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.
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…