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.
I appreciate the coverage by WattsUpWithThat. Is there a readily accessible comprehensive source that outlines the scientists and their roles within the IPCC?
Britannic no-see-um (09:26:17
Sure they have it over at the Met Office, and although they are definitely “On Message”, there are enough honest civil servants left to notice if the shredders are working overtime.
But I bet the shredders are busy over at UEA, and the Erase computer programmes. Bit of formatting anyone?
All this “value-added” data that the CRU has been selling – have they been paying Value Added Tax on it?
David Holland is not the only one to have put in a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about CRU withholding data. As soon as the leaked emails showed evidence of an alleged conspiracy between Professor Jones and his F.O.I. officers, to withhold data, I did the same.
As an active UK academic, CRU have even less reason not to have released the data to me.
Britannic no-see-um (09:26:17) :
2 scenarios:
1.) They had photocopies or microfische
2.) They had the originals
If 1, then the originals are both intact & archived.
if 2, then the originals are destroyed. Might I ask by what reason was CRU allowed to take original paper documents overseas from their countries of origin?
Who allowed them to do that?
This is a very critical question, what exactly they had in thier possession, and it needs an answer ASAP.
All you journalists out there, you need to dig like crazed dogs on this.
Lucy Skywalker (08:06:49) :
More than just Phil Jones are walking around with targets self-painted on them. When one’s actions pose a direct threat to the economic health of 2/3 of the citizens of the world, there is little room for doubt.
Re: lookatthecode (05:19:05)
You were looking for a pie chart of so called GHG’s, something I was looking for a year ago too. However although the approximate numbers I can give you are compelling, they are just working with the current in vogue theory that A) CO2 is a GHG, and B) there is a Greenhouse.
What I suggest to anybody who can think outside the box, and anybody who shares the interest in educating the public about this issue, that stands to enslaves us in a new eco feudalism do, is to step back and re-examine the whole issue fresh, free from the UN inspired dogma.
Hans Schreuder has brought people’s attention to the curious realization that technically, and scientifically rigorously speaking – there is no greenhouse effect from a thermodynamics point of view:
http://tech-know.eu/uploads/EPAInput.pdf
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Greenhouse%20and%20climate%20reality%20check.pdf
On top of that, something I think is more important to non science types is the whole concept of CO2, which is heavier than air, somehow also has the magic ability to rise from our exhaust pipes and form a two way mirror greenhouse layer many miles up (it doesn’t)
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/carbondioxidequotes.htm
If you’re looking for a magic bullet I would try that one. How can CO2 which is plant food, both feed the world’s plant based life at ground level, yet also lead a double life causing havoc miles above? It doesn’t. Yet this is the backbone of the whole ‘debate’. This is 5th grader type stuff, which is where the TV media usually operates, and we should really run with it. There is CO2 from airplanes higher in the atmosphere, but it sinks over time. The bulk of the UN hysteria is over tailpipe emissions and powerplant / industrial emissions, which also sink. Everyone knows the difference between a CO2 / N2 filled balloon which sinks, and a helium filled one. It’s time ‘climate researchers’ step up to the plate on this one, and start thinking about this. If the CRU leaks have come close to destroying a decade’s worth of scientific effort, why not use the opportunity to re-evaluate some of the dubious assumptions much of the science is based on?
As for your percentage of so-called GHG’s. As Schreuder points out water vapour actually cools the Earth not heats it, the only real GHG could be N2, or is it O2, I forget. But running with the theory that there is a Greenhouse and that CO2 is a GHG, Man produces roughly 3% of it, and the ‘greenhouse effect’ of the upper atmospheric CO2 is said to be, lets pick a figure, 20% of the effect. So 20% of 3% is piddly, and won’t really fit on a pie chart. These were the figures that led many people to be skeptics of a looming climate calamity from Man’s CO2 emissions. But the whole idea that CO2 can’t rise (or else there’d be no vegetation), and that really there is no Greenhouse Effect anyway, is much stronger. The general public always assumed that their tailpipe emissions, some of which was CO2, went upward, when clearly, CO2 never did. But unfortunately I don’t think anyone will pick up on this. It’s too hard to think outside the box 😉
There’s a new movie about to come out When Harry Met Smelly starring Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, the entire Wegman forty-four, and introducing a new star/starlet whose name may be divulged later. Produced by the UN IPCC in cooperation with the Bye Bye Credibility network. Directed by George Sorry.
Chucked out the raw data, eh? This has to be the real “tipping” point for climate change.
Gary Pearse (10:34:53) :
That point has me baffled. Who in thier right mind would allow original observations to get up and walk out the door? That is NOT how it is done in the scientific world. You take photos of the originals, you do NOT take the real thing. If this is what truly happened (walked out the door) there are more fish to fry the U CRU.
I question this all day long.
RE: vjones (06:34:18) :
“At least GISS start with real data.”
Actually, they start with USHCN adjusted temps and then they re-adjust them to suit
I seriously doubt that the original data is destroyed. It may no longer exist at the University of East Anglia but it must surely be extant in the files of the relevant Met Offices which provided elements of the original data set.
Now that sounds like an opportunity to get some grant money!
Yes, some grant money to go through mountains of original observations on microfische and get the raw data back into the public domain where it belongs.
Most of what I can dredge up right now is monthy means. Nice, but pre-condensed.
Should we start a worldwide network? I’ll take NNW Calif. for starters.
I’m in. Totally.
Destruction of data may not be a “scientific” decision, rather political.
They who hold the purse strings, do not care for scientific procedures and norms – this whole stinking fiasco bares the stench of the global power hungry; authority at all cost.
Look on the bright side…there’s a great opportunity here for a new reality TV series. Let’s call it ‘Top Climatologist.’ The contestants all receive a raw data set at the beginning of the hour, and the one who manipulates it in the most interesting ways is the winner! Mann, Jones and the rest of the CRU gang could serve as judges. And best of all — ED BEGLEY as MC!
>> Hugo M (04:34:41) :
>>Seems as if they are busy adjusting surface temperatures downwards.
Thanks Hugo. It will be very interesting to see what they do and what explanation is given. One more program “adjustment” is no big deal to these scammers.
Peer-reviewed papers and studies based on CRU-supplied data should be withdrawn, or at the very least have a disclaimer added to the top of wherever on the web they may be archived.
Can anybody point out the holes in this.
“Britain is not responsible for just 2% of CO2. British businesses operating overseas account for significant emissions. Anglo-Dutch owned Shell alone has emissions that exceed that of many countries. Anthropogenic enhanced global warming is caused by CO2 released since the start of the industrial revolution (c1800). CO2 released in 1850 still accounts for warming. The UK’s collective historic emissions make it the 4th biggest polluter. On a per capita cumulative historic basis we’re 2nd after the USA.
As for the CRU e-mail, read a little about how temperatures are calculated. Phil Jones (CRU) was refrring to anomolies in tree ring data, which would have over-estimated the temperature increase; and problems caused by using buckets to gather sea surface temperatures in the 1960s. His e-mail (if you read it) says he’s hidden data to show the real figures. He doesn’t say he’s hidden the real figures.
Natural climatic variation is caused by variations in Earth’s orbit, sunspot activity, El Nino, techtonic changes, and volcanic activity. Orbital ‘Milankovic’ cycles work on a 10,000, 40,000 and 140,000 basis, and cannot account for the present rapid warming. Sunspot activity all but disappeared recently, and man-made CO2 emissions exceed volcanic activity on an order of magnitude. Climate scientists use something called isotope analysis to date CO2 – in effect they know the origin of the CO2 is from coal.
All models from CRU and other climateic institute have been peer reviewed and scrutinised for years. Yet there is no significant diagareement from statistians or scientists; more so from ex-Chancellors, Top-Gear presenters, a few maverick journalists and bloggers. Who on earth do you think those who control the world’s economies listen to? Lord Stern or Jermey Clarkson?
I work in environmental management and studied climate science at university. I talk to scientists, environmental consultants and environmental managers. You’ll find that the vast majority who are informed believe the science. By the way, I’ve no links with the UEA’s CRU.”
Sorry if you can point out the holes could you post it hear, the auther is, Richard Burton, well it woud be .
http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2009/11/27/the-copenhagen-summit-is-of-historic-importance/
RexAlan (02:58:24) :
Well I’ve just canned google. Bling Bling for me!
This is what happens when you have one dominant search engine whose financial interests come first, Rupet Murdoch is another example.
Harry Plotter and the Climate Record Undertakers
Craig (06:27:07) :
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.”
Make that “grammarian.” 🙂
“Data is” is OK. Here’s some material (two comments posted here a year ago by Peter W) that you can copy and paste the next time someone objects to it:
PeterW (19:49:26) :
The word `data’, in English, is a singular mass noun. It is thus a deliberate archaism and a grammatical and stylistic error to use it as a plural.
The Latin word data is the neuter plural past participle of the first conjugation verb dare, `to give’.
The Latin word ‘data’ appears to have made its way into English in the mid 17th century making its first appearance in the 1646 sentence `From all this heap of data it would not follow that it was necessary.’
Note that this very first appearance of the word in English refers to a quantity of data, a `heap’, rather than a number.
The English word `data’ is therefore a noun referring variously to measurements, observations, images, and the other raw materials of scientific enquiry.
`Data’ now refers to a mass of raw information, which is measure rather than counted, and this is as true now as it was when the word made its 1646 debut.
‘Data’ is naturally and consistently used as a mass noun in conversation: the question is asked how much data an instrument produces, not how many; it is asked how data is archived, not how they are archived; there is talk of less data rather than fewer; and talk of data having units, saying they have a megabyte of data, or 10 CDs, or three nights, and never saying `I have 1000 data’ and expecting to be understood.
The universal perception of data as measured rather than counted puts the word firmly and unambiguously in the same grammatical category as `coal’, `wheat’ and `ore’, which is that of the mass, or aggregate, noun.
As such, it is always and unavoidably grammatically singular. No one would ask `how many wheat do you have?’ or say that `the ore are in the train’ if one wished to be thought a competent speaker of English; in the same way, and to the same extent, we may not ask `how many data do you have?’ or say `the data are in the file’ without committing a grammatical error.
As a footnote; isn’t it lucky English is now genderless, making `data’ neuter, else we’d have to memorise masculine dati (dati dati datos datorum datis datis) and feminine datae, too?
It’s much simpler just to speak and write English.
PeterW (14:35:34) :
Data is; data is an English word. English includes many words originally press-ganged from Latin, which have changed their grammatical type.
As has been pointed out far more eloquently than I can:
“The majority of writers who would dutifully pluralise `data’ in writing naturally and consistently use it as a mass noun in conversation: they ask how much data an instrument produces, not how many; they talk of how data is archived, not how they are archived; they talk of less data rather than fewer; and they talk of data with units, saying they have a megabyte of data, or 10 CDs, or three nights, and never saying `I have 1000 data’ and expecting to be understood.
If challenged, they will respond that `data is a Latin plural’. Agree to this, for the sake of professional harmony, and carry on the conversation, making sure to mention that `the telescope has data many odd images tonight’ (it’s a past participle after all), suggest looking at the data raw images (…or an adjective) and that you both examine the datorum variance (surely they recall the genitive plural); suggest they give you the datis (…the dative), so that you can redo the analysis with their datis (…and the ablative). If they object ask them to explain their sentimental attachment to the nominative plural, that they would use that in all cases, in brute defiance of good Latin grammar.
re: lookatthecode (05:19:05) :
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 … 85% water vapour, etc,etc … IT NEED TO BE A PICTURE THE THAT THE PUBLIC, can understand..
—————————————————–
I’ve found this to be a good resource – one of few i’ve found – that quantifies anthropogenic contribution to greenhouse gases
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Not only does it give raw shares but also effective shares after taking into account the varying effect of different forcings
Bernie in Pipewell (13:25:54) :
Sorry if you can point out the holes could you post it hear, the auther is, Richard Burton, well it woud be .
http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2009/11/27/the-copenhagen-summit-is-of-historic-importance/
Bernie, thanks for the offer, but I don’t think they need any help over there.
It looks like a lot of people are suffering because they – along with the elite Climate Scientists – don’t know anything about the Scientific Method and Process.
The references to “1984” in earlier posts are not misplaced: An act of wanton destruction by CRU that once may have been called ‘a Book Burning’ – has, with sinister Orwellian overtones, created a reduced compilation that now goes by the Newspeak-style label of ‘value added (quality controlled and homogenised) data’. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.