Just a note to let everyone know that the Parliamentary inquiry into Climategate has produced the final report and that I have an advance copy, which is embargoed until 5:01PM PDT (00:01 GMT).
I’ll be posting it then, be sure to check in.
There are some wins in it, and there are some disappointments too. I’ll also provide links to other analysis and commentary that arises after the embargo lifts.
Layman readers should bear in mind that this report comes from a bunch of policy wonks, so there’s that sort of flavor to it. OTOH, they seem to have done a better than usual job of trying to communicate their findings.
Unfortunately, the inquiry failed to interview key people, such as Steve McIntyre, and for that they deserve an earful IMHO.
In the meantime, Mike Haesler points out in comments that the Irish Times apparently didn’t wait for the embargo to lift:
Climate unit criticised for stonewalling sceptics
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0330/breaking78.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lets see folks whether the Committee looked up the definition of ‘trick’
1. a crafty or fraudulent device, expedient, or proceeding; an artifice, stratagem, ruse, or wile. 2. a deceptive or illusory appearance; mere semblance 3. a roguish or mischievous performance; etc etc
Precisely, there is no other interpretation.
‘Hide the Decline’. If that’s not tampering with the data I do not know what is.
‘Discarding erroneous data’ they say – yes data that does not fit their commited notion of continuing rising temperatures I say.
$15 Trillion – preserved.
Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle if that IARC-JAXA readout hasn’t turned up and plowed into the 2003 line arching down.
03,26,2010,14264688
03,27,2010,14256719
03,28,2010,14299219
03,29,2010,14363438
03,30,2010,14405781
03,26,2003,14771094
03,27,2003,14755781
03,28,2003,14718594
03,29,2003,14647031
03,30,2003,14533906
The Watts effect has got it’s meteorological mojo working again.
It’s ba -a -ack.
Not a very honest report. Quote “But at the same time it is critical to point out that no grounds have arisen to doubt the validity of the thermometer-based temperature record since 1850, nor any results based upon it.178”
Compare, in my submission under the Term of Reference — How independent are the other two international data sets? Quote “The answer to this question is not known by any person. The respective collecting parties acquire data in various states of adjustment from various bodies and individuals around the globe, such as the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The volume of information is large and the adjustments to it are so frequent that it would be formidable to recreate a day-by-day comparison. There is no doubt that for some periods at some stations all three bodies would report the same result, within the bounds of error. However, prior disclosure of code and adjustment times has not been forthcoming to allow an independent audit.
The data sets cannot be directly compared because some deal only with land temperatures; others include sea. In any case, the error bounds, when calculated with proper formalism, are so large that the data sets would usually agree sensu latissimo. This can be confirmed by separate comparison of temperatures from satellite observations since the early 1980s.”
ER0ME (16:19:59) :
“Hide the decline” was not an attempt to conceal data but was scientific shorthand for discarding erroneous data, the committee concluded.
But which data were erroneous? The temperature data or the proxy data? If it was the proxy data, how can you rely on the rest of it, and if it was the temperature data, then surely it should be noted as wrong. You can’t have it both ways and expect us to believe anything you say ever again, I’m afraid.
====
Instrumental temperature records are supposed to be more accurate than their proxies. Climate scientist are well aware tree-ring proxies diverged from instrumentally recorded temperatures in the late 20th Century, but they aren’t sure why. Does the divergence mean tree-ring data were never accurate temperature proxies? Maybe. Maybe not.
“Nothing to see here, move along!”
No matter what the official line is, they will have a very tough time getting the genie back into the bottle & convincing the public that climate change is worth worrying about.
All the King’s horses, and all the King’s men, couldn’t put the swindle together again.
*** INCONCEIVABLE ***
You guys need to realise that our Prime Minister will call a General Election most likely tomorrow.
This was brought out at a time when its guaranteed that noone will be interested for 5 or 6 weeks.
A way to quietly bury the issue, in other words.
Ah well I suppose a greywash was to be expected. After all this Parliament voted to destroy 80% of our fire producing capacity to fight “catastrophic global warming” so they were hardly likely to say it was fa scam – instead they seem to have passed the buck to U of EA’s “inquiry” run by a windfarm owner, to confirm the scam.
So the CRU is vindicted by members of Parliament?
These same members that cheated on hundreds of millions of pounds for personal spending? We have laws against the pot calling the kettle black. Cheaters should never accuse cheaters.
Thank you Anthony. Keep at it.
I hope you get the satisfaction of driving the final nail in the coffin someday.
p.s. Sooner rather than later would be nice!lol