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
Did my comment get eaten?
Sarah Palin just put ClimateGate front and center on Facebook Post
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=188540473434&id=24718773587&ref=nf
Anthony
How much of what the Team put up last week at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw
is truly raw, and not pre-massaged?
REPLY: I don’t know about the others that much, but the ones that matter the most for this discussion:
# GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
# USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1 and v.2)
Are not “raw” at all. Each has gone through a variety of adjustments for TOBS, SHAP, FILNET, for USHCN V.1 USHCN V.2 and GHCN V.2 also have adjustments done.
see here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/13/ushcn-version-2-prelims-expectations-and-tests/
GHCN V.2 gets the same adjustments as UHCN V.2, all done by NOAA/NCDC after raw data transcription from observer B91 printed forms.
So the answer is, for the surface temperature record, no truly raw data has been presented on the links Gavin provided.
-Anthony
L Bowser (16:33:51) : Today they would not delete them to save space because space is cheap. However, in the 1980’s space was expensive, and therefore it is entirely possible that someone might remove the original data once the felt the value-added data had been properly vetted.
Nice try…
“Tape is Cheap” was the mantra then. IIRC it was $9 per 170 MB “round tape” at 6250 bpi. So for about $9 to $20 they could store all the data and the code as well. (I know this because I did that kind of work at that time.)
Fraud is not a pre-requisite for this to have happened.
Quite true. Your choices are:
1) Fraud. Evil intent. Malicious activity.
2) Stupidity. Good intent coupled with incompetence.
Happy choosing …
Only the lack of foresight that someone else might question this data down the road, or that literally a $1 trillion decision might ride on it some day.
Nope. When “doing science” you never never never take pages out of your lab book. Drummed into my head in about 1970 in Chem class in high school. Missing pages got you flunked. Yes: “F” Flunk Fail Tossed on the trash heap of history.
Now if I were a “Climate Scientist” I’d have 2 round tapes with the raw data. One set in my office. One in a vault. The IT department can have more, but I’m going to make sure MY WORK does not get an “F” from missing pages in my lab book… Well worth $18 to me. Can’t speak to them…
So, per Mr. McGuire’s rules: UEA, CRU, Jones, and all the rest get an “F”, they have no paper to present, all their work is burned, and we can start over. NO exceptions.
Just read some of Monbiots recent lunatic ramblings. Sure, he thinks the “hacked emails” are a problem. Probably, only sets the Cause back a little. I couldn’t help thinking about the irony of his continued ramblings about Tony Blair being a mass murderer, when the program he’s championing will kill off literally billions of people, if carried to the conclusion he and these others are championing…
If the raw/real data was destroyed in 1980’s then that means that it was massaged with 80’s knowledge at start.
I wonder how many cosmetic massages it went up on until now.
I think I know who the whistle blower is. The key is the Sherlock-Holmesian idea of the dog that did not bark in the night. In this case, that non-barking dog is the programmer who wrote all those well-publicized notes about how bad the CRU data is. That programmer has not come forward. Why such reluctance? Because he is the mole?
Further inspection shows that the reluctant programmer had the scientific knowledge, skeptical motivation, technical know-how, and intimate familiarity with CRU to put together the well-packaged FOI file. I suggest he is the hero.
[REPLY – That seems to be the standing suspicion: Ian Harris did it with the flash drive in the conservatory. ~ Evan]
That’s such a great story you had about overcoming the obstacles you faced to become a broadcaster! Thanks for the site.
K.C.D
http://thewritingsofkcd.wordpress.com/
As we all must know, I am not a credentialed scientist.
However, I do have, down stairs, some 7-trk 256 BPI, and some 9-trk 6250 BPI tapes (cost me around $11 I think, that contain stuff that I thought important enough to keep.
I haven’t seen a tape drive that will read them in 30 or more years.
Point being–keep the tapes is easy. Finding a way to read them is hard.
(I could read the 7-trk tapes if I can find a can of Magnasee…..)
L Bowser wrote:
“4. 99.9% of the emails show tasteless humor, poor judgement, ignorance, back-biting, etc… Nothing that would allow you on the preponderance of evidence to make a convincing case for a vast conspiracy to manufacture global warming.”
I agree with some implications of the above, namely that the lost data and fudged data isn’t all that important–i.e., that it wasn’t data manipulation that manufactured global warming. The globe has definitely been warming. This is the position that Pielke Sr. took the other day too. (And I think that half of the awkwardly phrased comments have innocent or semi-innocent explanations, or anyway aren’t as bad as they seem on the surface.)
As for the preponderance of evidence, we only have e-mails from a few players, so we don’t yet know how vast the conspiracy was. I’m hoping that subpoenas and discovery proceedings in lawsuits will bring more evidence to the surface. Ultimately, the trail of breadcrumbs may lead to the ringleading vegetarian overlords. 😉
But the “conspiracy” angle is a bit of a strawman. For one thing, it implies a conscious decision to deceive, when what was really going on was something less Luciferian and more subtle: confirmation bias, groupthink pressures, saving face, an ingrained partisanship and lack of disinterestedness, etc.
What emerges is that, to some extent, peer review has been compromised, the consensus has been engineered, the make-up of the literature has been affected by arm-twisting, politicking has had an effect on the membership of and the documents produced by the IPCC and the NAS, FOI requests have been dodged, FOI oversight officers have been manipulated, etc.
That stuff isn’t enough to discredit the consensus, but it’s enough to cast a big shadow of doubt on it. Given what we’re being asked to spend on mitigation, a greater degree of certainty in it is required, and a more disinterested overseer of the debate is needed than the IPCC and the current scientific gatekeeperhood. We can’t accept the fruit of such a poisoned tree, even if it can’t be proven to be tainted as well.
We need a two-year time-out while this mess is sorted out.
OK, let’s go on from here –
A couple of suggestions:
1. A full, complete, unbiased and fair investigation of ALL (sorry I’ll tone it down!) academic and governmental (including the UN) organizations speaking to the climate issue (pro and con). Investigation panel make up to be determined – but must be balanced between pro and con.
2. A rehab of the global land weather station net. – If you don’t like Anthony Watts “volunteer” report – then spend a couple million sending trained individuals out – It’d still be a cheap fix. But my buck’s with Anthony.
3. Stop all news releases from NASA, Greenpeace, Heritage, etc and all advertising about Global Warming.
4. Al Gore put under a gag order, and barred from producing any media on Carbon or global warming.
5. A five year moratorium on laws dealing with climate change-including government environmental agency edicts.
6. All data gathered so far is public (world public) domain.
7. Take a half billion dollars and divide it up between institutions for climate research – provided that all emails, data developed, programs, etc is once again available to the public in a central location for review (No hyperspace bypasses please).
8. Any scientist found guilty of intentional fraud shall be fired.
You can refine these to your heart’s content and probably many have better ideas, but this is something to chew on.
Mike
Here is another one…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1232884/Arnold-Schwarzenegger-unveils-dramatic-climate-change-map-shows-flooded-San-Francisco-future.html
What are the term limits for governors in California? Hopefully he won’t be back.
I’m a dumbo when it comes to computers, so I wonder if Jones knows what was taken from his comp?Is it possible that the leaker had it in for Jones,and pinched everything from his computer(by hacking), but only released what he or she thought would lead to his dismissal? I wonder how in-depth the investigation will be? Will they try to find what he has deleted from his computer, or will they be happy to accept his word on what there is, knowing that there could be more in the leaker’s possession. Does Jones know exactly what was taken? I would like to think of him knowing that there is more out there somewhere. I believe if they think there is more, they will fire him, not wanting stuff to turn up later and embarrass them.
Roger Knights (20:44:10) :
I agree with some implications of the above, namely that the lost data and fudged data isn’t all that important
If they destroyed the original B91 observers forms (or equivalent), I consider that to be a crime.
I have queried about a station listed as having been in existence, but with no records, and I am not getting even a reply.
It’s going to be difficult enough starting over and verifying everything.
It’s going to be even worse due to missing raw data.
Missing 41 years off the back end of a 140 yr station record makes my eyes beet red with anger.
Correction:
I have queried about a station observer listed as having taken readings, but with no records, and I am not getting even a reply.
There is an axiom in Composition that one should read first what he wants others to see; I figured out what Chris meant but the syntax is taxing.
It seems so simple, the earth is heated either from above or below — or a combination of both.
The first challenge is to decide which, not how much.
Pamela Gray (17:49:06) :
“As a teacher, your post is a bit difficult to read without me wanting to mark it up with a red pen. It is in need of editing. Run-on and sentence fragments just about drove me crazy. That said, I totally agree with the underlying gist of the post.”
It is written in attorney-speak. I have seen sentences in contracts that are literally one page long. And run-on sentences amuck (like mine!).
So, taken in context, I actually enjoyed the post and the way it was written. Especially this quote:
“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.”
Har har har. Sick ’em, Chris.
Chris (a different one)
Norfolk, VA
Larry Sheldon (20:43:25) :
“Point being–keep the tapes is easy. Finding a way to read them is hard.”
I have a Commodore 64 computer somewhere that uses 5 1/4″ floppy disks.
The 5 1/4″ disk was used in the late 70’s Apple II machines and later in the early 80’s at higher capacity (720Mb and 1.2Mb HD), and the media is still available today.
The recording industry uses tape. And as you might well be aware, remastered albums are continually on the market. The recently remastered Beatles albums come to mind.
If the data were archived on tape, it should still be available today.
RBateman: “Missing 41 years off the back end of a 140 yr station record makes my eyes beet red with anger.”
Not just beet red, bro. There’s lightning bolts coming out. I can see them from here.
This whole scam makes me want to puke on one hand, but mostly it just makes me want to implode with anger (either fusion or fission) not sure.
GRRRRRR!
Take it to the streets.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Rex Murphy commenting on Climategate on the CBC’s the “National” tonight. A must watch as there has been little mention of it on the MSM. Rex has always questioned the doctrine. Go Rex !!
From Climategate Document Database at htt://www.climate-gate.org/search.php :-email 1075403821.txt notifies Phil Jones of the death of John L Daly. Jones comment to Michael Mann:-“Mike, in an odd way this is cheering news”. To see why Jones was so glad, visit http:/john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm to see John’s article on What’s Wrong With The Surface Record. A great explanation of how Global Mean Temperature is estimated and how errors can and did occur. I don’t know whether it would help some of your knowledgable posters or not, but John also gives links to several Stevenson Screen sites used and details of one in his home State at Low Head in Northern Tasmania, Australia clearly shows how UNIPCC scientists made errors because of lack of local knowledge. His link in that article to his work on the still visible 1841 survey benchmark chiselled into rock on the Isle of the Dead, Port Arthur, Tasmania by Antarctic explorer, Sir James Clark Ross to indicate zero point or the mean level of the sea, is also of great interest.
“* data is plural”
Grammatici certant
Re: David A. Reyes (21:07:39) :
Here is another one…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1232884/Arnold-Schwarzenegger-unveils-dramatic-climate-change-map-shows-flooded-San-Francisco-future.html
What are the term limits for governors in California? Hopefully he won’t be back.
He is out in 2010.
Another country down before Copenhagen.
“Prentice said, citing provincial legislation that sets a C$15 per metric ton price on carbon and its plans to spend C$2 billion on carbon-capturing technologies.”
It’s the carbon capturing industries money that is at stake right now!
Canada Won’t Set Climate Targets Before U.S., Prentice Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akHjYEUfq4.U&pos=9
David A. Reyes (21:07:39) says:
There are term limits, and although he got in half-way through Gray Davis’ first term because of the recall election, I believe he has indicated he won’t be back 🙂