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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?
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?
mark (23:17:19) :
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’.
——
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
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”
Sorry, I meant this is one argument I dont want to win, not loose 🙂 Need more morning coffee!
mark (23:17:19) :
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.
Oops, proof read.
geat = great.
DaveE.
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?
“You can’t con a con and politicians are consumate liers and many are lawyers too.”
Isn’t that a bit redundant? :p
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
Look for yourself. The USA is not heating up much, well only in the North
http://www.knowyourplanet.com/climate-data/north-america/united-states-north
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!”
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.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/spencer-spurious-warming-demonstrated-in-cru-surface-data/
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?
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
Rob uk (05:34:12) :
I agree, the interview with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is important and a must listen…
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.”
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!
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.
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.