From Kate at Small Dead Animals: No U-turns allowed
Dear Tom,
I find it hard to believe that the British Antarctic Survey would permit the deletion of relevant files for two recent publications or that there aren’t any backups for the deleted data on institutional servers. Would you mind inquiring for me? In the mean time, would you please send me the PP format files that you refer to here for the monthly sea ice data for the 20th century models discussed in your GRL article and the 21st century models referred to in your JGR article.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
Then in July… “Unprecedented” Data Purge At CRU
On Monday, July 27, 2009, as reported in a prior thread, CRU deleted three files pertaining to station data from their public directory ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/. The next day, on July 28, Phil Jones deleted data from his public file – see screenshot with timestemp in post here, leaving online a variety of files from the 1990s as shown in the following screenshot taken on July 28, 2009.
The Telegraph, today – Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row ….. Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full….
Now, here comes the other shoe! Hide the Decline!
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.”
[…]
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Their fall back position seems to be “our results are similar to those of other organisations.” But what if these other organisations have also been cooking the books?
Didn’t Senator Inhofe recently demand GISS make their data available for a senate inquiry? And don’t GISS also use the same raw data as CRU? Interesting times ahead.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
Will someone PLEASE produce a SIMPLE GRAPHIC.
(preferably by a respected scientist in the field)
A pie chart, bar graph, ANYTHING that gets the message easily across
showing % Natural Greenhouse Gase VS MANMADE Gases
ie 85% water vapour, etc,etc
IT NEED TO BE A PICTURE THE THAT THE PUBLIC, can understand..
The AGW people are STILL WINNING the main stream media debate.
because us sceptics are CRAP are presentation/media…
Put this graphic on the front page of EVERY website about climate gate.
For the cleverer among you put together, pictorially,
The relative % warming effect, broken down into the gases, h20, co2, methane, etc VS man made CO2 contribution.
PLEASE
@Dave (01:08:02) – Exactly right – the Harry files are even more damaging than the emails.
The climate models and IPCC conclusions are based on the flawed HADCRUT temperature profiles and data sets.
The Harry_Read_Me file documents that Harry was not able to duplicate the CRU TS2.1 result using CRU’s own programs and data files! Then he documents his frustration trying to get the data files to work for Version 3. No wonder Jones didn’t want anyone else to see them.
Harry says –
* “am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!
* “But I am beginning to wish I could just blindly merge based on WMO code.. the trouble is that then I’m continuing the approach that created these broken databases.”
* “So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
… more details on his frustration with trying to work with the temperature data files, starting with Australia …
Harry says –
“getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.”
“I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.”
“Wrote ‘makedtr.for’ to tackle the thorny problem of the tmin and tmax databases not being kept in step. Sounds familiar, if worrying. am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!”
“Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have :-)”
“…and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”
<>
” Andrew (03:44:52) :
Has anyone seen a copy of the Sunday Times magazine today in the UK?”
Yes. Fortunately my family were out when I saw it. The whole colour magazine this week sums up the sorry spin infested AGW fiasco. And that graph…which data does John C Hammond MCIPR – The Met Office use?
I am concerned that the climategate information is not getting to the people through the printed and television media. It is essential that enough pressure be brought to assure that they carry the stories. Without this publicity, insufficient pressure will be put on the politicians, and “cap and Trade” , the Copenhagen treaty and other malfeasences will not be stopped. I believe each one of us should participate in contacting their local media and highlighting the story and the serious nature of its content.
How might Monty Python have described this…
Phil: “We’ve got some HadCRUT”
Steve: “Ah, excellent”
Phil: “It’s a bit – adjusted”
Steve: “That’s okay I like it adjusted – lots to pick up on”
Phil: “It really is a bit adjusted”
Steve: “I don’t care how *#%$ing adjusted it is, give me the data”
Phil: “Oh”
Steve: “What?”
Phil: “The cat’s had it…”
oops, sorry for the duplicate ….
Yesterday I was engaged in a series of posts over at Climate Progress, Judith Curry’s post titled “An Open Letter…”. I was engaged in a debate regarding science being open.
First of all, it was amazing how completely tunnel-visioned so many of the people there are. One believes that if you even READ the leaked emails, you’ve committed some form of criminal act. Others constantly regurgitate the same mantra that I’ve seen on RealClimate, that 98% of the data is already posted, and they’ve been working to post the other 2%, and that all of this brooha is insulting to these hardworking real scientists. It was explained to me that Jones simply could NOT release the data due to the privacy issues, etc, and that he had really tried to make everything publicly available.
I then brought up the Jones email where he said he’d sooner delete the file than turn it over… and asked how that meshed with their statement…and…
I was censored. No further posts from me were allowed. Mind you, there was no name calling, no ad hom…just a discussion of points of view…and censored.
They truly still do not get it. They believe The Team are truly gods…even with the evidence that’s sitting in front of their own eyes.
Very disappointing, in fact, that the post is under the guise of “We need to have an open discussion with the ‘skeptics/deniers’ in order to help heal what has happened”.
Guess maybe they’re not all that interested after all.
JimB
Cold Englishman (04:02:12) :
Can anyone identify “Harry”?
No, but I’ll betcha he’s lurking or even posting at WUWT.
Lookatthecode…
Check out Anthony’s climate widget on the sidebar. Look at the temp curve plot, then the CO2 plot. Note that they are diverging… (diverging… now where have I heard that before…:)
Has anyone checked the dumpster. New sport dumpster diving for climate change.
Looks like we need to toss some college text books. They have “stories” based on deleted, altered or non existant data.
How many of the dirty dozen wrote text books? How many are out there and how many texts by other authors incorporated these vapor files that are discarded?
Looks like college credits in climateology are equal to carbon trading credits. 15 cents a ton. What does Judy say? Is she still in denial of there being “issues”????
CRU quality controlled and homogenised “raw” data -> GISS -> controlled and homogenised data -> public ?
The data is homogenised two times?
A poster on here [IIRC] refers to the leaker as a she – that’s the only time I’ve seen that and it was more than once.
Oh to be fly on the wall of their house – it must have been a terrifying and yet thrilling rollercoaster over the last week for them.
If you’re reading this – eternal thanks.
If the CRU cannot prove global warming, by reference to the original data, then we must assume global warming does not exist.
WakeUpMaggy (05:45:23),
IMHO, I think the leaker should remain anonymous for the time being. Because as soon as (s)he ‘fesses up, the whole focus by the Warmistas will be on the person, not on what the CRU did: diddling with the raw temps.
They use ad hominem attacks because they are effective. Don’t give ’em that by exposing the whistleblower. Let them squirm over their incriminating emails instead.
This past week has certainly confirmed another suspicion among skeptics. The media is truly in collusion on the whole deal. Just like the emails confirmed what we suspected about the scientists the media response demonstrates just how politicized it has become.
We can no longer trust anything printed in the MSM. Cancel your paper subscriptions and turn off all the news shows of any MSM entity hiding the scandal. Time for them to go bankrupt.
Re Google and climategate returns – it’s just jumped to 13.1m on the co.uk site but won’t autosuggest.
Hmm. I wonder if the IRS will accept some “value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data” next April. Income proxies seem to be showing a sharp decline.
The word is hitting the MSM in the US. Barone has a strong following in the States.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Global-warming-consensus_-garbage-in_-garbage-out-8595100-76438787.html
Meanwhile, back in the real world, here in Minnesota the third coldest October on record is on track to be followed by the 2nd warmest November on record (according to the local NBC weather guys).
And so it goes.
Harry may be the Hacker/Mole/Whistleblower/Hero.
But the whole CRU hierarchy reminds me of Mark Twain’s Editor’s advice when the
young Twain started to work for the”Territorial Enterprise” at Virginia City Nv:
““Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”
Didn’t Anthony discover that somebody submitted the same data two months in a row? Mostly Siberian stations, if I remember correctly, had submitted Sept data at the end of October. It was just last year. The question becomes how “quality controlled” is the data? Should it be “are the data?” “Is the data” sounds better and English is changing to allow the “is” but you never know when you’re going to run into a grammerian.
“I give up, you deserve to lose.
FOR F***S SAKE
YOU HAVE A GOOGLE AD HELPING TO SAVE THE PLANET FROM GLOBAL WARMING ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE WEBSITE.
Ads by Google
Help Stop Global Warming
Join thousand of people who want to send a message to global leaders
http://www.edspledge.com
look at the rubbish you are sayin in the comments here, all very witty and clever, AGW will roll, on and on, you little techy smugness, turns off the public…
Final FINAL time.
Don’t post here…”
Post on the Wall Street Journal, The Times, The NEW York Times,The Telegraph, The NEW York Times.
The BBC website.
Talk in language you art school son or daughter will UNDERSTAND.
LOOK at the BBC website they are true believers of climate change religion…
AGW will march on.
Please get a grip on the MEDIA
@Dave in Delaware (05:18:05) & Dave (01:08:02):
I’ve looked at the file too – Harry_read_me file. The CRU code may give the same result as GIStemp, but the way it is set up it couldn’t be more different. At least GISS start with real data. I could be way off, or perhaps I’m stating the obvious, but I wonder how much, even for surface temperatures, the CRU model starts with model data then adds the observational temperatures to give the model a dose of reality.