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.
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”.