The Times: “University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’”

Reposted from Climate Audit:

A savage article in the Times today by Ben Webster about the UEA submission to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry – the letter in which they tried to “trick” the Committee about the contents of the letter from the Information Commissioner. (A “trick”, according to Gavin Schmidt and the Penn State Inquiry, is a “good way” to solve a problem.)

The article – worth reading in full – re-caps correspondence discussed in yesterday’s post on the topic.

The UEA has now posted up all its correspondence.

Webster provides an interesting new statement from Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat member of the Science and Technology Committee:

“It seems unwise, at best, for the University of East Anglia to attempt to portray a letter from the Information Commissioner’s Office in a good light, in evidence to the select committee, because it is inevitable that the Committee will find that letter, and notice any discrepancy.

“It would be a wiser course for the university not to provide any suspicion that they might be seeking to enable the wrong impression to be gained.”

Yup.

Advertisements

76 thoughts on “The Times: “University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’”

  1. New defense: TYPO error (as in Typographical!)

    ‘………………FROM: WORLD WARMING UNHINDERED BY COLD SPELLS’ (at Sciencedaily) Scientists say global warming is not uniform in all areas and that climate models predict there will likely be greater extremes of cold and heat, floods and droughts. “Global warming is a trend superimposed upon natural variability, variability that still exists despite global warming,” said Kevin Walsh, associate professor of meteorology at the University of Melbourne. “It would be much more surprising if the global average temperature just kept on going up, year after year, without some years of slightly cooler temperatures,” he said in a written reply to questions for the briefing. The scientists also defended the U.N. climate panel after it came under attack for including an error about the estimated thaw of Himalayan glaciers in a major 2007 report. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces reports based on the work of thousands of scientists that are the main guides for policymakers on tackling global warming. The discovery of the error has been seized upon by climate skeptics. The 2007 report wrongly said Himalayan glaciers could all melt by 2035, an apparent typographical error that stemmed from using “grey literature” outside peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nicholls said grey literature could play a key role in the climate debate and that not all valuable data or reports were published formally in journals. Such examples included reports on extreme weather events by government meteorological agencies “The IPCC does not exclude the use of that sort of grey literature because it would be stupid to talk about extremes, for instance, and not include that sort of grey literature,” he said. The scientists said more stringent checks were needed for the next IPCC reports but that the inclusion of one or two wrong predictions didn’t undermine the whole peer-reviewed IPCC process because scientific study was always evolving…….’!

    lifeguard: “Sir, you can’t get in the pool”
    Patchy: “Do you know who I am. I am Patchy Morals!”
    lifeguard: “I don’t care. Everyone getting in the pool has to have had a shower in the past month!”

  2. I note that the UEA still says “..the FOI request at issue did not concern raw data but private email exchanges.”

    SImply amazing. They have forgotten that old axiom, “when you dug yourself into a hole, STOP DIGGING”.

  3. The UEA has decided to enlarge the hole and jump in with the CRU.
    It is clear the shool also wants to be distrusted.

    If the head of the school was fired, they may get the message.

  4. Whether the MP’s, or scientists do anything about this discovery doesn’t matter to me anymore. I used to want politicians and the scientific community to do something about Climategate and all of the deceitful science in ‘global warming’. But little progress is made there.

    Now, I just want the public to be made aware of everything about ‘global warming’, including this discovery.

    After the general populations knows about all this then politicians and the scientific community will do something about ‘global warming’.

  5. Vuk etc. (09:34:45)

    yeah, it’s not like killing cows fed with genetically modified food with Monsanto is any better, right?

  6. Smokey (09:44:05) :My theory is that this is not the first historical event, call it conspiracy, authored by the same elite of bankers.

  7. After the stunning revelation that there has been no significant warning for over 15 years (by one of the Warmist ‘High Command’ no less) surely now must be the right time for a re-assessment of why practically every model has predicted Global Warning when none is apparent.

  8. I’d like to be the first to warn that Global Warming is responsible for the increase in frequency and intensity of earthquakes, due primarily to the expansion of the earth’s crust caused by increased surface temperature and also to extreme low barometric pressures associated with the ever increasing frequency and intensity of storms and cyclones. It is obvious that the only way to reduce this hazard and prevent the earth from becoming a Black Hole is for everyone to remain perfectly still, avoid the use of stairs, and ban basketball and soccer. Where’s my Nobel Prize?

    Seriously though, this is the V of UEA telling the Parliament, “Nothing going on here, move along”, “mind the gap”, and all that rubbish. Worked last hundred times or so?

  9. reply to infimum story about whaling:

    Quote: “So many more groups are looking at the importance of these large animals in the carbon cycle. ”

    Unf’ingbelievable. Killing of whales over the past century being linked to global warming. These people need to be institutionalised and xanaxed. How many groups are getting funding for this environ mental research?

  10. Global warming/cooling is not uniform in all areas.
    Extremes in cold & heat in a given area are relative to that area, are due mainly to drier conditions, and have little to do with global warming or cooling.
    Any given area has it’s own unique set of responses to warming/cooling.
    It’s in the area’s history, and was NOT born in a model yesterday.
    Floods happen to be responses due the erratic nature of precipitation of an area, and have little to do with the global state of temperature.
    Again, each area has it’s own unique set of precipitation responses and is acted upon from outside.

    It is up to observation to keep an accurate record of responses in an area in order to better understand what is possible. Models do NOT make observations, nor do they make records.

    To allow models to usurp observation is to throw any vestige of climate science in the trash and resort to coin-flipping. Which is how you get forecasts devoid of any sense, and institutions with a bad name.

    To err in observation is human.
    To really foul up the record takes a computer model.

  11. “to enable the wrong impression to be gained”

    for any non-English readers struggling to penetrate this phrase, this is more normally expressed as “to lie”

  12. If I have this right, the University said the Information Commissioner said the Information Commissioner said the evidence was prima facie. The Deputy Information Commissioner confirmed that he said the evidence was prima facie. And the Times wrote a whole article on the fact that they both said that the Deputy Information Commissioner was basing his comments on no more than prima facie ‘evidence’ from a bunch of stolen emails. And then the University said it would fully cooperate if there was to be an investigation by the Information Commissioner.

    What’s the story again? I have to wonder if the writer in the Times knows what prima facie means.

  13. Linda,

    Linking an article written by someone named “Kim Greenhouse” is a great way to derail a thread! Let the bad puns flow…

    I hope she has a PhD so she can go on news programs as “Dr. Greenhouse.” :-)

  14. I’m simply in awe of the UEA’s audacity in its willingness to completely ignore the material facts in their own summary, while linking the material facts that contradict it from the same page.

    Even defence lawyers don’t try to pretend that their clients aren’t suspected of wrong-doing, just because an investigation hasn’t YET been concluded and they haven’t YET been brought to trial.. but the UEA would have us all believe that the ICO suspects nothing. Even when the ICO reiterates, on clarification, exactly the contrary.

    It all seems so slick, so well-rehearsed.. like this kind of misrepresentation is what they do every day.

    It all reminds me of the IPCC Summary For Policy Makers, misrepresenting the substance of the report contained therein. Is there a connection to be made there, I wonder?

  15. “The ICO read e-mails and came to assumptions but has not investigated or demonstrated any evidence that what may have been said in emails was actually carried out.” -UEA

    They still don’t get it. Asking people to delete the email due to FOI is already against the law. It doesn’t matter if it was carried out.

  16. Lemme see. As I recall, the birth of the scientific method was when philosophy was replaced by experiment. That is, when actual data became the basis of conclusions rather than simple musings. And now the Warmists want us to go back to the days of the perfect circle as an orbit?

  17. debreuil:
    I agree. In this case it is the prima facie case or, in the vernacular, “the smoking gun”.

    I found this fairly straightforward and relevant example:

    Prima facie also refers to specific evidence that, if believed, supports a case or an element that needs to be proved in the case. The term prima facie evidence is used in both civil and Criminal Law. For example, if the prosecution in a murder case presents a videotape showing the defendant screaming death threats at the victim, such evidence may be prima facie evidence of intent to kill, an element that must be proved by the prosecution before the defendant may be convicted of murder. On its face, the evidence indicates that the defendant intended to kill the victim.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prima+facie

    In other words, it is an email asking others to destroy emails subject to FOI is “a smoking gun”.

  18. So whales release their carbon store when killed by whalers which contributes to AGW. If they had not been killed then there would be less carbon released.

    The obvious question follows as to whether this carbon is not released when they die naturally. Those clever chaps at Maine Uni have thought about this and come up with a slick answer. They do but this does not affect the planet because apparently they all die deep down in the ocean, which then stores this carbon. Does anyone have any proof that they die deep down? It’s just that I have seen plenty of media coverage over the years of whales dead on beaches. Surely they must die across a range of depths or am I missing something?

    What is the male of cow dung?

  19. They are trying the “Nothing going on here, move along” AGAIN. They tried that when the CRU emails were first leaked and look where that got them. You can’t con a con and politicians are consumate liers and many are lawyers too.

  20. I am a bit confused regarding this whole climate gate scandal.
    I downloaded the CRU data last year, all 1.7 million monthly averages and thought about how best to display it. I am working on placing it my my site. Being an analyst, I simply took an analytical approach to historic data, take a look here.

    http://www.knowyourplanet.com/climate-data

    What I can see is that most countries seem to be warming the last 30 years. And I tried overlaying the CRU data with Danish weather data (From DMI). Now being Danish myself, I find it pretty hart to believe that a Danish weather body, hundreds of years old, are falsifying data in collaboration with the UN, CRU or whoever. That would just be ridiculous to even suggest that some hundreds of meteorologists in Denmark are hiding something with thousands from other parts of the world.

    Anyway, I look forward to hearing what people think of the data I have published so for on my site. And if anyone would bother contacting their local weather station and find any discrepancy with the data I have here I would be very glad to hear on mark@knowyourplanet.com

  21. Thanks, Ben Webster, for keeping the spotlight of public attention focused on the climate scandal.

    There is a lot of filth beneath the Climategate iceberg that will explain the involvement of research institutions, news media, politicians, and scientific journals in creating a situation here like that described in George Orwell’s Book, “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Sciences

  22. @ Robert Marshall

    Have you considered that there earthquakes might be the direct result of the relief of pressure on the earth’s crustal plates as the air just above the surface heats, and hence weighs less?

  23. “What’s the story again? I have to wonder if the writer in the Times knows what prima facie means.”

    Yeah, someone somewhere in there seems to be confusing the terms prima facie and circumstantial. They’re not the same.

    Now on another topic: My question is when is there going to be a similar inquiry on the role of environmental reporters in this whole mess? It seems like far too many of them are not reporters as much as they are propagandists for one side in the debate. They’re like sports reporters covering the home team, and not truly independent journalists trying to find the best, most unbiased information for their readers. What the CRU leak revealed about Andrew Revkin should be very disturbing to any one interested in professional journalistic standards. If the IOP can question the scientific methods and standards of the CRU scientists, isn’t there some professional journalistic body that can do the same for environmental journalism? A review of standards is surely in order.

  24. mark (12:29:49) :

    From the looks of your graph, there was clear evidence that the Earth was warming in the 30’s, 40’s as well as cooling in other periods.
    To say that since the graph clearly shows the Earth warming the past 30 years doesn’t not preclude that it will fall right back down again.
    i.e.- what is there that says “This time, things will be different”?
    And how would that apply equally to the Ice Age scare in the 1970’s and 1890’s?

  25. Sou,

    “What’s the story again? I have to wonder if the writer in the Times knows what prima facie means.”

    With all the “he said that he said that he said,” it sounds more complicated than it really is. But it all seems to boil down to this. After the Times reported that ICO had alleged there was primae facia evidence for an offense under section 77, Acton told the parliamentray committe that ICO had said that the evidence “was only primae facia.” Then the actual letter was released and revealed that ICO had said that they could not imagine stronger primae facia evidence than this. In other words, Acton is hoping to misrepresent the strength of the ICO complaint.

    I wouldn’t like to be in Acton’s shoes when he appears before the committee. He has basically been caught with his fingers in the till.

  26. rbateman, well. At least now the CRU data is out there for everyone to see. I cant be asked adding more graphs today but in a week there will be loads.

    Hope you enjoy it and lets all hope and prey that the entire scientific community is wrong.

  27. George… Good one! I’m not really familiar with her, just happened to stumble across that web page and thought the link to her interview with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner might be of interest to Anthony and his readers.

  28. Mark

    We are still coming out of the ‘Little Ice Age’ so periods of warming are to be expected, to cause alarm we would need to see a rate of increase in the last 30 years greater than pre 45 when CO2 levels were lower. The rate of increase for the last 30 years is not greater than the 20’s 30’s rate of increase, so the cause cannot be seen as being related to CO2.

    In the UK the same raw data shows only warming from Urban Heating since 1880.

    Note that the MET office has not released any raw data as yet, whatthey have released has ‘Corrections’ added, supposidly for Urban Heating but are actually the opposite.

  29. “DirkH (15:10:11) :
    […]
    They also float and organic material rains down from them…”

    Oh sorry, i misunderstood the meaning of “whale fall” – a whale fall is actually when the remains of the whale fall to the ocean floor.

  30. OT (somewhat)

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html

    “With all this mighty army of gullible politicians, dutiful officials, busy carbon traders, eager “renewables” developers and compliant, funding-hungry academics standing to benefit from the greatest perversion of the principles of true science the world has ever seen, who are we to protest that their emperor has no clothes? (How apt that that fairy tale should have been written in Copenhagen.) Let all that fluffy white “global warming” continue to fall from the skies, while people shiver in homes that, increasingly, they will find they can no longer afford to heat. We have called into being a true Frankenstein’s monster. It will take a mighty long time to cut it down to size. “

  31. mark (14:30:08) :

    -Gulp!- The entire scientific community:
    The Gores are coming, the Gores are coming.
    One if by AGW, Two if by Climate Change.

    Actually, my favorite is still In Search of The Coming Ice Age…starring Spock.
    Keep a close eye on Baffin Island. “Geologists are convinced”.
    Shoot, I gotta go watch it again.
    Live long & prosper.

  32. mark (12:29:49):
    “I am a bit confused regarding this whole climate gate scandal.

    What I can see is that most countries seem to be warming the last 30 years.”

    I am also confused as no one disputes this. The dispute in question is the amount of warming caused by UHI, “value added”, Yamal, homogenisation etc., etc., that is the problem. Are you confused about the MWP? Was it as warm if not warmer than the last 30 years you refer to? If it was as warm then are you troubled by the last 30 years?

  33. mark (12:29:49):
    “I am a bit confused regarding this whole climate gate scandal.

    What I can see is that most countries seem to be warming the last 30 years.”

    30 years seems to be the usual duration of a warm phase of the PDO. Don’t forget that the entire atmosphere contains as much heat as the top 2.5 meters of the oceans. And we had an El Ninjo in January. That explains the temperature peak.

  34. Tens of billions spent on climate research over the past x number of years, and, speaking for taxpayers everywhere, may I say, “We want our money back!”

    Uh, that goes for the bailed-out bankers, too. Just two different varieties of scam artist: climate “scientist” vs. commercial banker.

  35. More extracts from Booker’s column at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html

    The chief defence offered by the warmists to all those revelations centred on the IPCC’s last 2007 report is that they were only a few marginal mistakes scattered through a vast, 3,000-page document. OK, they say, it might have been wrong to predict that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035; that global warming was about to destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields by 50 per cent; that sea levels were rising dangerously; that hurricanes, droughts and other “extreme weather events” were getting worse. These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report; behind them the mighty edifice of global warming orthodoxy remains unscathed. The “science is settled”, the “consensus” is intact.

    But this completely misses the point. Put the errors together and it can be seen that one after another they tick off all the central, iconic issues of the entire global warming saga. Apart from those non-vanishing polar bears, no fears of climate change have been played on more insistently than these: the destruction of Himalayan glaciers and Amazonian rainforest; famine in Africa; fast-rising sea levels; the threat of hurricanes, droughts, floods and heatwaves all becoming more frequent.

    All these alarms were given special prominence in the IPCC’s 2007 report and each of them has now been shown to be based, not on hard evidence, but on scare stories, derived not from proper scientists but from environmental activists. Those glaciers are not vanishing; the damage to the rainforest is not from climate change but logging and agriculture; African crop yields are more likely to increase than diminish; the modest rise in sea levels is slowing not accelerating; hurricane activity is lower than it was 60 years ago; droughts were more frequent in the past; there has been no increase in floods or heatwaves.

    Furthermore, it has also emerged in almost every case [not quite — RK] that the decision to include these scare stories rather than hard scientific evidence was deliberate. As several IPCC scientists have pointed out about the scare over Himalayan glaciers, for instance, those responsible for including it were well aware that proper science said something quite different. But it was inserted nevertheless – because that was the story wanted by those in charge.

  36. The AGW hoax is still alive and well as anyone can plainly see. Despite all the revelations of altered data, lies, exaggerations, etc., the scam is as strong as ever. It will continue to be so as long as no one is jailed for committing any of these illegal acts. Sad but true. By all means we will continue to bitch and complain but until at least some of the leaders of the AGW fraud are put behind bars, that’s all that will happen. The simple reason is the western political leaders are part of the game and they will not alter their support for the AGW scam.

  37. mark (12:29:49) :

    Over the past year I’ve read a time or two that the data you downloaded and posted are somewhat tarnished. Thus, simply to download, post, and comment on those data doesn’t add much to the discussion. If those numbers are pristine and accurate, I stand corrected.

  38. Kcom – the problem lies with editors, who presumably assign people with certain world views to become environmental reporters.
    Their brief seems to be – “seek out [scientists] who will mouth statements that you agree with and publish these”.

    There is no journalism involved, no analysis, no critical appraisal.
    What is needed is the ability to cut and paste
    and to do it, economically.

  39. Thank you ‘Kwik’ for the follow on. I absolutely love this site and the information the stakeholders here contribute to it. It’s a contstruct that involves the total community one step at a time and one contribution at a time, educating each of us while moving the ‘ball’ forward…

  40. John F. Hultquist,

    As I said, the temperatures of the CRU closely match the DK DMI temperatures so unless there is some Denmark/UK conspiracy between hundreds of Danish meteorologists, I dont see how the data can be wrong, if you do find a better source for the same location with alternative data for other countries, please write to me on mark@knowyourplanet.com

    Everyone else who does not understand why I am confused about the climate scandal.

    Do you actually live on the same planet as I do? What are you afraid of? Do you think that if we burn more oil, eat more food and stick our head in the sand problems go away?

  41. Evidence so far is that

    Scientists at CRU are behaving unethically.
    The UEA is condoning this behaviour.

    As in all things, follow the money trail. Now is it
    possible to exclude UEA from receiving UK govt
    scientific research grants until their behavior more
    promperly conforms with accepted scientific norms?

  42. mark (23:17:19) :

    “Do you actually live on the same planet as I do? What are you afraid of?”

    Mark, you did not answer my questions.

    Are you confused about the MWP? Was it as warm if not warmer than the last 30 years you refer to? If it was as warm then are you troubled by the last 30 years?

    Furthermore:
    Is the past 30 years ‘warming’ caused by man, natural variability or a bit of both? If you believe it is man made then draw up some graphs and show us the evidence of the human ‘signal’.
    ——

    Do you agree with Paul Jones of CRU when asked:
    Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming[?]

    Yes, but only just.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    If this kind of lack of warming carries on for another 15 years we then have 30 years. Will you then blame man or nature? Try applying Occam’s Razor

  43. Jimbo, Occams razor is a great example of exactly why I am confused. There are now 6 billion people, everything is turning to farmland, CO2 is on the rise and so is temperature (im not going to write an essay here with million other environmental disasters going on at the same time). To ME the simplest explanation is we are to blame. To you the simplest explanation is that we are too small to change anything on a massive planet like Earth. Thats cool…

    I Said it before, I say it again. I HOPE you and your friends are right. This is one argument I dont want to loose!

    Check some of the graphs on my site, its hard to say for sure whats going on without looking at the temperatures. Especially look at places like France, Japan, Sweden and the north of the US.

    Oh and I read the whole article you referred to, I guess you missed the part where Paul answered this question.

    “Q – How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

    A – I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity”

  44. mark (23:17:19) :

    Do you actually live on the same planet as I do?

    Yes I do & probably for longer than you have.

    There is nothing unusual going on!

    Why the hell do you think the geat Algore told kids not to listen to the old folk?

    It wasn’t as he said, “because they don’t understand”! I was because they do understand!

    DaveE.

  45. mark (23:17:19) :

    “Do you actually live on the same planet as I do? What are you afraid of? Do you think that if we burn more oil, eat more food and stick our head in the sand problems go away?”

    Mark, people around here are not particularly afraid of anything as far as I can judge. On the contrary, they are not the ones acting alarmist. People here only want honesty, truthfulness, openness and transparency in science and politics. Considering the billions (in any currency) of taxpayer money that has gone into the climate science industry, we think we have the democratic right to demand as much from our politicians and their paid science advisors. This is not what we get. We are getting the exact opposite, which is amply evidenced by the Climategate scandal, and subsequent IPCC series of -gates.

    What are YOU afraid of Mark? What “problems” do you see in your graph, that will/will not go away, if we do/do not do what you think we should/should not be doing? So temperatures in Denmark may be about the same now as in 1940. Why do you find that frightening?

  46. “You can’t con a con and politicians are consumate liers and many are lawyers too.”
    Isn’t that a bit redundant? :p

  47. The CRU scientists never cease to amaze me. They childishly baulk against having any objective scrutiny of their work. My work as an undergraduate was constantly scrutinised as was, I suspect, most peoples’ work. I remember my physical chemistry laboratory work and reports being particularly savagely torn apart in an effort to get some rigour into my scientific method or lack of it.

    Objecting to scrutiny unless it is carefully controlled can only mean that CRU’s agenda was to promote the bogus concept of runaway catastrophic global warming.

  48. mark (01:53:00) :
    To ME the simplest explanation is we are to blame. To you the simplest explanation is that we are too small to change anything on a massive planet like Earth. Thats cool…

    Reply: NO!
    Are you a mind reader who isn’t very good?

    To me Occam’s Razor points me to natural cyclical variability such as PDO.

    By all means be concerned about the environment but please don’t put words into people’s mouths and assume you must be right because you can’t think of anything else. Furthermore, I laughed very hard when you pointed me to the IPCC. Are you living on planet earth or have you been on vacation on Mars?

  49. Linda (14:54:08) :

    George… Good one! I’m not really familiar with her, just happened to stumble across that web page and thought the link to her interview with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner might be of interest to Anthony and his readers.

    I think that interview is a must listen.

  50. Put aside the “billions” or “trillions” purportedly spent on AGW. Forget the myriad stupefying exaggerations of drought, flood, famine, and pestilence. Overlook the corruption in government, marxism in IPCC, collusion in the press, subterfuge in academia – you still have the most colossal FAILURE of education ever perpetrated on man.

    The events of the past twelve or so years have absolutely no bearing in reality. They are grounded by no material or spiritual foundation. AGW, one world government, catastrophic climate, brow beating propaganda – all emanate from a single fabricated projection. And THAT is what has failed.

    Think you can throw human beings into virtual worlds and expect anything but desperate, dysfunctional behavior to emerge?? The mind behind this exercise is sick, twisted, perverse. It is prurient, fetid necropsy. Climate “science” hasn’t failed, Obama hasn’t failed, Copenhagen hasn’t failed, even the vaunted safety net hasn’t failed – only one thing has… your vision of “higher education.”

    “Higher education” and its lofty goals turn out to be as venal as a three card monty street hustler. A virtual disaster, pathetic joke, befitting the grandiose, self-righteous cult of a decrepit people. Emperor has no clothes??? HAH! Your entire virtual world has no clothes!

  51. mark (01:53:00) :
    I Said it before, I say it again. I HOPE you and your friends are right. This is one argument I dont want to loose!

    Good Lord child, get a grip on the language before coming here.

  52. Well, I am glad we are all on the same wavelenght here, especially you Indiana Bones.

    Jimbo, I dont think you remember but you were the one who pointed me to the IPCC article – remember the BBC article you linked? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    Jan, what am I afraid of? Well the same as you I would assume, health of my family and people around me, the well-being of our planet. People dont exactly have a great track record, I think some fear of what we collectively might do and are doing is completely healthy.

    David, I dont care about Al Gore, I knew about this for 15 years before he made the film, it has been in the scientific community for quite a while, not really ground breaking news if you ask me. Only ground breaking thing is now everyone is talking about it.

    Amazing that I can stir so much excitement in this forum, looks as if I have found myself a new playground :)

    Ill say it for the third time, I HOPE YOU ARE ALL RIGHT.

  53. Jones is not the only bad egg at UEA. Mann is not the only rotten apple at Penn State. Were they just, then we would have never heard of them. This is a “Team Sport” played by research Universities. The three primary rules are: “Don’t Get Caught!”, “Deny Every Charge!”, “The Bigger The Impact, The Bigger the Payoff!”

  54. Mark,
    the data you are using is not raw but adjusted and adjusted in odd ways, forget about destroying to human race to preserve the planet.

    To quote Roy Spencer

    A plot of the difference between the two datasets is shown next, which reveals some abrupt transitions. Most noteworthy is what appears to be a rather rapid spurious warming in the Jones dataset between 1988 and 1996, with an abrupt “reset” downward in 1997 and then another spurious warming trend after that.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/spencer-spurious-warming-demonstrated-in-cru-surface-data/

  55. As far as large organisation are concerned, lies are like treacle. The more they wriggle and squirm and try to lie their way out of trouble, the wider the treacle spreads.

    Now the UEA as well as the CRU are implicated in an attempted cover-up.

    I wonder how far this stuff is going to spread?

  56. Hi JohnH,

    Out of the 1741 landbased stations the CRU supplied, only 293 had data before 1890 and after 2000 as Spencer points out, there number of stations decreases around 2000. These were the only stations I thought were worth showing.

    The data I downloaded contained the “normalised data” but also the “raw data”. I choose the raw. The one factor which could contribute to bias would be that local stations have their own mathematical ways of calculating a monthly average. However that done over the complete period of time would make that calculation irrelevant as it would be consistent.

    What I do like about the article is the point made by Spencer. “I am increasingly convinced that a much simpler, objective analysis of original weather station temperature data is necessary to better understand how spurious influences might have impacted global temperature trends computed by groups such as CRU and NASA/GISS.”

    That was also my objective, to simply place the station data on the internet for people to judge for themselves and not to create any average, sliding averages etc based on trends. I included the overlay of DMI data and CRU to demonstrate that data was almost identical. If you have datasets from other locations close to those on KnowYourPlanet, I would he happy to overlay them and compare (especially if they don’t compare, as that would be more interesting then if they do compare). In face, I would again welcome anyone to send me datasets to overlay the CRU data so we could compare apples to apples. If you or anyone reading this has such raw daily/monthly/yearly data, then I would be grateful to receive it on mark@knowyourplanet.com

  57. The CRU data is not raw, hence this comment from the Met office who released the datset recently.

    The Met. Office confirms that it no longer has the raw data (which it calls ‘underlying data’). It says on its website,
    “The database consists of the “value added” product that has been quality controlled and adjusted to account for identified non-climatic influences. It is the station subset of this value-added product that we have released. Adjustments were only applied to a subset of the stations so in many cases the data provided are the underlying data minus any obviously erroneous values removed by quality control. The Met Office do not hold information as to adjustments that were applied and so cannot advise as to which stations are underlying data only and which contain adjustments.”

  58. Anyone read the comments in the times article? One guy is posting repeatedly, and one of his claims is this:
    “If you extrapolate out the numbers, you pass 5,000ppm in 2239”

    This is great. 5 years ago I had one car. Now I have 2 cars in the garage. This is proof that my car ownership doubles every 5 years, I can’t wait for 20 years time when I will have my choice of 32 cars to drive.

    Or, being not so spurious, if you extrapolated the amount of horse manure in New York at the turn of the century in 1900, then, by 2010, there should be so much horse crap in New York that it would be 20 feet deep across Manhattan and rising.

    Funny how technology, feedbacks, resource constraints and other changes tend to self-correct trends.

    Extrapolating numbers into the future is so much fun!

  59. mark :
    “People dont exactly have a great track record, I think some fear of what we collectively might do and are doing is completely healthy.”

    I completely disagree with this pessimistic statement. If you look at it objectively, people have a fantastic record. If you were born 100 years ago you had a life expectancy of just under 50. Now it’s about 75. That’s a 25% increase in life expectancy is just 100 years. Infant mortality has dropped 90% in that time as well. In 1900 you could expect 1 in 6 babies born to die. Now it is 1 in 144. That’s progress.

    50 years ago people regularly died of pollution-related problems in London and LA. Now those cities, while still polluted, are a fraction of their levels in just one short lifetime.

    Many species which were once hunted to near extinction are making great comebacks.

    You are living your life in fear and pessimism. This might make for dramatic internet posts and dinner party conversations, but ultimately just makes your life more miserable. Don’t fret for the fortunes on the unborn – they’ll solve their problems, just like your generation solved theirs.

  60. JohnH,

    Thanks very much for the quote about the Data Subset. I must admit, I could not find the source data on the internet since I downloaded it in December but I searched your text and here the data files are
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html

    These files are what we are using and we will publish our java macro so anyone can use the full MET office data more easily.

    As far as I can understand there are no issues of great significance here. Everything mentioned on the MET site is typical for statistical analysis, especially in large organisations. The references to corrections in the data is correction for extreme values, data entry, differences in calculation from station to station. As these adjustments were done in the 80’s and they were done consistently, it would be reasonable to assume that data would not be skewed either way.

    Basically, the world meteorological network is responsible for the data.

  61. Why don’t the UEA just tell the Information Commissioner that they are just an evil sceptic and should be prosecuted for their belief.

    Everytime I think: “that’s it, it can’t get any worse … now things will settle down as everyone absorbs the information so far”.

    It does get worse!

    Statistically, most scares fizzle out in a sea of forgetfulness and distration with other issues. Statistically, climategate should be quietly forgotten as the press find something “really” scary to scare us about.

Comments are closed.