Guest post by Christopher Horner, Planet Gore at National Review Online
One thing about “ClimateGate” nagging at the back of my mind is the absence of any discussion by ringleader Phil Jones (or others) of the remarkable, shocking discovery that Jones now claims he had that his precedessor destroyed the raw data in the 1980s.
That is the data that scientists have for years been seeking from Jones under the UK’s freedom of information law. Against numerous such requests he offered equally numerous excuses for refusing access culminating with the September 2009 claim — when it looked like he’d been cornered and had no excuses not to provide it to Prof. Ross McKitrick who met all of his long-stated qualifications — that in fact he’d lost it.
First, it does seem odd that Jones would so firmly and crisply articulate his many, very specific excuses for so many years about why he could not provide something that in fact they had, as he now tells it, lost. His refusals all clearly imply that a belief that he had it.
But where are the emails putting out the word, oh, snap, you guys aren’t gonna believe this?
Among all that has been revealed, there does not appear to be one. Let alone a chain discussing the importance of not at long last actually having the raw, how this loss might relate to the scores of emails they wrote about whether to release the data and how to avoid releasing the data and how they’d rather destroy it (I don’t know, “pretend to have lost it”) than give it to the folks who seem to be on to them.
This seems like a big email, and a chain of discussions that would pervade that which has been revealed. It doesn’t.
To the contrary, we have numerous emails from Jones explaining how turning over the raw data is one option, but he’d much rather destroy it than let the intrepid start pawing over it which could only lead, as he admits in one email, to figuring out what CRU et al did to said raw data in order to come up with their alarming claims.
So there is a reasonable conclusion, and it is not that the data was lost or destroyed twenty years ago.
But who knows, maybe Jones wrote James Hansen at NASA, or Gavin Schmidt — for so long a taxpayer-funded activist for Environmental Media Services’ RealClimate.blog and now implicated as a major player in these emails (Capo number 6 according to this analysis). Those should turn up when the courts help NASA figure out how to come into compliance with their legal obligations and provide me similar data and correspondence that they have been, similarly and by chance, refusing me for over two years.
Christopher C. Horner Senior Fellow Competitive Enterprise Institute 1899 L. St, NW 12th Floor Washington, DC, 20036 +1.202.331.2260 (O)
Author of the newly released: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed http://www.amazon.com/Red-Hot-Lies-Alarmists-Misinformed/dp/1596985380/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231180047&sr=8-1
Author of The New York Times Bestselling The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Global-Warming-Environmentalism/dp/1596985011
“US Creationists back Climategate scientists “ Andrew
Twas merely a spoof. However, for Christians seeing signs of the end, believing AGW seems a natural mistake to make UNTIL one realizes that CO2 is natural and that curtailing it could kill millions. It also helps to realize that the blame for much of the environmental destruction can be laid squarely at the feet of government backed violation of “Thou shall not steal” via the banking cartels.
Let’s attack the real root of our problems: pseudo-capitalism. Pseudo-science is merely one of its branches.
I still can’t fathom how the data would be lost, even in the 80’s. Most major universities that had computer systems had 9-track tape backups of all the data in case a system restart or reload needed to occur. Usually a second backup was kept off campus in a data storage facility so that no single catastrophic event would wipe out the data. So to loose the data they would have to delete it from the mainframe, loose the backup tape, and loose backup #2.
I realize that it would be a tremendous amount of work but couldn’t the lost data be reconstructed from the original instrument sources (like logs and intermediate data collection points)? Or am I missing the scope of what data was lost?
@ur momisugly Andrew (13:44:56) :
“Under the ‘with friends like that’ column:
US Creationists back Climategate scientists
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100018807/us-creationists-back-climategate-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-”
Hi Andrew. Did you know they have removed the word “gullible” from the dictionary?
According to a READ_ME file in one of the program directories provided, there is a master station list that is updated whenever the database is updated with new temperature data. I am assuming that happens monthly to produce the new CRUT data. That README was last modified in 2004 according to the data stamp on the file. So the idea that they don’t have any idea of what stations were used is bogus.
This READ_ME is:
/documents/cru-code/linux/cruts/_READ_ME.txt and the interesting part is:
So there should be a file with the metadata. Claims that it was all lost in the 80’s seems incorrect.
Mar 30 2004 _READ_ME.txt
hmmm! richard black at bbc:
BBC: Climate e-mail hack ‘will impact on Copenhagen summit’
E-mails hacked from a climate research institute suggest climate change does
not have a human cause, according to Saudi Arabia’s lead climate negotiator.
Mohammad Al-Sabban told BBC News that the issue will have a “huge impact” on
next week’s UN climate summit, with countries unwilling to cut emissions.
…
Saudi Arabia is an influential member of the G77/China bloc which leads the
“developing world” side in many elements of the UN negotiations.
Mr Al-Sabban made clear that he expects it to derail the single biggest
objective of the summit – to agree limitations on greenhouse gas emissions.
“It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship
whatsoever between human activities and climate change,” he told BBC News.
“Climate is changing for thousands of years, but for natural and not
human-induced reasons.
“So, whatever the international community does to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions will have no effect on the climate’s natural variability.” …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8392611.stm
Great logic with what happened to the raw data.
Keep up the great work and keep the pressure on them !!!
As mentioned before… Jone DOES say in the Climategate emails that he had planned to destroy any data/information rather than actually accede to a FIOA request.
Looking at how the “Team” has handled themselves in the past when they felt threatened, and taking into consideration the tenor of their comments in the Climategate emails…
I’d say he followed through with his threat and intentionally destroyed the information rather than give it up, then blamed his dead predecessor for the “loss”.
Anyone remember when the “mystery man” went behind Peilke’s back and tried to use his NASA label to strongarm Pielke’s bosses into firing him over the Steig/Antarctica thing?
Doc
I for one, care about the data being released. I’m currently learning R so I can see for myself if temps have been rising the way they say they have. Amazing framework btw.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the data really is lost, we do have one email where Jones states that he could easily re-assemble it as most of it is based on GHCN data, which indicates that it was in fact lost.
I’d say that the reason he kept dodging people was because he wanted to avoid the ridicule that would have rained down on him when it became known that the HADCRU temp set could not be replicated, not even by himself.
Had it not been for Climategate, that probably would have been the thing we would have been discussing most, besides the science.
Another thing that is missing from the emails is the communications with journalists and politicians, and others with skin in the game. These people must have been getting loads of emails from outside interests as to how to present/put the best spin on a particular issue, but yet nothing. The longer this whole affair drags on, the deeper this whole AGW meme is going to get buried.
I can imagine two thoughts leading to the overwriting/deleting of the data supplied to CRU.
1. The adjustments we are making are above reproach.
2. The sources of the raw data will remain therefore if we wanted to get it again we could.(And provide other scientists with the locations of that data if we cannot provide them with that data.)
I’d like the situation to be 2 but I’ve a feeling it is 1. If the raw data was not in CRU’s hands why waste so much time not saying this? Yet they took things further by discussing deleting data.(Raw or value added? Either way very much not a good idea) Would intellectual property rights considerations go out the window if CRU had released their value added data and the adjustments they had made? The excuses had to stop eventually.
CRU’s reluctance or inability to provide the raw data means what; their various papers are all based on the value added stuff? Yet by not having the raw data as well we cannot discern what those adjustments were and consider the validity of them, which renders their papers all but worthless from a scientific point. They have assumed and required the scientific community to assume that their value added data is correct.
something tells me we will be reading many more emails and reports in the future. why? the individual who is managing the release knows what they are doing or knows someone who does. think about it…would you know how to segment these emails in such a manner? would you know what to look for? better yet, are there even more clues in the email message(s)?
Folks, this release of “selected” emails and reports is only a primer…kinda like a slow filet mignon prepared “perfectly” for your tastes and a dom Parignon bubblie kinda teaser.
I hereby predict another load will be dumped soon…very soon…that will make us all go “wow” “omg” … and will allow for even more clues…
We shall have to wait and see, eh?????
Holdren is busted in front of congress. His false claims and reports get hammered.
Junk science from the science czar.
roop! forgot to put the word “grilled” after the word “slow”. my bad…
I have an idiot’s question.
To set it up….
Data is hard to kill.
In the Navy years ago, I served aboard a ship that had been sunk in the south Pacific, hauled up, cleaned up, mothballed, “converted” and went back to sea. We had a lot of logbooks for equipment that was no longer aboard the ship. We tried for a long time to get rid of the useless log books. Eventually, we got permission to destroy them, but not until we had made copies of everything in them.
In later years, working with data processing stuff we talked about “moveing” data from one place to another. But me didn’t really.
We moved the service order stuff to paper tape, leaving the paper copiy behind.
We move the toll-call stuff from paper tape to magnetic tape, leaving the paper tape behind.
We moved all that stuff to a data base, leaving the magnetic tapes behind.
And so forth and so ok. (periodic “backups” ignored to keep the argument simple.)
Now the question: How is that the data only existed in one place such that it could in fact be destroyed from the face of the earth/ When unfortunate pictures of youthful exuberance can not?
[REPLY – Yes, it’s obvious. To make HadCRUt v.2 and 3 they had to have the data available in soft copy. ~ Evan]
“”” TheGoodLocust (13:57:08) :
Unrelated to this post, but I have a question, the pro-AGW people point to the isotopic composition of the atmosphere to say the source of the extra CO2 is man.
I have a couple of problems with this, but the main one is that they say the CO2 increases would result from oil/coal since the C12/13 ratio is similar to plants and the atmosphere is getting closer to that ratio. “””
Well the fact that a particular carbon isotope ratio is changing in the atmosphere; merely means that a carbon source with a different isotope ratio is putting carbon in the atmosphere. It doesn’t mean that the increase in atmospheric carbon can be attributed to this new source.
Presumably coal is fossilized plant materials, and so one would expect it to have the same C12/C13 ratio as plants; but it might be devoid of C14 which is a short lived radio-isotope. Cutting and burning forest and other plant materials would also put carbon with a plant signature into the atmosphere; but still you can’t say the increase in carbon is from such a source. If we started burning a fuel that contained some Argon (for whatever reason that might be), then one would expect the atmospheric Argon to show an increase. But that would not be evidence that the carbon increase was due to Argon containing carbon sources.
I have read that there are actually several types of carbon take-up processes in plants depending on the type of plant, and that they exhibit different C12/C13 ratios.
I agree that burning “fossil fules” puts carbon in the atmosphere; so does burning non-fossil fuels, and so does ocean outgassing, and volcanoes, and other earth processes. None of which means that the increase in atmospheric carbon is solely due to burning fossil fuels.
Where is the proof that petroleum is a fossil fuel rather than simply a liquid mineral. Is tar a fossil fuel; are the La Brea Tarpits simply the result of too many mastodons, Sabre toothed tigers, and dire wolves standing in the same place for too long, until they begin devouring themselves; and not just as food.
Archonix;
RE: “The fact that any particular group you or I find objectionable…”
I don’t find them objectionable it is only that I think that they seem to share a common definition of the word ‘theory’.
One has a ‘theory’ that makes no predictions and the other has…
The emails and codes found in the LEAK are, I’m afraid, just a sample of what is taking place between those groups and people. Do any of you believe they did not write anymore emails or codes in between those we have been lucky to sample? I don’t think so. More than anything, those emails, in particular, show their real personalities and disdain for any others that would show real science, but unlucky for them, they were not friends.
I am so sorry that is is so far O/T, but this is from the BBC. What is wrong with this? Am I missing something? Have the warmists been right all along?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm
I know it does not show any correlation with temperatures but….
(BTW I am a skeptic, and I would like to be able to speak to friends about this evidence!)
My representative Candice Miller speaks out on Climategate.
This is the first time in many years when I can say I was actually proud of anyone in Washington. Hooray Candice!!!
This Nature editorial reads like a war manifesto:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/pdf/462545a.pdf
…but gives one benefit of “the e-mail theft” which is: “to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts.”
In order to deal with this problem Nature recommends:
“Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.”
I wonder what this assistance might entail? Perhaps some assistance in quietly disposing of the raw data?? But seriously, it does seem to be suggesting to help build a bigger barricade – a FOI/media/public relations unit perhaps? I mean, it is outrageous that a nobody like MacIntyre can “harass” the way he has.
Another great quote from Nature editorial is the answer to this claim:
“Denialists often maintain that these changes [in the climate] are just a symptom of natural climate variability.”
The answer is: The models prove otherwise:
“But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world’s voracious appetite for carbon is essential.”
How is it come to this? How has it come that we have a the journal at the pinnacle of our peer review tower of authority makes such an obviously circular and grossly over-simplified argument on such a serious matter?
Now really gearing up at Fox.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/03/boxer-suggests-leaked-e-mails-represent-criminal-hacker-conspiracy/
Andrew, I am a creationists, I do not back these climate gate scientists. # I. I don’t believe in lying. # 2 I do believe in leaving this earth in better shape when I leave it than it was when I arrived. Nope I very doubt that there was very much investigation into that story. Being a creationist doesn’t make one stupid. It just means that I have a basic belief that this planet and the universe is to complicated to be an accident. You may believe what you wish I will not force you to believe as I do. I just ask that you respect my belief as I respect yours.
Now that being said I very much agree with Mr. Horner that it is very unusual that the excuse “the raw data has been lost” only after they are in a corner and can’t avoid the FOI request any farther.
Keep up the good works Anthony, Steve M., Mr Horner and all those that believe in true scientific method. It is time that the truth come out. Let the chips fall where they may.
Bill Derryberry
Here is my post on some interesting email exchanges where Briffa & Cook challenged Mann on MWP in 2001. Seems his stick was under attack from within as well.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11701
And I noted other reasons why that data could not have been destroyed until after 2008 (posted 11/29):
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11630
and here (posted 11/30):
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11643
I suggest three inquiries:
1. All documents, programs, and data related to the missing data. (Is this the station list from a certain point in time?) This was basically attempted earlier in a different way, but might be worth asking again under new management. And additional details might be known now for rephrasing the request.
2. All documents related to the claimed deletion of data in the 1980s.
3. All documents related to the deletion of the data/availability page from the CRU web server, where that deletion was recently mentioned.
No, I’m not limiting the questions to emails. If there was data lost in the 1980s that may have been discussed in paper memos, or there may be a list of items (backup tapes) to be destroyed during the move. And there may be non-email records which are relevant, such as READ_ME files and program code.
Chris Horner, keep up the good work!
Andrew (13:44:56), thanks for the link. Funniest thing I’ve read all week!
“But then we discovered that, by tearing the geological charts into strips, highly significant gaps in the fossil record appeared. That was a neat trick, huh?”
ROFL
evanmjones (14:01:06) :
Reminds me of the lawyer’s dog.
“My dog ate the raw data”