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.
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”.
“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 🙂
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.
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.
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.
Gene Nemetz (15:08:06) : Drop by drop water makes a hole in a stone…
Robert Wood (15:30:23)
Yes, the article I linked makes mention of the window tax at the end.
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).
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!
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……..
Ron (11:40:06) :
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
I would bet $ 100 that the “value added data” has a higher warming trend than the original data set.
“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
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.
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.
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.