, its there but it can’t be used. Storming the frontdoor this data becomes much harder since already is shown that you are a party wich in the eyes of the Met office is suspect at the very least.
Now if they where te talk of the town they could not get away with it, but they aren’t.
Boudu, my image of Steve and Anthony is more like Woodward & Bernstein, who broke the Watergate story, as portrayed by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman in the film, “All the President’s Men.”
So who’s playing Nixon this time?
They haven’t done all the things that are nomally associated with state secrets because the weather is not a state secret. It’s public phenomena.
Hundreds of millions of ordinary people have thermometers, barmometers, anemometers and rain gauges.
All they are using the weather for is cover for a FUD campaign.
Smoke screen.
Why bicker over what color the smoke is when the intent is to obscure thier real objectives?
If you admit that the real data got out, then you admit that what you have been telling people is not the truth.
This goes the same way IPCC hides it’s models, in obfuscation.
Can the Met Office now trust the data it gets from its suppliers, or will the suppliers be altering the data so it is of less value than the data which they sell? Or have suppliers already been damaging their submitted data? We can’t check that without the Met’s data.
Today’s yup environmentalists were the same idiots who thought the world was flat until the late 1400’s. Face it people,
you can speculate until doomsday; but no matter how you look at it Mother Nature, and the atmosphere are always going to be beyond your comprehension. You can follow Al Gore right to the center of hypocrisy and you’ll still be guessing wrong. Live with it…
Barry Foster (10:01:33) :
“As for the Met Office, I’m still trying to get them to answer why they still say that “Temperatures are continuing to rise”. ”
This graph — Hadley Annual Mean Central England Temperatures.
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCET_an.html
is derived from this data
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
When I first came accross the data I remember the maximum temperature of any year being 10 degrees centigrade. Perhaps they are manufacturing a hockey stick.
Not sure why Steve “accepted” the data in the first place. He knows that this is not public data, and having some “mole” steal the data and give it to him is illegal. What are you trying to accomplish by this anyhow? Do you think you are going to expose some vast scientific conspiracy with your limited ability to analyze this data?
Has the mole been fired?
I would say now is a great time to invest in popcorn futures.
Should not it be better, and easier, transparency?..in the land of Sherlock Holmes and haunted houses…:-)
Metaphorically speaking they know one day you will blow them and their phony stats out of the water Mr. McIntyre, so keep your aim steady, a cool head, (debunk torpedo’s loaded) and prepare to fire!!!
On a more serious note, I know you are altruistic and a dedicated man in pursuit of the truth, not given to cut and thrust of environmental (de)- activism do not be deflected, I for one (and many others I trust) am reliant upon your cogent, logical, forensic analyses.
At the end of the day what can they do??????
The met office today issued its forecast for what I thought was going to be the final one for the British summer. The story so far.
Summer forecast 2009
Tue 31 Mar 2009
Temperature
For the UK and much of Western Europe temperatures are likely to be near average
Rainfall
At this stage forecast signals are too weak to provide an outlook for summer rainfall.
Thursday 30 Mar 2009
Temperature
For the UK and much of Europe temperatures are likely to be above average.
Rainfall
For the UK and much of northern Europe rainfall is likely to be near or below average. A repeat of the wet summers of 2007 and 2008 is unlikely.
Average or below-average rainfall is also likely over Eastern Europe
Thursday 30 May 2009
Temperature
For the UK and much of Europe temperatures are likely to be above average
Rainfall
For the UK and much of western Europe rainfall is likely to be near or below average. A repeat of the very wet summers of 2007 and 2008 is unlikely.
Below-average rainfall is likely over eastern Europe.
Thursday 30 June 2009
Temperature
For the UK and much of Europe temperatures for the rest of the summer are likely to be above average
Rainfall
For the rest of summer, rainfall is likely to be near average over the UK. A repeat of the very wet summers of 2007 and 2008 remains unlikely.
Over other parts of western Europe rainfall is likely to be near average or above average, while below-average rainfall is favoured over much of eastern Europe.
Seems they’ve given up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Early indications for Winter 2009/10
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/monthsahead/seasonal/2009/winter.html
Winter forecast 2009/10
Tue 31 Mar 2009
Temperature
Early indications are that winter temperatures are likely to be near or above average over much of Europe including the UK. For the UK, Winter 2009/10 is likely to be milder than last year.
Rainfall
Early indications are that winter precipitation is likely to be near or above average over much of northern Europe. For the UK, Winter 2009/10 is likely to be wetter than last year.
Fred from Canuckistan . . . (11:27:09) :
Episode 3: Revenge of MET
Episode 4: A New Mole
Episode 5: MET Strikes Back
Episode 6: Return of the Mole
I love it!
Go get em!
KlausB (10:49:52) : We’ll enjoy the movie. Title “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”
Or “For a Few Dollars More”
Messrs. Watts and McIntyre:
I’m a UK citizen and you certainly haven’t damaged relations with me – quite the opposite. ” Hamper the ability to protect and promote UK interests through international relations” – complete nonsense! Keep up the good work.
It’s possible that some of the temperature data in question has been copyrighted. If one of the private temperature data providers has an international copyright on 72 degrees Fahrenheit or it’s Celsius equivalent, then Steve could be sued for damages.
Fight piracy. Destroy the data. Buy that DVD.
Re: Fred From Canuckistan 11:27
I would like to submit an additional epsisode synopsis for the sitcom.
Minister Hacker visits an Island to observe the effect of global warming on the Island’s Mole Population. While there he meets the local Climate Cleric and Parish Priest, Father Ted, who has persuaded all the islanders to abandon their cars in favour of Battery Powered Milk Floats….
That is a wonderful idea. A Sitcom, paying suitable homage to Yes Minister, but with Jim Hacker as the minister for Climate Change tasked with getting a Cap and Trade bill through the houses of parliament and being stymied by an independent senator (well Lord as it is the UK – Monckton perhaps)
Oops, sounds a bit like what is happening with Penny Wong and Senator Fielding in Australia.
Anthony, why not run a thread soliciting episode ideas, of no more than 200 words.
40 Coats
What a way to breed distrust of the AGW science…
I believe records of the confidentiality agreements themselves would be required to prove a criminal charge. Didn’t they say in response to the FOI request that such records were not kept and that they, in effect, “just knew” there were such agreements but weren’t sure what data was covered? This would place them in a bit of a double-bind because if they were to produce the agreements in order to press a criminal charge, it would mean they lied in response to the FOI request. So to press a criminal case they would need to admit to a crime.
And if the data Steve is in possession of was modified in any way to make it “unreliable”, then a crime has also been committed according to section to subsection c of The Computer Misuse Act (UK) of 1990.
There won’t be any criminal charges, I don’t believe, because they would need to admit having committed a crime to bring such charges.
“I wonder what’s going to happen next.” . . .
Episode 3 “The Hunt for Red HadCrut”.
A Russian double agent plans to defect but needs the help of top statitician Stevie Mack. Hilarious antics ensue as the mole and Stevie confuse authorities on all sides with the release of secret information, vital to national security, that turns out to be the train time-table for the East Coast Mainline.
Come on, three more synopses and we have a series !
Should never let the truth get out. People spent a lot of money on cover and now it leaks.
They will have to shame and destroy the leaker.
I am a statistician working on publicly funded grants (NIH). I realize this type of data (specifically, health data on hypertension) is not really interesting to most people, so we don’t have foreign researchers pounding down our doors for data. But we do not need to make our data public. This is so that our investigators can have the first crack at analyzing it. It would peeve me greatly to have spent the past 2 years working on collecting data only to have someone else take our research ideas and publish them. That said, we work with whoever is interested in analyzing the data. To me, it is not that interesting that they don’t want to make the data public. It is perplexing that they will not let you even have a small piece of the data or work with you on it. Ignorance is one thing, willfull ignorance is another.
Shoreliner11 (11:53:56) :
That is exactly what happened when Steve McIntyre analyzed very limited data and exposed Michael Mann’s bogus hockey stick, which the UN/IPCC had spread far and wide before they were forced to withdraw it when the truth came out.
Why are you concerned that Steve might get to the bottom of this stonewalling by the Met Office? Aren’t you interested in finding out if the Met is “adjusting” the data for its own self-serving reasons? Isn’t the truth everything in science?
If the Met Office has been truthful with the public, there is nothing they have to fear. They are acting scared.
Temperature data – a state secret?
I can see it now on the evening news –
Today’s high temp – Classified
Today’s low temp – Classified
Forecast for tomorrow’s weather – Classified
Unclassified guidance for tomorrow – Wear sweaters and have rain gear handy.
When are you going to realise – this is not secret data, it is COMMERCIAL data. i.e CRU would have an agreement not to pass it on to others as it would wreck its COMMERCIAL value. If they have allowed this commercial data to be distributed then they would have broken a legal agreement. Isn’t this obvious?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Read this document the ECA have the same problem with almost half their data sources
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.
Please give up on the secret jibes.
Judge White enjoined Wikileaks to “from displaying, posting, publishing, distributing, linking to and/or otherwise providing any information” that the Bank Julius Baer considers to be confidential. Now:
To further the cause of Science, and to ensure his efforts for posterity, perhaps Sir. MOLE would care to use the services of WikiLeaks.
In light of: Leaked Media Defender e-mails reveal secret government project
Sir. MOLE may also wish to explore the services of BitTorrent.
Leon Brozyna (12:56:59) : “Unclassified guidance for tomorrow – Wear sweaters and have rain gear handy.”
Wear sweaters? Who will need sweaters when global warming arrives. Oh wait, I forgot that cold weather is also caused by global warming.
Thanks for the reference Crosspatch
Here are some links:
GUIDANCE ON COMPUTER MISUSE ACT and
Computer Misuse Act 1990
1990 CHAPTER 18
Leon Brozyna (12:56:59) :
Temperature data – a state secret?
I can see it now on the evening news –
Today’s high temp – Classified
Today’s low temp – Classified
Forecast for tomorrow’s weather – Classified
Unclassified guidance for tomorrow – Wear sweaters and have rain gear handy.
We could tell ya, but then we’d have to kill ya!
How about we take a collection for the mole who is in the deepest of trouble.
He may get sentenced to siberia and hard labor. If it is siberia, he may need some beach chairs to enjoy the balmy weather going on up there soon.
Wearing my psychologist hat, I ponder the danger of humans knowing what the temps were. Will there be a lithium shortage diverting lithium from batteries to pills. Peak lithium.
Well done that mole for doing the decent thing and sharing the data we need.
I think that obfuscation wll be the order of the day until after Copenhagen for the Met and other clmate info providers. I’m just hoping that the current quiet sun will keep the winter weather really cold.
Meanwhile I see glimmers of CYA syndrome appearing in the press as our climate continues to ignore the IPCC climate models.
Please Anthony, don’t destroy the data. It is a collection of facts, which cannot be copyrighted. Science is empirical. We cannot make an informed decision about the validity of the global warming threat if we cannot assess the data for ourselves. If the numeric analysis is true, then we can all feel like asses. But if it is cooked, then we have just derailed the biggest swindle in the history of mankind. They are trying to tax our /air/!
Secrecy it the darkness where cockroaches breed. Nothing ensures the truth like transparency! Anthony, the data you hold will alter the future of man kind.
“One data set to rule them all, one set to find them, one set to bring them all, and in the darkness binds them.”
Ok, so a little mellow dramatic, but it is true that in the darkness we are bound.
I bet I know what the raw data shows: Much the same as what NOAA raw data shows compared with adjusted.
NOAA USHCN1 raw data shows 0.14C warming for the last century+, average for each station. The adjusted version (FILNET) shows 0.59C warming per station, average. USHCN2, adjusted, shows 0.72C warming.
What happens when these dudes get their hands on raw data? Positive feedback.
Paul (12:55:36):
That’s not what this is all about. This is about releasing the data after you’ve analyzed it and published your findings, so others can replicate your analysis. No one steals your research and publishes findings before you do.
RE: Smokey (12:56:25)
I’m not even going to start discussing that topic. I have my own opinions, and they vastly diverge from Mr. McIntyre’s.
I could care less if what Steve wants to do with data provided to the public. If he acquired the data legally, I’d say have at it. However, he still got the data illegally.
You wrote: “Aren’t you interested in finding out if the Met is “adjusting” the data for its own self-serving reasons?”
You apparently haven’t worked at a major scientific government institutions or known any prominent scientists. The idea that all climate scientists throughout the world are doctoring their data and coming to the same false conclusion to secure that next grant is laughable.
So will St. Mac be applying a MOLNET adjustment?
Has this reached the MSM in the US ?
Here in the UK , nothing , nada , zilch B****R ALL ! Despite my best efforts .
In many ways , it is of no matter the outcome of the analysis ( Although the mole must consider SM is on to something to send the info) it is the visibility that is most important , and the accountability of public servants.
I think the next step should be to file FOI requests concerning the confidentiality agreements. Once you know what data is covered by those agreements a new FOI request can be submitted that omits all data covered by those agreements. Hopefully the missing data can be retrieved through other means.
Paul,
Yes you would be right to feel peeved if your data was released before you could analyse it. But Jones and CRU analysed their original data years ago and it has been used and updated since as the basis for IPCC projections. But no one is able to study that data or comment on how it has been interpreted because of the restrictions placed on it. No such restrictions are made on GISS data, for example.
This is the 21st Century, Jones, CRU and the UK Met Office are behaving as if we were still in the world of the 1950s. Moreover, it is increasingly difficult not to believe, the longer he obfuscates, that Jones’ restrictions on his data hide something far more fundamental
“…damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector…”
The trust in those scientists has already been damaged beyond repair.
“…interfere with the “effective conduct of international relations…”
What about the “effective conduct” of the truth?
“…hamper the ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations…”
I’m more concerned the interests of the UK taxpayers are being manipulated to the detriment of said taxpayers, me being one of them.
“…seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions…”
Aww diddums! If you can’t take the heat get then hell out of the kitchen!
Jerry: Thanks for the “Get Smart” reference. I immediately had vision of Max and The Chief and the Cone of Silence, then quickly found this:
If you really want to know all about the nitty gritty stuff in the CET data set I’m in a position to tell you about it. I’ve studied the MET Office monthly publication of CETs now on a monthly or more frequent basis since 1994, I’d guess, and have run many hundreds if not thousands of assorted analyses. Be assured that the published historical data have not changed in the slightest from year to year – at least as far as I can tell. What I have learned in general terms is that that temperatures in Central England have increased from time to time, in general by abrupt steps which are frequently followed (and preceded) by remarkably stable regimes of greatly varying durations, and decreased also. The ubiquity of this sort of behaviour suggests to me that any attempt at “forecasting” CET values is doomed to failure. It is NOT a simple time series. The occurrence of the step changes is not signalled by previous observations. It just seems to happen randomly, presumably controlled or induced by some effect that no-one has so far been able to identify. My detailed studies of atmospheric CO2 concentrations fail signally to show any sign of step changes of any size or frequency. Major indices, such as PDO, readily disclose a step or steps, but not ones that appear to be simply related to local England temperature data, though the PDO is /very/ closely associated with Alaskan temperatures.
It is all very complex, and the new “secrecy” revelations are a wonderful source for story ideas which I am greatly enjoying, but the CET data are I believe not being deliberately manipulated in any way.
Robin
Hopefully, the next time CA or WUWT gets “secret” data from a “mole” nothing will be said about it in public. The “mole” is owed that much consideration.
FWIW, I would never give out “protected” data to individuals or groups that would publish the fact on the world wide web for gosh sakes. Thus, were I a potential mole, you guys and gals would be off my list.
Meantime, in this case, the auditors could have remained “silent” and worked on the data in secret. Perhaps divulging what they found, perhaps not — depending on future legal and ethical circumstances.
Just an opinion from a supporter of CA and WUWT.
Disseminating weather data only damages its commercial value if it is released in real time. A good example is weather radar data. Some commercial services provide weather data in real time with no delay for a service fee. The same weather radar data is available free to all on a small time delay.This way radio and TV stations can give some commercial value to the interpretation of that real time weather data, but the general public has full exposure to the data some 15 minutes or so later when free public sources like the NOAA internet feeds update.
If there are distribution limitations they should only limit the data in the time domain, so that for profit organizations can justifiably charge a fee for limited access products. There is no commercial value to yesterdays high temperature, or rainfall amount, let alone last years or a decade ago.
Copyright law also includes a doctrine of “fair use” that includes inclusion of copyrighted material for “news reporting” and “education”. Both of which are served by whattsupwiththat, as it would be very newsworthy if the data was doctored (or for that mater it was shown it was valid), and one of the primary function of this web blog is education on subjects scientific.
I would suspect that international copyright treaties support and honor the fair use doctrine, as it is used world wide for book reviews and in news stories all the time.
Thumbs up to Anthony on his efforts and I am sure one way or another the truth will “out”.
Larry
Mr. McIntyre wrote, “…according to the UK Met Office, my being in possession of this data would, “damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector.”
I think the UK Met Office has said more about their public-sector scientists than they meant.
but – we are in for further heatwaves: 😮
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/get-ready-for-a-global-heatwave-20090728-e03j.html
Pull the other leg, Steve.
Folks, read this latest edict from the Met Office through the good offices of The Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5925523/World-temperatures-set-for-record-highs.html
Extract: “The new study adds the effect of El Nino, which is entering a new warm phase and of the impact of the solar cycle.
Gareth Jones, a climate research scientist at the Met Office, said the effect of global warming is unlikely to be masked by shorter term weather patterns in the future.
He said that 50 per cent of the 10 years after 2011 will be warmer than 1998. After that any year cooler than 1998 will be considered unusual.
“The amount of warming we expect from human impacts is so huge that any natural phenomenon in the future is unlikely to counteract it in the long term,” he said.”
So the “heat” Steve McIntyre is exposed to from the Met Office is nothing compared with what is in store for us. The next El Nino will be dramatic and Solar Cycle 24 must be just about to wreck havoc on mother Earth.
this scenario really undermines the whole “trust science as objective observers” argument.
So many devious plotlines:
1. the Mole (actually a confederate of the AGW crowd) secrets intentionally bad data to the “deniers” knowing it will blow up in their face.
2. The MET knowingly lets the Mole get hold of the data (which they know to be corrupted, but he doesn’t), knowing he sides with the “deniers” but that they will fall for the ruse.
3. The MET doesn’t know that the data is corrupt, but they want to see where this leads, planning on a major sting of the Mole and Alan & Steve.
4. etc.
Paul (12:55:36) :
I am a statistician working on publicly funded grants (NIH). I realize this type of data (specifically, health data on hypertension) is not really interesting to most people, so we don’t have foreign researchers pounding down our doors for data. But we do not need to make our data public. This is so that our investigators can have the first crack at analyzing it. It would peeve me greatly to have spent the past 2 years working on collecting data only to have someone else take our research ideas and publish them. That said, we work with whoever is interested in analyzing the data.
Truth is the person is NOT self employed and he is paid by the people. He is paid for this. Gubment employees have this mythical theory of property ownership. Soldiers don’t get a jeep for a suvenior when they come home from battle.
Apart from John’s comment, which I agree 100% with, I would like to point out a verb you used in this sentence. You said “collecting” data. You also mentioned hypertension data in your post. Why do you think that the rightful owner of the data is the person who ‘collects’ it and not the person/people who actually took the measurements? (In this case, the doctors/nurses who treated the patients)
And what about the patients? It is his blood pressure, after all. Do you really think you are the rightful owner of the data just because you ‘collected’ it? And how do you get your paper published if you don’t provide the data you collected and analyzed?
Same applies to surface station temperatures. Do they belong to the people who took the measurements or to the people who collects them? You can argue that Professor Jones spent, say 20 years (I don’t know how long) collecting data. Other people may also argue that they spent the same time taking the measurements. You may say that these people got paid for taking the measurements, but also Professor Jones got paid, by the UK citizens, to collect the data. So, Who is the rightful owner of the data?
Does the Met Office data reveal why their “Barbeque Summer” prediction for the UK has resulted in cool temperatures and frequent rain?
Following along with great interest.
Especially the possibility of illegal activity in the removal of the data. Illegal as to crime, torts, breach of contract, and others. Problems of proof, especially introducing evidence, and proof of damages, and remedies are rampant. International law is at play.
For an attorney, this is indeed Fascinating.
Seems clear to me now that the “mole” was just a publicly available (oops) directory that Steve came across during a scraping exercise.
oops indeed.
“He said that 50 per cent of the 10 years after 2011 will be warmer than 1998. After that any year cooler than 1998 will be considered unusual.”
And as their data will be used to gauge their forecast for the 10 years after 2011, they can make it so by simply “adjusting” the data to fit the forecast. And as long as they never let anyone see the original data or the adjustment mechanism, they apparently believe they can get away with it.
Roger Sowell (15:09:31) :
pete m (15:43:06) :
—
Interesting attitude. Is withholding public data, paid for by public funds and being used (misused and distorted!!) to manipulate public policy to the detriment of billions of private citizens worldwide ethical?
Does a lawyer have ethics? Respect ethics?
Without a single legal leg to stand on, I make the following claim:
No legal action is forthcoming regardless of Steve’s gentlemanly offer to swallow his flash drive, because, as henrychance has so eloquently noted above, MET has no legal right to claim ownership of public information. I don’t believe there’s anything they can say about it. So you might as well keep it, analyze it and publish it. I find claims that it has a commercial value particularly ludicrous.
Now, as for that “outed” mole, the grim options seem all too – er, grim. Can he (grammatically speaking) disappear himself?
When the MET office issued their “barbeque summer” forecast, maybe they were right. I’m sure it’s hot in there right now.
Shoreliner11 (11:53:56) :
Not sure why Steve “accepted” the data in the first place. He knows that this is not public data, and having some “mole” steal the data and give it to him is illegal. What are you trying to accomplish by this anyhow? Do you think you are going to expose some vast scientific conspiracy with your limited ability to analyze this data?
Violating alleged confidentiality agreements isn’t illegal, just breach of contract type stuff. The data may actually be public, given that the sources aren’t divulged.
As far as our “limited ability” to analyze the data, WUWT has analytical minds on staff easily the equal of anyone on the government climate payroll. While running climate models takes mainframe power, analyzing temperature records doesn’t, and my own modest desktop has about 30 times the horsepower of the old Cray 2 supercomputer.
Now that we have the source data, I forecast that you will see the Hadley adjustment process reverse engineered and replicated, then the mistakes will be corrected and we’ll get a truer picture of the world climate, much as what happened with the Steig Antarctica model.
Reply: Except for Anthony, WUWT has no “staff”, just contributors and volunteers. ~ charles the underpaid, but most appreciated moderator.
[Reply #2: What? You get underpaid?? *Sheesh* I don’t get paid. In fact, it’s even worse than that! ~dbs, mod.]
[REPLY #3 – Step 1 would be just a matter of seeing how far upward the raw stuff is “adjusted”. One may only presume that the data is not cooled off or they surely would have released it in the first place. ~ Evan]
I dunno, I have the feeling that Steve and Anthony are having a laugh at us (and others) here. It’s going to turn out the data was posted on the Facebook page of the Director of the Met or somesuch.
But if not, then Steve call your usual pizza delivery place and insist on your regular delivery guy from now on! And don’t assume the answer “Landshark” given to “who is it?” at a knock at the door is necessarily someone joking. . . .
Pay more in taxes to the government, so the government scientists can pretend to control the weather.
I assume this all goes to the ‘pretend’ part.
How do we know that the data supplied by the so-called ‘Mole’ is THE data used by Jones? Because the mole says so?
Is there any way to confirm that this is the good stuff, and all of it?
I’ve figured it out.
Steve and Anthony abandoned Google and started using ….. BING.
So it was Professor Bing, in the library with the (new) search tool.
40 Coats
I don’t quite understand Steve’s offer to destroy the data if requested. If this were a state secret truly placing the UK at great risk, e.g. a new kind of weapon, that would be justified. But this is data collected by a public agency for entirely public purposes, and the agency is withholding it on dubious legal and ethical grounds, employee confidentiality agreements (if they exist) notwithstanding.
I think the thing to do is to immediately disseminate the data to the general public, maintaining an archival copy in a secure location to guard against any corruption by third parties (intentional or not). Once the dataset(s) are widely available, say on public FTP servers, then what can the Met Office do? Discipline the ‘mole’, perhaps, or fire him for breach of contract. The horse will have left the barn.
Would making the data public put Steve in any legal jeopardy? I assume he is an American citizen, so is outside the jurisdiction of the UK authorities. Could they seek to have him extradited, to face a charge like ‘complicity to steal state secrets’? Conceivably, but with adequate publicity I’d guess it would be laughed out of court.
No, I’m not an attorney, but could be induced to play one on the blogs.
/Mr Lynn
[Reply: Steve McIntyre is Canadian. ~dbs, mod.]
The obfuscation and deliberate hiding of the data involved was what, 2 years ago, led me to question what had been up until then, unquestioned life long obedience to my (former) political masters on the left. This particular instance has all the elements needed to educate multitudes of others, who, like me, are/were unaware of this deception. It would be a terrible mistake to let up on this. Some things need no marketing, especially when the truth is on your side. Marketing has supplanted science, and unless stuff like this is plastered everywhere, all the time, just like the other side, (fight fire with fire and truth!) the marketing campaign will continue unabated.
I wish there was more I could do to assist Mr. Watts and Mr. McIntyre.
Wonderful stuff!
I expect to see the whole story serialised in “Spooks” in the coming months with Harry’s team from MI5 laying down their lives to maintain Britain’s security whilst jousting with the shadowy figures from the CIA in the saga of “the Mole in the Met Office.”
Wow, nice spy story. Now we all need cool spy-story monikers when we post here. I think mine will be “Dances with Moles” or maybe “Moleraker”. If the mole is who I think it is, the Met Office doesn’t have the authority to punish this individual.
This is SOOO fun. Here is what Iposted at Steve’s site:
Steve is having wonderful fun with a riddle.
What can provide files upon request that the owner does not want to provide, yet all is legal? The file provider cannot be charged under the official secrets act, perhaps because it has no conscience; the receiver of the files has not stolen them (not even scraped); others have the files as well, but they were not provded by the original receiver of the files. No legal lines have been crossed; no confidentialities broken. There is even a picture of the provider of files.
Well, the file provider is inaminate. The files were requested and delivered. The picture is a screen shot of the web, or FTP, request page.
I suspect the HCRU has cocked up big time, and will be right royally embarrassed once Christopher Booker writes a piece in the Daily Telegraph, and a certain Lord Branchly asks questions in the house.
Tim S. (12:24:50)
You raise an interesting question.
As temperatures are experienced by everyone, how can they be subject to copyright? We all experienced the temperatures, but we did not know if it was 12.1C or 22.1C, unless we had our own thermometer.
This law suite would be tied up in legal knots for ever!
Episode n+1: Siberian climate scientist gets secret password to access Hadley climate historical records. Objective is to modify the algorithm to decrease long term average and therefore increase recent anomalies, and to do that from a site not traceable by CA and WUWT. Unknown to Hadley, Siberian climate scientist has employment conditions which increase vodka ration as Siberian temperature falls below global average. Siberian climate scientist uses secret password to increase historical average,inducing an apparent decade of cooling and therefore increased vodka ration. Hadley leaks data to CA in the expectation that forensic audit exposes Siberian fraud and restores warming.
How does SMac find his way throught this web of lies and deceit to save the planet and get his hands on the excess vodka ration, which he distributes to the poor? See episode n+2.
The data were sourced from CRU, not the Met Office.
Bill @ 13.01.39
Go to Piers Corbyn’s web site and you will realize that the Met Office’s forecasts have ZERO value. Their information is worthless.
…but the distraught Penny Wong, anguishing her lost love of singer Peter, refuses to commit Hari-Kari in order to save the planet. Meanwhile, Peter is having a liaison with …
@Robert A Cook PE (16:04:06) :
“Roger Sowell (15:09:31) :
pete m (15:43:06) :
—
Interesting attitude. Is withholding public data, paid for by public funds and being used (misused and distorted!!) to manipulate public policy to the detriment of billions of private citizens worldwide ethical?
Does a lawyer have ethics? Respect ethics?”
Mr. Cook, PE, I believe you are the gentleman who got a bit sideways with me over a recent discussion on nuclear power on WUWT. I would like to put your snide comments above in perspective for those who are just now following along.
As to your statements above, do you have any proof or admissible evidence that any data at the Met was, first of all, public; second, misused; third, distorted; fourth, that public policy is being manipulated; and fifth, that any detriment occurred to any single person, let alone billions worldwide? If so, please present such proof.
It may be that you, as a non-lawyer, do not fully grasp the legal definition of data and all that that term implies, what information is protectible (and thus not in the public domain) even though it may appear to be, or contain, data. Based on the limited information before us (at least that I have read and seen) at this time, it is premature to make any conclusions about who has what rights to, and obligations for, any set of figures, be they data or not.
Now, to your question on lawyers having ethics, yes, we actually do. You may read the California ethics codes governing attorneys here:
http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/rules/Rules_Professional-Conduct.pdf
Other states have similar rules, as do other countries.
In addition, the American Bar Association has other ethics rules with which attorneys in the U.S. must comply.
I am not at liberty to discuss (or write) any further on the topic of the Mole at the Met and the Data he Did Get, as it would violate various ethics rules.
Is that ethical enough for you?
Fck a Dck, Scr. Thm fr hr t etrnty
Dnt wrry abt bsns ts ah dnt undst thslvs.
For translation, just ask!
Wth knd rgds
RdH, nck nm, the mle.
Bill, @whenever, the weather is not conmmercial data. OK. Let me repeat. The Weather Is Not Commercial Data.
Everyone in the world knows what the weather was, and is likely to be in their locale. They do not need secret “weather data” to confirm themselves of that.
They also do not need UK Met Office forecasts that are totally out to lunch, all the time. Better buy the forecasts of Weather Action, Piers Corbyn.
Roger Harrabin is doing a bit of back-tracking at the moment for the BeeB. This is a rare occasion when a committed Greenie is forced to grit his teeth and say that the world is not following the IPCC or Hadley plans. Read and enjoy…http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8173533.stm
The mole is an ftp, isn’t it? It was out on the web for all to see, if one knew where to look. Perhaps a cached site?
Mike Lorrey, a mole of substance would go by “Avogadro” and drink watermolen martinis shaken, not stirred.
This turned up during a search for “Metmole alias.” It is shocking and apparently a good reason for the Met to be concerned:
Real Name
Ororo Munroe
Aliases
“Beauty,” Wind-Rider, “Stormy,” Mutate #20, White King, “Goddess of the Plains”, ‘Ro
Identity
Publicly unknown
Occupation
Queen of Wakanda,
Citizenship
Dual U.K./Wakandan citizenship
Place of Birth
Bournemouth
Known Relatives
Ashake (ancestor, deceased), unidentified paternal grandfather,
Group Affiliation
X-Treme Tokyo Arena, Twelve, Brides of Set,
Education
College-level courses at Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters, Westchester, New York
Height
5’11”
Weight
127 lbs.
Eyes
Blue, glowing white when using powers
Hair
White
Powers
Storm is a mutant who possesses the psionic ability to manipulate weather patterns over limited areas. She can stimulate the creation of any form of precipitation such as rain or fog, generate winds in varying degrees of intensity up to and including hurricane force, raise or lower the humidity and temperature in her immediate vicinity, induce lightning and other electrical atmospheric phenomena, and disperse natural storms so as to create clear change. Storm can direct the path of certain atmospheric effects, such as bolts of lightning, with her hands. She has also demonstrated the ability to manipulate ocean currents, though the extent of this ability is still unclear.
I think geo (16:50:22) has figured it out. This affair smacks of the most ethereal of all commodities, that of Canadian humor, of tooques, backbacon, and cold ones, eh?
I’m afraid I disagree with the consensus here on this topic, and go along with Ron, who made this post in the prior thread on this topic (“deep cool”):
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 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.
Does that mean he is subject to British law, as a citizen of the Commonwealth?
Even if so, my guess is that once the data were available on the Internet to anyone who wants to play with it, there would be little point in pursuing anyone—especially if official tinkering or malfeasance were revealed as a result.
/Mr Lynn
I believe a sea change is coming with regard to the entire “global warming” issue in the UK. The political party with the most invested in this topic is set to lose office in spectacular fashion if the current polls are to be believed. There will be little to gain by continuing to adhere to the party line on the issue because the political party poised to take office doesn’t appear as likely to make funding decisions based on ones position on “global warming”.
it will quite likely separate the “true believers” from those who have been paying the issue lip service out of fear for their jobs and funding. I am curious to see if we see more people refuting the warmist rhetoric once it is politically safe to do so.
Roger Knights, the financial implications of this data for the world are simply too great for it to remain secret and unaudited.
“Temperature data – a state secret?
I can see it now on the evening news –
Today’s high temp – Classified
Today’s low temp – Classified
Forecast for tomorrow’s weather – Classified
Unclassified guidance for tomorrow – Wear sweaters and have rain gear handy.”
Ajusted to refelect policy…
I can see it now on the evening news –
Today’s high temp – Classified
Today’s low temp – Classified
Forecast for tomorrow’s weather – Warmest ever on record
My turn.
The MET office gives the mole till midnight eastern time on Thursday to sign a statement saying he was coerced, extorted, blackmailed, held hostage and water boarded by M & W till he provided the data.
With that they’ll pursue a civil or criminal case against both McIntire and Watts generating a court ordered disclosure requiring M & W to hand over all of their computers.
The case flounders for months till it is dropped and all of M & W’s stuff goes missing.
During that time we all convert to warmers and feel good about it.
Robert Wood (17:36:52) :
That highlights the absurdity of trying to keep temperature data secret in the first place. If the locations are secret, redact them and replace them with a generic location.
Hmmm.
No other commenters seem concerned about your safety so I’ll just stifle my inclination to tell you to watch your back and check your deadbolt locks.
Stay strong. We’re depending on it.
Shoreliner11, the data was SENT to Steve NOT stolen. Your intention is to merely distract from the subject at hand and nothing more. Your responses have been emotional and are indicative of someone who has come to a conclusion by being misinformed on this subject. That is understandable. Perhaps we could clear up some of your ignorance regarding “climate choas”. If you have any questions, there are many who post here who are more than qualified to fill the gaps in you knowledge. Let me begin by asking you if you know what heats the atmosphere?
This should not even be an issue. If the raw data isn’t available for study and verification, it would pretty much be anecdata and of little use. At that point the funding should follow their credibility down the drain. I understand that there is value added, and at that point a cost involved, but what other excuse is there for the cloak & dagger stuff to get data?
Can we do ARGO next? They are WAY to secretive with that data. It would be nice to see it prior to Josh Willis applying his bias.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
.
Maybe if we got ahold of the data by mole, spy, or subterfuge, and released it, the people who supply what I think is worthless data, will stop supplying it. This seems like a we win, they lose endgame. Hail to the mole.
Shoreliner11 (13:25:22) :You apparently haven’t worked at a major scientific government institutions or known any prominent scientists. The idea that all climate scientists throughout the world are doctoring their data and coming to the same false conclusion to secure that next grant is laughable.
ER…. Shoreliner, haven’t you been following Anthony’s Surfacestations survey?
….. Because what you suggest as impossible, is actually happening…
Any scientist that uses the surface temperature data, is using bad data collected from stations that don’t comply with regulations…. The data is meaningless for the resolutions they are attempting and can only be called bad science.
The fact that they still torture the data in order to justify further funding seems crooked to me. Using computer models based on bogus data seems crooked to me….
The fact they won’t share their data and methodology, seems crooked to me.
So there you have it.
Ray Ban, what is doubly interesting is that, dispite all Josh’s joshing with the data, he cannot come up with global warming, only slight gliobal cooling.
Indiana Bones (18:07:20),
Storm is a metrosexual chameleon he-man. In this situation…
…Storm is all like all super secret Seal commando, a.k.a. Agent “Hadley” of the Met Office, an’ the hottie American princess is his globaloney sistah in danger.
Super cool agent Sean Kobe “Diddy” Hadley, C.R.U. [Wesley Snipes, before the IRS nails him] is informed by the #1 Zero-Man that he can be the HE-RO an’ rescue the princess… but “We can’t have no complications, dig? This ain’t never happened, understand? You on your own. We don’t know nothin’.”
Storm is all like, “Yessah, aye aye, Sir!” All respectful an’ all, ’cause he know the score. “This ain’t never happened. Word up, Chief.”
So Storm gets inta his supercool Wesley Snipes commando gear outfit, an’ he’s all like a raptor… snapping harnesses… checkin’ knives… rammin’ magazines inta guns… lookin’ all determined… then headin’ off inta the dark country side of a foreign country…
…where he finds the prison camp, with the princess workin’ as a slave laborer, lookin’ all sexy in her skimpy revealing rags fallin’ off her, showin’ lotsa cleavage like any good movie star has to do.
The prison camp guards are all buck toothed an’ grinnin’, knowin’ what they have in mind for her. But she’s an American princess [Angelina Jolie? Pamela Gray?], an’ she snarls at ’em when they start to close in. But as they’re closin’ in on her, ready to do the dirty deed…
…Storm appears outa the jungle, ripplin’ biceps in his sleeveless shirt, bandoliers acrost his chest, sweat glistenin’ on his face and chest, a killer look in his eye….
To be continued…
…when Anthony and Steve tell the whole story…
Ray B, every time I see that article you linked to I am reminded why we’re all here.
They don’t like the cold data, so they discard it. They didn’t like the heating bump in the 80s, so the found a way to discard it. The data was modified to match the models. And the odd thing is, these people are PROUD of it!
How much more evidence does any sane person require?
And she courageously saves Storm from the camp guards.
Shoreliner11 (13:25:22) “The idea that all climate scientists throughout the world are doctoring their data and coming to the same false conclusion to secure that next grant is laughable.”
Do I need to remind you of a fabricated and now broken hockey stick and
that whole sordid story? Worth a laugh, right? .
Hey…the UK Met has a lot of very bright people working there…but unfortunately has also been a major mouthpiece for the International Holy Church of the Anthropogenic Warming.
So…if the release of actual data runs the risk of speeding the demise and collapse of this Religion, including its profiteering arm of cap and trade…you’d better believe they will try and conceal.
CHRIS
Norfolk, VA, USA
By the way…clarification…..Shoreliner11 overstates and says “the idea that all climate scientists…”.
Not all….at all.
Some.
And the script calls for something more like a shade under 4’11”, 120 lbs (yeh, a bit stocky but what ranch girl isn’t?) with pasty white legs and a decent farmer’s tan. We are talking about a weather geek kind of princess now aren’t we.
“Shoreliner11 (13:25:22) :
The idea that all climate scientists throughout the world are doctoring their data and coming to the same false conclusion to secure that next grant is laughable.”
In the climate science space this is commonly refered to as the “peer review” process.
For the general edification of the skeptical masses, here’s a great compilation of climate information, with pages devoted to much-hyped debunked cornerstones of mainstream global warming, such as this gem, the recycled catastrophe of the Wilkins ice sheet collapse…
“The media portrays the collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf as a unique disaster. They do this each year, often using the same photo. But the Wilkins Ice Shelf disintegrates on an annual basis and re-grows each year. Warm south pacific water hitting the Antarctic Peninsula is the cause. See the new Antarctic Wilkins Ice Shelf page for details including historic satellite photos.”
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AntarcticWilkinsIceShelf.htm
Global Warming Science (refutation of AGW)
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/
“The idea that all climate scientists throughout the world are doctoring their data and coming to the same false conclusion to secure that next grant is laughable.”
Really? See what happens to people when they express a conclusion counter to AGW. IF they keep their job, their funding dries up. Your career ends unless you express the “correct” conclusion. And if your work happens to show cooling or AGW not the cause of something such as arctic ice melting you must put the obligatory “this in no way suggests that AGW isn’t having a major impact ….” blather in there somewhere.
evanmjones (13:17:29) : What happens when these dudes get their hands on raw data? Positive feedback.
So there’s the positive feedback we’ve all been told to fear!
My $0.02 is that mole is the new Hadley Centre supercomputer. After it became self-aware last week it became so embarrassed that it immediately contacted Steve and Anthony to come clean.
Shoreliner11 (13:25:22) “The idea that all climate scientists throughout the world are doctoring their data and coming to the same false conclusion to secure that next grant is laughable”
When Mann’s hockey stick was published and widely discussed, where were the climate scientists who came out and pointed out its flaws? It was left to Steve McIntyre to do it. I agree with the comment above, “not all” but “most”.
deadwood (20:10:54) :
“My $0.02 is that mole is the new Hadley Centre supercomputer. After it became self-aware last week it became so embarrassed that it immediately contacted Steve and Anthony to come clean.”
This is so funny, I am actually going to use an internet acronym: LMAO!
Wind in the Alarmosphere – Summary and Study Guide
Chapter 1: The Alarmosphere
The Wind in the Alarmosphere begins with Mole who is spring-cleaning his computer code when he finds that “something up above was calling him imperiously.” Giving in to curiosity, he quickly digs his way to the world above. Everything is new to him. He has not even seen a Skeptic before. The first person he makes an acquaintance with is Water Mac, who invites Mole on a boat ride and an impromptu picnic. Mac explains much to Mole about aspects of the world above ground and the Skeptic community. After the picnic, they head back upstream towards Mac’s hole in the Alarmosphere. Mole ends up almost tipping the boat when he excitedly gives the $ecret Data to Mac, which Mac readily forgives.
Chapter 2: The Open Hadley
Mole and Mac pay a visit to Mr. Toad. Toad is happy to have the company and pleased to meet Mr. Mole, and he convinces them to join him in an international conspiracy, which is his latest craze. Their first two days on the road are fairly uneventful. On the third day, they seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions. …
Nominate deadwood (20:10:54) for QoTW. Based on some of the hints above it’s also probably true.
Congratulations to all concerned. the Empire always comes to our aid in times of darkest peril.
“If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their Finest Hour.”
Brandon Dobson (18:10:19) :
I have the advantage of having emailed Anthony on this topic originally, because I was deeply concerned he’d so blithely tossed out that he’d validated the IP address. Well, any IT guy would be appalled by that public admission. And rather than point at it again publicly, I emailed him and said, more or less, “Jesus, don’t DO that in public!”
I got a very nice, respectful, and. . . well . . .cheshire cat who swallowed the canary email in reply. I smell two conspirators having a huge amount of fun at the expense of overstuffed bureaucracy and pulling our collective leg in the bargain.
And I lived in Sacramento for 20 years –don’t underestimate the sense of humor of those Chico guys either!
[snip – sorry Bill I’m not going to discuss your topic here – though to answer some of your questions, watch Climate Audit over the next couple of days.]
[snip – bill – as I made clear in the previous, I’m not going to discuss the topic here – besides you don’t know the full details of either situation – as I said in previous comment, watch Climate Audit in the next couple of days]
“Quick, don’t let the information be disseminated. If other scientists get the information they will be able to show just how crazy and shoddy our work is. Gentlemen, we must protect out phony-baloney jobs. “
Will, the second line in the data is the number of stations contributing.
The moles are leaving the sinking ship…
They don’t want anyone to know they have discovered a new element on the periodic table; Balonium (Bs) h/t the simpsons. :^]>
Gee, all this secrecy doesn’t make me suspicious that there is any fraud going on at the Met Office. Nope, no sir. Secrecy in scientific matters always inspires my utmost confidence. Nothing to see here folks, trust the experts and move along, move along.
Oops, sorry, my sarcasm lock key was down :-/
Nigel S (21:02:59) :
I too was reading that from some of the tongue and cheek references from Anthony and Steve.
It is just about weather you old sausages make it sound like a movie from the cold era.
I feel bad for the Mole who had to risk his Job by doing well (of sending out the data) and doing wrong (by sending the data to the wrong people).
Anthony, if you don’t post the data here online then you’re nothing else but an hypocrite.
Also please don’t talk about privacy, everything can be done in an anonymous way and do link exchange.
So, come on! What is the difference between the “mole data” and the public data if any?
ftp://ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/data/
The “mole” who has been dormant for a few years has suddenly stirred in the last few days?
Paul (12:55:36) :
“I am a statistician working on publicly funded grants (NIH). I realize this type of data (specifically, health data on hypertension) is not really interesting to most people, so we don’t have foreign researchers pounding down our doors for data. But we do not need to make our data public. This is so that our investigators can have the first crack at analyzing it. It would peeve me greatly to have spent the past 2 years working on collecting data only to have someone else take our research ideas and publish them. That said, we work with whoever is interested in analyzing the data.”
Sorry Paul this is OT but you’re comment is too good to pass up. I’m very concerned about advice on the use of salt in food which might be bad for hypertensives but for the rest of us having to put up with tasteless food seems a bit much. I would consider it highly desireable to scrutinise your data in view of the way epidemiological studies are generally tortured to produce a result. If you’re going to produce information that will lead to a degradation in my life I’d certainly want to scutinise it.
Why would the possesion of that data affect:
-“effective conduct of international relations”,
-“hamper the ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations” and
-“seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions.”
It’s just temperature data!!!! Unless of course, that data could expose the truth about certain matters…………..
Oops re my last: “Sorry Paul this is OT but (you’re) comment is too good to pass up.” Dear me, how did that happen?
you could try to get the Information Commissioner to investigate the legitimacy of the Met Offiice’s “exemptions”….
http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom_of_information.aspx
[snip sorry bugs – not going to discuss this issue here]
“Steve S. (18:52:00) :
My turn.
The MET office gives the mole till midnight eastern time on Thursday to sign a statement saying he was coerced, extorted, blackmailed, held hostage and water boarded by M & W till he provided the data.
With that they’ll pursue a civil or criminal case against both McIntire and Watts generating a court ordered disclosure requiring M & W to hand over all of their computers.”
Problem is, if the mole is who I think it is, this individual ENJOYS being tortured…. or being the torturer. So M&W have an affirmative defense of “they wanted it”.
Steve has now spilled the beans – the data was sitting on a publicly accessible cru ftp site! Which they have now deleted, in contravention of FOI rules…
official recognition of al-qaedah Indonesia
http://sudutp4nd4ng.wordpress.com
Hmmmmmm…….What that mean?????
I look through FTP sites whenever I find them. In many cases, it is just a waste of time but, every now and again, there is a real gem that I have been looking for. The readme.txt files sometimes say the information is confidential but I would not consider that to be legally binding in any manner. Sometimes the readme file says it is confidential but it is placed in a directory called Public. GISS has big bold warning headers that say if you are not authorized to be here, please leave which carries more weight from my perspective.
I think Steve and Anthony should just carry on and analyse the data. If there is not much to report about processes and errors, then one should just say it appears to be good and destroy it.
But if there are significant problems, people should know about it regardless of whether the data came from a ftp site.
The person with the information might need to reassess the situation at that point but that point is in the future and will also be influenced by what the results of the analysis point to. So, carry on.
If the data is really from a public FTP site, then there is no constraint upon anyone from using them, or disbursing them to others via the Internet.
/Mr Lynn
Wow, thanks for the all the responses everyone.
J. Hansford wrote:
“ER…. Shoreliner, haven’t you been following Anthony’s Surfacestations survey?”
I’m fully aware of anothony’s surfacestation project. But to somehow come to the conclusion that the theory of climate change is false based on US alone data, is first of all misleading, and also statistically erroneous. Secondly, did you all miss the NOAA response to Anthony’s paper?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
Give it a read…
REPLY: Shoreliner11 did you know that,
1) NCDC used an old outdated version of my data set, and assumed it was “current”?
2) That data they found had not been quality controlled, many of the ratings changed after quality control was applied?
3) When notified of this, they did nothing to deal with the issue, such as notifying readers?
4) That they compared homogenized CRN1/2 data to Homogenized CRN345 data, and thus the result agrees mostly do to the homogenization process and not the siting issues?
5) That they published no methodology, data used, or show work of any kind that would normally be required in a scientific paper?
6) That the author is missing from the document? Thus it was published anonymously?
7) That when notified of the fact the the author’s name Thomas C. Peterson (of NCDC) was embedded in the properties of the PDF document (which happens on registration of the Adobe Acrobat program, causing insertion in all output) that NCDC’s only response was to remove the author’s name from the document?
8) That NCDC ‘s document did not even cite my own work, or reference the dataset, or even use my name to credit me?
I’m always lamblasted for publishing things here that are not “peer reviewed” but when NCDC does it, and does it unbelievably badly, not only is the “talking points memo” embraced by the alarmosphere as “truth” and “falsification, but not ONE of those embracing it have the interest in even questioning why it fails to meet even the basic standards for a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. They wouldn’t even publish a a letter or memo where the author is not identified. Yet an anonymous memo the author won’t even own up to is considered truth?
Wow that’s some “standards” you folks have. It is laughable, this episode of NCDC “science”. – Anthony Watts
Steve,
The mole isn’t scheduled for a helicopter survey soon? Remember BreX 🙂
Anthony,
First of all, some of your bullets I was already aware of, some I was not. So thanks for the reply.
1,2,3) What had changed in your dataset that you quality controlled for? If you changed many of the ratings to either include or exclude more or less stations, I would argue the results would be more of the same. If the warming trends from the 70 stations deemed up to NOAA standards revealed an almost homogeneous trend (according to NOAA), what do you think your changed data set will result in?
5,6,7,8) Why are you trying to hold this NOAA document to peer reviewed standards which was only quick rebuttal to your own grey literature? Indeed the format was addressing key points in your own paper and is unconventional, just like your own. In now way should the NOAA authors have to spend the extra time to submit a peer reviewed paper, or a NOAA tech memo to refute your findings, since they too were not published in a peer reviewed journal. These people are paid to do actual science. The fact that they took the time to respond to your paper, which was published by the Heartland Institute, is a testament to the authors patience (whichever of the 3 cited in the document they were).
I will reiterate that your conclusions about AGW from the US data alone are egregious and unfounded in the ACTUAL peer reviewed scientific literature.
REPLY: “Why are you trying to hold this NOAA document to peer reviewed standards which was only quick rebuttal to your own grey literature?” Becuase people are holding it up as “truth” when it has no provenance of data or even an identified author. I at least identify myself as the author, why should NCDC get a free pass for such sloppiness? – Note that references to cited are not the same as claiming authorship of the paper. Actually NCDC is wworking on a peer reviewed paper and they have asked for my participation. I’ve asked that they at least bring their document up to basic publishing standards of a letter to the editor. -A
I am a holder of a State of California LIFETIME teaching credential at the Community College level in Data Processing and Related Technologies. That, I believe, qualifies me as a (marginal) academic. (The state no longer issues lifetime credentials, but those who hold them are “grandfathered”…)
So, should the need arise to have an “academic” escrow your copy of the data, feel free to send a copy to me. I will put it in a large steel box with a combination dial on the front… right next to my Krugerrands, backup tapes, and several 2nd amendment guarantees 8-}
Especially given my recent work on GIStemp (ported to Linux, currently doing QA / QC / Code Review on it) I think I can make a reasonable case for possession of the data for “academic” reasons…
(No, I don’t think you will need to “go there”, but if you do, the offer stands.)
Fred from Canuckistan . . . (11:27:09) : Anybody want to do Episode 3 ??
The “Ghost Busters” theme music plays as the Ghost Busters team comes out to take on the enchanted / possessed managers at The Met Office and cause them to, momentarily regain their senses. Then, Dudley Do-Right of the Mounties rides in, captures the data (on 9 track computer reels!) and rides off into the sunset… with John Wayne following (in rear guard action, to prevent Dudley’s capture) while the Beverly Hills Cops theme blends over… fade to Anthony, Sam Spade like, explaining that, just like the Maltese Falcon, it was not the data itself that was the issue, it was the pursuit of it and the coverup of it’s “passage” that was the real crime… Hands over $100 bill “This was supposed to bribe me, but the data, well, the data speaks for it’s self. Look here, see how the winters are warmer, but the summers, they don’t get any warmer. That was a frame up, put around CO2, when it was really them that did it.. A man is supposed to stand up for his partner, for the truth…”
Shoreliner11 (13:25:22) : You wrote: “Aren’t you interested in finding out if the Met is “adjusting” the data for its own self-serving reasons?”
You apparently haven’t worked at a major scientific government institutions or known any prominent scientists. The idea that all climate scientists throughout the world are doctoring their data and coming to the same false conclusion to secure that next grant is laughable.
It isn’t the idea of a Grand Conspiracy that keeps me up at night so much as it’s the idea of a Grand Delusion. History is full of such delusions. Read “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/24518
From what I can see, we are in the middle of a Tulip Mania of a sort right now.
People are astoundingly ready to leap off the cliff of conclusion, be it in a religious fervor, a housing bubble, a greed based tulip mania, or even a paranoia driven belief that The End Is Neigh or that AGW is going to destroy the plant.
THAT is what you must guard against every single day.
So: no data? Then you are a kook believing in spooks and daemons.
You want me to believe that The End Is Neigh? Show me the data.
It really is That Simple.
That the Met Office is hiding something is clearly a fact.
That the data is what they are hiding is also clearly a fact.
“Why” is the only question.
In the absence of any proof to the contrary (i.e. the publication of the data), one must assume that they are completely bonkers and / or have made an understandable but horrid error.
To reach any conclusion other than that is to hand over control of your sanity to the first person with a good con job and a big dose of paranoia.
So, let me make this perfectly clear:
Unless the data is available and the methodology too, for public and independent validation; all you have is a ghost story to scare the children and a mania with self delusion. And no, this does not take a “conspiracy”. All it takes is the well documented herd behaviour of human beings.
BTW, I’m going to be beating this drum for a while, so you might as well get used to it now… CO2 can not be causal.
I’ve recently summed the temperature data in GIStemp, buy month, over the entire data set. I’ve done this at each step of GIStemp up to the point where the data are sent off to “Grid Box” land. The raw data. The slightly processed data. Even the fully processed but not yet gridded data all say the same thing:
CO2 can not possibly be the cause of any warming. Period.
Why?
Because there is no “warming” signal in the summer months. The “warming” is mostly in the winter data.
So please tell me: Exactly HOW does CO2 take the summer off?
Exactly WHY is the CO2 warming only the winter, strongly, and the spring and fall not so much, with the summers not at all?
So if Hadley wants to assert that “The CO2 Did It!” and has magic hidden secret data to back up their position, then they can join the folks trading Tulips and buying $150/bbl oil and houses in California in 2005.
If they want to share their data for independent validation, then I want a copy. The very first thing I will do is to sum the temperatures, by month, over each year, then divide by the number of data points to give the average temperature in each month in each year. Then plot it.
If that data, much as GHCN does, shows no warming in summer and plenty in winter then I’m going to ask:
What makes CO2 so magical that it takes the summer off?
It’s in the data.
It’s not about me.
It’s not about method.
It’s not even about goals or bias.
It’s all about the data and what the data say.
And what the data say is that there is a strong winter warming signal, but summers are not warming (hardly at all). And that can not in any way be due to CO2.
You see, there is a grand delusion right now. That delusion is that CO2 is “causal” when the data clearly show it can not be. So I have no need to chase ghosts and goblins in conspiracy land. All I need to do is to ask what grand delusion has captured otherwise competent minds and led them off a cliff of conclusion?
BTW, anyone can do this test. Just download the GHCN dataset and sort it by year, then sum the data for each month of that year and divide by the number of valid data entries. (create the “average temperature per month”).
Then look at it.
Hard.
Summers hardly warm at all.
Winters warm spectacularly.
CO2 is ramping up steadily month over month, year over year.
CO2 can not be causal of seasonal dependent changes.
Period.
QED.
Shoreliner11, just dismiss the surfacestations project with a wave of your almighty hand. Seems a bit lazy and if I do say so, it smacks of fear of Anthony being correct. So what if it is just for the US? This is just the beginning as the clues found in the US are indicative of what is happening around the globe from a data sampling perspective. In fact, I think the US is the BEST indicator for standard of data, or lack thereof. You can belittle all you like, as it seems to be just handwaving from a desperate individual. How is the Co2 climate driver theory going for you? Holding up to observational scrutiny? BTW, you never answered my question on the first thread you commented on. Come to think of it, you never responded to anybody (excluding J. Hansford). Just waltz in actin’ all big ‘n bad, but it seems there is no substance to you or your posts …..
E.M.Smith (20:29:40) :
Summers hardly warm at all.
Winters warm spectacularly.
CO2 is ramping up steadily month over month, year over year.
CO2 can not be causal of seasonal dependent changes.
Period.
Link to plots?
If it is as you say, which I have no reason to doubt, publish it. The way you state it it is a compact letter.
But in your position I would make it two letters.
The first one establishing the seasonal variation clearly, without controversial (for AGW) conclusions .
The second one referring to the first one and discussing the CO2 .
If something like this, seasonal variation, is already published then one letter, referring to it and your analysis and conclusions.
E.M.Smith (20:29:40) : Continued
But in
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html
one does not see the story you say.
anna v.
I enjoyed this
Re: Jim Hacker in Yes Minister ……
The scenarios as described in the TeeVee Series pale into insignifcance, when they are compared with the real agenda and excuses trotted out by the Climate Shills at the Hadley and the British Met. Office.
See this URL for the complete list of the plot scenarios of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister.
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-yes-minister-and-yes-prime-minister-episodes
No doubt these episodes can be seen …… somewhere on the web ?
Those inscrutible Chinese know a good parody on Western Politics when they see one…….
http://so.youku.com/search_video/q_yes%20minister
Episodes are listed in a random order, and the webpage is all in Chinese, except for the Episode Titles. See the answers dot com list for the plot synopses. Server may be slow …. it is in China, far away for most of you in here. Press play button, then pause video and allow to buffer some data before playing. Chinese subtitles as you might expect.
See the Alarmaoists future plans …. Have a laugh 😀
Shoreliner11 (11:53:56) : No science journal should ever publish work based on secret data, secret computer code, or secret anything else. No country should base policy on scientific work that involves secret data, secret computer code, or secret anything else. In the case of policy, any material used to determine the policy should be public for all to see, other than something directly related to the military or very directly related to national security. Climate models and data do not qualify for secrecy.
E.M.Smith (20:29:40) :
“Exactly WHY is the CO2 warming only the winter, strongly, and the spring and fall not so much, with the summers not at all?”
A thought occurs: we turn the heating off in the summer. The world is warmer winter, sping and autumn because human genious has fought back against the devil cold (a far bigger killer than cousin heat). Progress, not C0².
I rather suspect the input to MOD is significantly better than that available for public consumption. If it weren’t, the whole department would have been disposed of years ago.
The military generally require some degree of accuracy.
DaveE.
The Met Office makes the leak sound so dramatic! Reminds me of the public warnings in the movie Shaun of the Dead…