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.
What’s missing here are some additional context facts; recognizing that the data are not UK data per se. Data from many countries has been collected and collated at the CRU (Univ. of East Anglia) and which feeds into some of the UK Met Office work. Some of this data were collected under the arrangement that the source data were not to be made public because of commercial or other interests. Outside of the USA this is quite common — that national meteorological services (tasked with maintaining a national observing system and archive) treat their data as a commercial product — and so they will not release it to just anyone. The fact that I and others think this is wrong and inhibits science is not the issue, the reality is that many countries are not willing to freely release their data. So the CRU and Met Office are between the rock and a hard place; publicize the data and risk ruining their relationships with the data sources, or hold onto the data so that they can keep the data stream flowing and be able to produce the valuable derivative products.
LOL, I’ll be interested to see how this plays out. My predictions…you’re going to get your hands on some bit of obsolete data and then make egregious claims not founded by your newly acquired “hot” dataset.
But your whole “mole” at Hadley is a great news story to make it sound like scientists are dissenting from the status quo. Cling to whatever tendrils of evidence you can to support your preconceived thesis.
Sorry, shoreliner11, it is you who have to produce evidence to support your failing theory. Competent people understand that the true driver(s) of climate are not fully understood. Anyone who tells you different is lying. AGW is failing on all fronts and you don’t have the guts to face up to that.
Hummmm it seems we have found one of the benefactors of global warming here that true
shoreliner11 Ehh! .
It’s a pity this global warming is going to turn round and issue a few wet kipper slaps before too long now as the facts come out that AGW should in fact be AGC cooling not warming .
And any how there is one thing that everyone but a few seems to sweep under the carpet the fact that this is a perfectly natural thing that happens every 10,000 or so years , Stop trying to extract profit from an natural occurance ( we have enough of that with people charging for natural gas )