Guest post by Steven Mosher
In Climategate: The Crutape letters we tried to avoid accusing Professor Jones of CRU and UEA of outright fraud. Instead, based on the record found in the emails, we argued a case of noble cause corruption. I enlarged upon that charge at Pajama’s Media . Commenters took me to task for being too soft on Jones. Based on the extant text at that time I would still hold to my case. No skeptic could change my mind. But Phil Jones makes it hard to defend him anymore. On March 1st he testified before Parliament and there he argued that it was standard scientific practice to not share data. Those who still insist on being generous with him could, I suppose, argue that he has no recollection, but in my mind he is playing with the truth and knows he is playing with the truth.
In 2002 Steve McIntyre had no publications in climate science. He wrote to Jones requesting temperature data. The history of their exchange is detailed in this Climate Audit Post. Jones sent data to McIntyre along with the following mail:
Dear Steve,
Attached are the two similar files [normup6190, cruwld.dat] to those I sent before which should be for the 1994 version. This is still the current version until the paper appears for the new one. As before the stations with normal values do not get used.
I’ll bear your comments in mind when possibly releasing the station data for the new version (comments wrt annual temperatures as well as the monthly). One problem with this is then deciding how many months are needed to constitute an annual average. With monthly data I can use even one value for a station in a year (for the month concerned), but for annual data I would have to decide on something like 8-11 months being needed for an annual average. With fewer than 12 I then have to decide what to insert for missing data. Problem also applies to the grid box dataset but is slightly less of an issue. I say possibly releasing above, as I don’t want to run into the issues that GHCN have come across with some European countries objecting to data being freely available. I would like to see more countries make their data freely available (and although these monthly averages should be according to GCOS rules for GAA-operational Met. Service.
Cheers
Phil Jones
We should note these things: Jones sent data. That was his practice. Jones is aware of the problems in releasing this data. Jones believes that these monthly averages should be released according to GCOS [WMO resolution 40] rules. In 2002 his practice is to release data to a total unknown with no history of publication. And Jones releases the data to him knowing that there are issues around releasing that data.
In 2004 Warwick Hughes exchanges a series of mails with Jones. In 2000 Jones appears to have a cooperative relationship with Hughes. In 2004 the record shows the following
Dear Jean Palutikof, Dr P.D. Jones,
I was just reading your web page at; http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ and wish to access the station by station temperature data, updated through 2001 referred to on your CRU web page; http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow as
“Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used.” Where can I download the latest station by station data which is a foundation of Dr Jones et al published papers ? Note, I am not asking about the CRU gridded data which I can see on your web site. Looking forward to your help,
Best wishes,
Warwick Hughes
Warwick,
The station data are not on the CRU web site. If you look at the GHCN page at NCDC, you’ll see they have stopped access and cited WMO Res. 40 for this. To my mind this resolution is supposed to make access free. However, it was hinted at to me a year or two ago that I should also not make the station data available.
The gridded data are there as you know.
I would suggest you take this up with WMO and/or GCOS. I have raised it several times with them and got nowhere.
Cheers
Phil
As Jones points out he believes that WMO Resolution 40 should make access free. Jones also says that he himself has taken up this issue with them. One can presume he took it up because he wanted to give access to data. Further, he knows that there may be agreements that preclude release of the data.
The start of 2005 is a critical point in the story line. Jones had cordial exchanges with Hughes in 2000. Jones shared data with McIntyre in 2002 and in 2004 Jones believed that the data should be shared. In 2005 he has been transformed. In January of 2005, McIntyre published a paper (MM05) critical of Mann. As luck would have it at this time former CRU employee Wigley sent an email to Jones about a flyer he has received that discusses FOIA. At this stage no FOIA have been sent to CRU. But Wigley and Jones are concerned about skeptics. What ever willingness Jones had to share data is gone. Again, Jones shows a clear understanding of the existence of agreements:
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them.
At the start of Feb 2005, Jones’ attitude toward data sharing becomes clearer and also contradictory. Some people can get this data in violation of agreements, while others who ask for it using legal means will be thwarted.
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott [Rutherford]. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [McIntyre and McKittrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
Two weeks after the publication of MM05, prior to the issuance of any FOIA whatsoever, Jones contemplates destroying data rather than sharing it. But read closely. Jones sends this data to Scott Rutherford. So what’s the standard scientific practice? The data is covered by confidentiality agreements. Jones shared it with McIntyre in 2002, and now shares it with Rutherford in 2005. Jones knows it is covered by agreements and he’s questioned those agreements—except when he finds it convenient to hide behind those agreements. He violates them as he pleases. He shares data as he pleases. And if he is pushed to share it he contemplates destroying it.
On Feb 21, 2005 Keith Briffa sends Jones a mail with a list of editorials that are critical of Dr. Mann for not releasing data. Jones replies to Warwick Hughes’ request for data that same day:
Warwick,
Hans Teunisson will reply. He’ll tell you which other people should reply. Hans is “Hans Teunissen”
I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data – which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.
You can get similar data from GHCN at NCDC. Australia isn’t restricted there.
Several European countries are. Basically because, for example, France doesn’t want the French picking up data on France from Asheville. Meteo France wants to supply data to the French on France. Same story in most of the others.
Cheers
Phil
Jones has changed his attitude about the WMO. Prior to the publication of MM05 Jones believed that the WMO guidelines would make the data available. Moreover he argued with WMO that it should be released. Now, Jones changes his tune. He argues that he will not release the data even if the WMO agrees. His concern? Hughes will find something wrong with it.
When it comes to deciding whether to share data or not, standards have nothing to do with the decisions Jones made and he knows that. He knows he shared confidential data with Rutherford while he denied it to McIntyre and Hughes. He knows he regarded the confidentiality of those agreements quixotically. Violating them or hiding behind them on a whim. This was scientific malpractice. Lying about that now is beyond excuse.
April 2005 comes and we turn to another request from McIntyre: There is a constant refrain amongst AGW defenders that people don’t need to share code and data. They argue that papers do a fine job of explaining the science: They argue that people should write their own code based on description in papers. Here is McIntyre’s request. Note that he has read the paper and tried to emulate the method:
Dear Phil,
In keeping with the spirit of your suggestions to look at some of the other multiproxy publications, I’ve been looking at Jones et al [1998]. The methodology here is obviously more straightforward than MBH98. However, while I have been able to substantially emulate your calculations, I have been unable to do so exactly. The differences are larger in the early periods. Since I have been unable to replicate the results exactly based on available materials, I would appreciate a copy of the actual data set used in Jones et al [1998] as well as the code used in these calculations.
There is an interesting article on replication by Anderson et al., some distinguished economists, here [1]http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2005-014.pdf discussing the issue of replication in applied economics and referring favorably to our attempts in respect to MBH98.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
When you cannot replicate a paper based on a description of the data and a description of the method, standard practice is to request materials from the author. McIntyre does that. Jones’ “practice” is revealed in his mail to Mann:
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE “DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE” SCARE
Date: Wed Apr 27 09:06:53 2005
Mike,
Presumably you’ve seen all this – the forwarded email from Tim. I got this email from McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I’m concerned he has the data sent ages ago. I’ll tell him this, but that’s all – no code. If I can find it, it is likely to be hundreds of lines of uncommented fortran ! I recall the program did a lot more that just average the series. I know why he can’t replicate the results early on – it is because there was a variance correction for fewer series.
See you in Bern.
Cheers
Phil
Jones does not argue that code should be withheld because of IPR[Intellectual Property Rights]. It’s withheld because he is not sure he can find it and he suspects that it is a mess. More importantly Jones says he knows why McIntyre cannot replicate the results. Jones does not argue “standard scientific practice” to withhold code; he withholds code because it’s either lost, or sloppy and because it will allow McIntyre to understand exactly how the calculations were done. This is malpractice. Today when questioned whether people could replicate his work from the papers he wrote Jones “forgot this mail” and said they could replicate his work. And we should note one last thing. Jones again acknowledges sending data to McIntyre. So, what exactly is Jones’ notion of standard practice? To share or not to share? What the record shows is that Jones shared data and didn’t share data, confidential or not, on a basis that cannot be described as scientific or standard. He did so selectively and prejudicially. Just as he refused data to Hughes to prevent his work being checked he refuses information that McIntyre needs to replicate his published results. At the same time he releases that data to others.
That’s not the end of the story as we all know. In 2007 the first two FOIA were issued to CRU for data. One request for a subset of the data was fulfilled after some delay. The larger request was denied. By 2009 it became clear to McIntyre that the CRU data had also been shared with Webster. When McIntyre requested the very same data that Webster got from Jones, CRU started again with a series of denials again citing confidentiality agreements, inventing the terms of those agreements ex nihilo. Webster could have the data. McIntyre could not.
What the record shows is that Jones had no standard scientific practice of sharing or not sharing data. He had no consistent practice of abiding by or violating confidentiality agreements. He had his chance to sit before Parliament and come clean about the record. He had an opportunity to explain exactly why he took these various contradictory actions over the course of years. Instead he played with the truth again. Enough.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ah, so R Pielke jr said it. In December. I’ll have to check more often.
Of course there are plenty of climate scientists saying the science is at the stage where it makes a case for action, as (please note) I acknowledged above, but putting “science is settled” into quotes implies it was said by some particular person in those exact words, and usually at some particular time (like, before December, for example).
As a great philosopher once said, “When you can PARTICULARIZE your charge you are saying something worthwhile.”
I don’t think there’s any point pursuing this issue further, though. It’s been done to death. But please be judicious with your use of quote marks, guys.
Getting back to my earlier question, though, once the data are found again, reconstructed, retrieved from the original providing agencies or whatever, I’m still intrigued to know what those asking for the data expect to find.
I mean there clearly is some expectation. It was not just an intellectual excercise, was it, attempting to reproduce Jones’ work?
Or maybe I’m just having feelings again.
OK, I’m going now. I don’t have anything more to add to this topic. I’ve said my piece and you guys can take it or leave it.
I know how annoying trolls are and I don’t want to act like one here.
April E. Coggins (21:56:49) :
Has it been two years since the fantasy and fun filled days of Catlin Arctic Survey? It’s hard for me to believe and yet even harder still for the Catlin Crew.
Other than their mothers, who else will care?
The pilots who have to resupply them. Or yank them out when the polar bears stop drowning long enough to check their meat-to-bone ratio…
Dudes stop feeding the troll.
“However, many of the ideas are old:
“big bang”, 1927, see comment (13:09:48) above”
Hmm, Lamaitre may have had an idea, but I believe it was first sir Fred Hoyle who coined the phrase in an attempt to disparage the competing theory to the steady state. He said something like, (paraphrase) “Now they want us to believe that the universe came out of some sort of big bang.”
Still, the big bang has been confirmed with background radiation measurements, and the inflation version of the big bang resolves the earlier theoretical problems such as clumpiness.
Maybe we don’t know what’s at the “edge” of the universe or what caused the big bang, but cosmology has made some pretty amazing discoveries. Why, before Hubble (the scientist, not the telescope) the milky way galaxy was believed to be the whole universe. Now we’re talking about a universe that is expanding at an increasing rate in contradiction to what should happen with gravity. Sorry, what was the crisis again?
James F. Evans (22:04:59) :
So, yes, there is a crisis in astronomy
Did you read the papers? Did you understand them?
Brendan H (01:36:38) :
G Alston: “Skeptics have a much simpler request — you make the claim, then you prove it.”
The reality is that climate sceptics do make claims
A brief sample taken at random:
“You are contradicting yourself.”
“Because there is no science what we have is lies damned lies and climate statistics…”
“AGW has become nothing more than another government program…”
“You have failed your assignment.”
“I think AGW is a religion…”
“He may be right about man-made climate change.”
“Really, skeptics, who’ve been called denialists, are just agnostic.”
Claims, one and all, and therefore open to challenge.>>>>
Those aren’t claims, and I think you know that. Those are statements of opinion or position, and they are represented as such. Not a single one of those is a scientific claim. Since you don’t seem to differentiate between a statement that is part of a discussion, and a scientific claim, may I direct you to some of the latter:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/28/sense-and-sensitivity/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/spencer-spurious-warming-demonstrated-in-cru-surface-data/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/archibald-on-stellar-to-climate-linkage/
These are only a fraction of the science presented on this site, and even a brief perusal of the comments that follow shows that they are hotly contested even between skeptic and skeptics. Not a single one of your “examples” was a scientific claim. In brief, you chose a data set that had nothing to do with your argument. That’s not even cherry picking that’s exclusion of relative fact.
Gaz:
“Getting back to my earlier question, though, once the data are found again, reconstructed, retrieved from the original providing agencies or whatever, I’m still intrigued to know what those asking for the data expect to find.
I mean there clearly is some expectation. It was not just an intellectual excercise, was it, attempting to reproduce Jones’ work?”
There is an suspicion that the methodology was created to match an expectation/desired outcome. By going over the data manipulation (which isn’t intended in a negative connotation in this case) process it’s possible to determine if the steps in the process are justified and a proper way to treat the data.
Since the conclusions are based on the manipulated data, and most scientists are using the manipulated data as a baseline rather than starting over from scratch and deriving data themselves, it’s vitally important to make certain that this result has been treated properly.
Given that the CRU emails from Jones himself mention that he knows why McIntyre can’t replicate the work… an undisclosed “adjustment”… it would seem very unlikely that the process to go from raw data to Jones’ plot is fully justified.
Other people on this site have done independant spot analysis and discerned “steps” of adjustment in Jones work that is time dependant, and others have noted that apparently temperatures from rural stations have been adjusted UPWARD to match urban stations/eliminate the heat island effect.
Since Jones isn’t exactly forthcoming in explaining the process and the reasoning, it’s harder to validate or deny. Having access to the code could at least show you the process as was actually used, rather than the process as described in his paper. Whether any differences are due to a code bug or a deliberate fudge table can only be seen in the code. If the results are a matter of a fudge table, then it basically means that none of the data is valid.
Gaz, you are pretty amusing sophist. You are the one who introduced the quotes around the settling of science @ur momisugly 20:52:35 and introduced the idea that the point could only be valid if there were a scientist who said it.
The last four months have seen a great unsettling of the science. It appeared to many that before the emails that the science was settled enough to make trillion dollar policy decisions, that ‘uncertainties are no longer such that actions to curtail emission can be put off any longer’. But now the uncertainties are such. All your sophistry isn’t going to change that.
===========================
And, in fact, Gaz, the uncertainties were never such. Politicians and scientists assured, even insisted, that the uncertainties were ‘no longer there’. Well, they were. It was a big lie, THE big lie.
====================
Addendum:
And if its a matter of a bug, or a flawed and unjustified premise for an adjustment, then the data is just as worthless. Basing theories on worthless data isn’t sound science and calls into question every conclusion that was based on that data.
This is an example of why the onus is on AGW to fullfil their FOI requests.
For the science not to be decided by a sloppy, disheveled, disorganized, disingenuious [snip] circumventer with a self serving Standard Operating Procedure from an unprofessional institution like the CRU.
Legistlated $7 a gallon (now at $2.80 in the US for you Brits)
‘……………………Fuel Taxes Must Rise, Harvard Researchers Say
By SINDYA N. BHANOO
To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010. In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consume 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.
Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both………………’
“Gaz (03:05:16) :
Getting back to my earlier question, though, once the data are found again, reconstructed, retrieved from the original providing agencies or whatever, I’m still intrigued to know what those asking for the data expect to find.”
Gaz, the original data are gone. Long gone. CRU office moves and all, real data, who needs that when we have “value added” data? No amount of “reconstruction” (Which is exactly what has happended) will retrieve the real data. It’s gone!
Mike Haseler (02:39:28) :
“Can I make a plea to stop this focussing on “open data”. Yes the data should have been made available, but the main reason they didn’t want to make it available is because it would show how bad the data was in the first place.
Anyone who has ever had any real experience of temperature measurement knows what a difficult subject this is. It is bad enough in a carefully controlled laboratory, but in real life, in the real world, with real people … it is a nightmare….
I’ve also seen the same thing in factories: reading after reading after reading of absolutely perfectly running equipment which when you look isn’t working at all!
There are good reasons why we automated the temperature readings worldwide – but that WILL have changed the nature of those readings. It also means that there isn’t the same regular check of equipment so that e.g. insects, animals, moisture can contaminate the readings without anyone noticing for long periods….
The fact is this data was never intended for this purpose, and those “scientists” pretending their data analysis can make bad data good are kidding themselves!”
Very well put. I have also seen the “celulose graphite” factory data and have fired more than one tech after I caught their lazy a$$e$ cheating. Midnight raids on the analytical lab sure do give dishonest techs heart attacks…. and pink slips. Unfortunately we now have the International Standards Organization (ISO) telling us we can trust the data from our suppliers lab… yeah right. The recall of Salmonella contaminated peanuts and peanut butter after a third party auditor had given the plant a superior rating shows audit testing not checking paperwork is the key to good quality control.
“The auditor, paid for by Peanut Corp. of America, checked PCA’s Blakely, Ga., plant in 2007 and 2008 and gave it superior ratings both times, says Kris Charles, Kellogg spokeswoman.”
In1996 in the USA the food safety system was replaced with HACCP, allowing corporations to take over the control of food safety testing. We, in the USA have been paying for that decision with contaminated food ever since.
Al Gore and Bill Clinton have their fingerprints all over the transfer of the US food safety system to the corporations controlling the World Trade Organization. Amazing how a lot of the threads keep leading back to the same people.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/12/the-festering-fraud-behind-food-safety-reform/
Pascvaks (10:07:53) :
Ref – Leif Svalgaard (09:12:59) :
“_Jim (07:58:55) :
“The wild, unkempt hair, the jacket, open shirt/no tie…”
____________________________
But those glasses!!! Yuck!!!
That old farmer he’s standing next to reminds me of a fella I used to go fishing with. Called him “Granddaddy”.
That “old farmer” is Kurt Godel, one of the towering geniuses of 20th century mathematics. His two incompleteness theorems are among the most significant in all of mathematics.
Yarmy (06:18:05) :
That “old farmer” is Kurt Godel,
The dapper guy is Godel, the old farmer is Einstein
Yarmy (06:18:05) :
That “old farmer” is Kurt Godel,
The dapper guy is Godel, the old farmer is Einstein.
Ah, I misunderstood Pascvaks. A knee-jerk reaction as Godel is one of my heroes.
Leif Svalgaard (04:07:18) asked: “Did you read the papers? Did you understand them?”
Yes, I read the “sound wave” paper from a prior post, but the links are down, so I haven’t read the other paper.
In terms of the sound waves hypothesis I found it unpersuasive. It is claiming way too much for what those observations & measurements actually stand for (which I suggest science doesn’t know what they infer).
It’s called over-reaching, or trying to draw too much from a piece of evidence as to it’s actual significance or meaning.
Essentially, it’s an inference, which is not the same as direct observation for, in this case, the “beginning” of the Universe, nor the existence of “dark” matter or energy.
Inference is the process of determining if a piece of evidence or a chain of evidence leads to the existence or non-existence of a fact — what happened or if it did happen. In other words, a process of reasoning, or logical deduction, using known observations (evidence) to determine if some unobserved condition, event, or circumstance took place in a manner consistent with an assertion.
The analysis & interpretation of evidence to derive meaning, or significance, from those pieces of evidence is critical for proper inference leading to a conclusion consistent with the actual physical reality in question.
The same piece of evidence can derive different inferences depending on the perspective brought to the analysis & interpretation of the evidence.
Rival, opposed, or different analysis & interpretation of evidence is common and part of the scientific method and, indeed, any discipline where one is called upon to make conclusions about an ultimate condition, event, or circumstance without direct evidence of the event, itself, which is in question.
Obviously, rival, opposed, or different analysis & interpretation can lead to different conclusions about the ultimate existence or non-existence of a proposed fact.
A partial inference would be one were a condition, event, or circumstance point to another condition, event, or circumstance that may have happened, but the evidence infering the event does not provide convincing evidence — in other words, there still is uncertainty about whether the ultimate event took place or not, or what where the exact physical conditions that took place at the event or the time when the event supposedly happened.
To suggest sound waves (and I’m loosely paraphrasing) echo down through the ages (supposedly billions of years) and correctly infer the “beginning” of the Universe is more than can be claimed for them in my opinion, obviously, others are free to disagree with my opinion.
That’s Science.
Davidhoffer: “Those are statements of opinion or position, and they are represented as such.”
A statement of opinion is a claim that something is the case.
“Since you don’t seem to differentiate between a statement that is part of a discussion, and a scientific claim, may I direct you to some of the latter:”
You confirm my point: climate sceptics make claims.
“Not a single one of your “examples” was a scientific claim.”
I didn’t say they were. I said: “The reality is that climate sceptics do make claims…”
Interested parties would *love* to see an actual controlled study on this Gail; can you reference any?
No – not self-produced opinion articles; let’s see some actual lab results, showing industry-wide collusion. And let’s not have something like Consumer Reports used to report for frozen pizzas; contamination by insect parts and human hair has been going on for decades (long preceding HACCP).
.
.
James F. Evans (09:15:19) :
Yes, I read the “sound wave” paper from a prior post, but the links are down, so I haven’t read the other paper.
Try now.
I suggest science doesn’t know what they infer
Science does not know, but you do…
Rival, opposed, or different analysis & interpretation of evidence
So, what is your interpretation of these direct measurements?
What you miss is that modern cosmology is an observational science yielding precision measurements of the universe.
Astronomers are not ‘suggesting’ anything, they are measuring stuff and with amazing precision. Read the papers again. The sound paper is more accessible, so start with that. If you beat a drum and sprinkle powder on the skin you will see a pattern formed by the standing waves rippling over the drum. So the effect of the sound can be directly observed, same with the universe. Do us all a favor and make an effort.
James F. Evans (09:15:19) :
I suggest science doesn’t know what they infer
The report of the first five years of precision measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe spacecraft:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/0803-0732v2.pdf
Read it. And be awed. I am.
“That “old farmer” is Kurt Godel, one of the towering geniuses of 20th century mathematics. His two incompleteness theorems are among the most significant in all of mathematics.”
So that’s Godel! One of my favourite books is “Godel, Escher, Bach” by Douglas Hoffstader.
Leif Svalgaard (10:02:13) :
The report of the first five years of precision measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe spacecraft:
The first 376971 years of the life of our universe it was a fully ionized plasma, then when the temperature fell to 2967 degrees free protons and electrons recombined to form neutral Hydrogen and the universe ceased to be a plasma. At an age of 432 million years ultraviolet radiation from the first stars reionized 4.56 % of the matter.
Brendan H (09:29:50) :
I didn’t say they were. I said: “The reality is that climate sceptics do make claims…”
Wow. Are you related to someone named “Gazelle”?
1. You complained that skeptics should be subject to the same standard of evaluation for their claims as are scientists promoting AGW theories.
2. It was pointed out to you that claims can be refuted which has nothing to do with advancing differing claims.
3. You complained that skeptics make lots of claims and presented a list of examples which were not in fact claims.
4. I provided to you a list of things that were actually claims by skeptics and pointed to the refutation of same by, in some cases, other skeptics.
Now you are complaining that you never said that skeptics didn’t make claims. My complaint is that you either don’t remember what you said in the first place or you just make stuff up and hope no one notices. What value you hope to achieve is beyond me.
Gaz,
“Getting back to my earlier question, though, once the data are found again, reconstructed, retrieved from the original providing agencies or whatever, I’m still intrigued to know what those asking for the data expect to find.”
Why wonder Gaz?
These people asked Jones for his data:
1. Warwick Hughes. Hughes was looking at Jones 1990. he was trying to
understand Jones’s method, in particular he was trying to understand
the interpolation methodology and UHI. This is captured in the mails
between Jones and Hughes. Hughes is a published researcher in Australia.
2. Willis Eschenbach 2007.
Willis requested data in 2007. There was a discussion of two aspects
of Jones paper UHI and the calculation of spatial errors ( as I recall, it was
over two years ago). The request was straightforward. Willis asked
for a list of station names and the data for each station. Jones refused.
he claimed that the data was at GHCN. Some of it was, but without a list
of exact stations names ( which 3000 of the 6000 at GHCN) nothing
could be done. Finally CRU relented and gave the list of names ( this station in france, that station in germany)
3. McIntyre: McIntyre asked for the data for Jones 1990. They said they
lost it. But then they found it and posted it. Mc did a series of posts
on UHI and the sites jones picked.
4. 2009:
1. Mc requested the data that was given to Webster. he was denied
CRU argued that they had agreements which PRECLUDED the
release to “non academics” That was a lie, as confirmed by The FOIA
appeal office on Nov 13, 2009.
2. After Mac was denied, 4 ACADEMICS requested the data.
Why? to test the excuse that CRU gave to #1. CRU denied these
requests and claimed that international relations would be damaged
if the data was shared. They cited the agreements.
3. So we FOIAed the agreements. CRU found 4. of the 4, only one
precluded release to 3rd parties.
So, Gaz if you want to know what people expected to find you should probably ask them.
1. Hughes. Was just trying to figure out how jones got the answer he got.
Jones said ” we selected 84 stations in country X” we did this calculation
we found this. Hughes wanted to know what stations and what data from those stations. he had access to other data and was trying to reconcile. What did he expect to find? More data so he could do a better job.
But why should it MATTER what his expectation is? and how can Jones KNOW his expectation.
2. Willis. Ask him, what did he expect to find? The exact stations and data
that Jones used. What did he expect to find? If I had to guess, I suppose
Willis had an expectation that Jones selection of sites may have been
Biased. If Jones found No UHI, then there are two things you want to check: Station selection and processing approach.
3. McIntyre: same as #2.
4. The 4 Academics who requested the data? They expected to be denied.
All of us who have dealt with NDAs knew that the “non academic” restriction clause was a fiction. Since the denial of Mcintyre was on false
grounds basically CRU’s bluff was being called.
Now, What would I expect to find.
1. I don’t know, I’ve seen a lot of oddities in data.
How will the result change? Might change a little, no more than .15C
Uncertainty will probably go up, not by much.