The University of Toronto is hosting a data archiving event on 17th December, to try to “save” climate data they believe will be deleted by the new Donald Trump administration.
Guerrilla Archiving Event: Saving Environmental Data from Trump
There is a Call to Action underway coming out of the Technoscience Research Unit at the University of Toronto, and happening at the Faculty of Information.
Two professors are calling on citizens to figure out if they “Care about Trump, data, or the environment?” Volunteersare invited to join in a full day of hackathon activities in preparation for the Trump presidency.
This event collaborates with the Internet Archive’s End of Term 2016 project, which seeks to archive the federal online pages and data that are in danger of disappearing during the Trump administration. This event is focused on preserving information and data from the Environmental Protection Agency, which has programs and data at high risk of being removed from online public access or even deleted. This includes climate change, water, air, toxics programs. This project is urgent because the Trump transition team has identified the EPA and other environmental programs as priorities for the chopping block.
…
SVP and up-to-date information: https://www.facebook.com/events/1828129627464671/ (link is external)
Bring: laptops, power bars, and snacks. Coffee and Pizza provided.
https://technoscienceunit.wordpress.com/2016/12/04/guerrilla-archiving-e… (link is external)
Submitted by Kathleen O’Brien on Mon, 2016-12-12 17:35
Date:
Saturday, December 17, 2016 –
10:00 to 16:00
Location:
Bissell Building, 4th Floor, 140 St. George St. University of Toronto
Read more: https://ischool.utoronto.ca/content/guerrilla-archiving-event-saving-environmental-data-trump
Can anyone recall any climate skeptic, anywhere, ever demanding the deletion of climate data?
Much of the battle between skeptics and climate organisations has been about compelling reluctant climate researchers to release data which they wanted to hide. Skeptics have consistently demanded more access to data, not less.
For example, consider Climategate email 1106338806.txt from Professor Phil Jones, former head of the prestigious UK based Climatic Research Unit.
From: Phil Jones
To: Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: FOIA
Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005
Cc: Ben Santer
Tom,
I’ll look at what you’ve said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don’t know the other panel members. I’ve not heard any
more about it since agreeing a week ago.
As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she
will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get
used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
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.
Cheers
Phil
Plenty more where that email came from – lots of discussions in the Climategate archive of legal tricks to avoid Freedom of Information requests, use of UN mandates to avoid national law based FOIA requests, requests to delete emails and files, and what appear to be deliberate attempts to conceal and perhaps even to delete important material.
In January 2010, the UK information office found that the CRU had breached freedom of information laws, but that the statute of limitations on the offence had run out – it was too late to prosecute those responsible.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
where it is free to be homogenised as much as they like
This is a great initiative, the more copies of official data there are around the world, the harder it gets for the likes of GISS to go unnoticed when they are constantly “correcting” data and older “uncorrected” data disappears from view.
Whenever I download an update I ensure I keep the previous copy.
Skeptics should probably organise a similar project since warmists will be burning the books to hide evidence and removing public data access as funding gets threatened.
If they want to download as much data as they can , go for it.
Most sceptics have hard drives full of data that they’ve retrieved at one time or another – and we keep because we’ve learnt the hard way that good data disappears quickly.
Are they to archive the adjusted data or the data as measured?
That was the first thing that came to my mind as well DHR
Yeah, perhaps skeptics should start to up load some of this ‘missing’ data to a central respository and share it more widely.
There are certainly a lot of people here who have copies on long disappeared datasets and having more widely distributed copies would be a good safeguard from them fading from view again.
Excellent point. The climate extremist kooks are the ones who have been deleting data, lying, refusing to share data.
Hopefully they will include the raw data with the relevant metadata so we can at least TRY to reconstruct the work and evaluate its legitimacy. Homogenizing wilderness stations with corrupted settlement data is the first perversion in gridded products. Some of the other adjustments may or may not be legitimate, but that one is easily shown to be bogus. (For the supporters – check the temperature of a grid over a sample of wilderness stations. You will find the homogenized temperature for that grid will have an increasing trend while the station itself will show a MUCH lower trend on the raw data – sometimes even show a decrease while the gridded product is showing imminent thermageddon. Thus homogenization is falsified!)
I have a link to a site called Athropolis that used to have temperature sensor links
http://www.athropolis.ca/map2.htm
Every yellow dot used to represent a temperature station and supplied a reasonably current reading. Now, unfortunately, all those links seem to deliver no data available. Either the site was unfunded and can’t gather the information or it is being silenced due to inconvenient data
I have all that data with yearly copies. They can get it from me with all FDA and ISO metadata required for each. These guys are FOS and playing head games.
GISS ingests from NOAA
Finally,
proof of degrees for idiots
I am a climate skeptic and I demand the deletion of professors.
Perhaps they are “archieving” how the “blip” was removed like this…
Funny..
They can hide the data sets in a Folder called DAD, Dishonestly Altered Data, or under the name GWS, Global Warming Scam. No one will find it there.
Actually this data will not be deleted. It will be published under its true colors along with the names of those who altered the data. I think that is what they are really afraid of.
I like that idea!
I suspect many of the people that show up will be Eco-philosophers and Eco-sociologists and they will archive their own nonsensical papers and Eco-cartoons.
We need to distinguish between “data” – which are the actual temperatures recorded by hard-working volunteers all over the world for decades – and “data products” – which is the garbage produced by computer codes like GISTEMP. Sure the “data” need to be saved and properly archived, and the “data products” – ummm, not so much.
It’s like the difference between “cheese” (e.g. a finely aged Gorgonzola cheese) and “cheese product” (e.g. Cheese Whiz).
Maybe they’ll finally require the Lonnie Thompsons of the world to publicly archive that which they’ve refused to do for decades. Data needs to be rescued from climate scientists, not saved from Trump. Sheesh!
It may all be a waste of time. Listen to this explosive news announced a few days ago:
Well it will be interesting to hear the big reveal.
However, he talks about a 2 to 2.5degc per doubling of CO2, and as we know the Paris Accord is seeking to cap temperature rise at 1.5degC, so his breakthrough is unlikely to take the wind out of the sails of the alarmists, and that is assuming that his breakthrough truly is a breakthrough, and that he is right on it.
I was rather disappointed after listening to the video.
Yes, listening to Monckton is often disappointing. It would be interesting to see his BIG error work, though previous stuff here has been a little unconvincing, he may well have found a good argument about the upper bounds being unrealistic since they are.
The long tail of the distribution give rise to all sorts of ridiculous “may be as much as” type claims which are precisely the figures journalists like to select for headlines without reporting the may be as little as which goes with it.
Me too but I think he was referring to the model projections rather than reality. He was looking for the mathematical defect in the models.
He has no more idea of what reality will look like than anybody else at the moment.
Whether it is the range of sensitivities display by various models or observation based estimates of the real climate it is the same fundamental problem: uncertainty in the numerator gives a symmetric probability distribution but uncertainty in the denominator produces a heavily skewed distribution with a long tail which includes some very high values with a small but finite probability.
These give rise to “may be as much as ” type claims.
This reciprocal term is what Monckey keeps referring to as his ‘rectangular hyperbola’. It’s an attempt to make himself sound very knowledgeable about maths and science. The old baffle ’em with science ploy.
Something that I’ve noticed in my time here on Earth is that usually the one side that is accusing the others of some deplorable act are usually up to their elbows in doing that very same act. Think back a few years and remember that the raw data collected for creating HADCRUT was somehow destroyed when a legal request to produce the data was granted.
This hacking party is merely a smokescreen to suggest that the Trump administration is not to be trusted with producing the unadulterated data for political reasons…
Exactly, it’s the application of the standard technique again.
psychologists call it projection.
Most know that the IPCC authors are very strong on projection.
“Most know that the IPCC authors are very strong on projection.”
The International Projection Committee of Catastrophe it is then.
Yes, projection. I have noticed the same thing with the left, to the point it has become a rule of thumb of mine:
If the left makes an accusation, you’ll find the left up to its elbows in that behaviour.
A subsidiary rule of thumb is:
Chances are those they accuse are not doing as claimed,
or doing it only in a mild version compared with the left.
I am often surprised by the explanatory power of this little mental trick. It can even be used as a predictive tool, for example as to the way evidence in some issue of debate will unfold.
“Pat Kelly December 13, 2016 at 11:32 pm
Think back a few years and remember that the raw data collected for creating HADCRUT was somehow destroyed when a legal request to produce the data was granted.”
Didn’t even get to a request for the raw data. The UEA CRU *LOST ALL* the raw data in office moves in the mid 90’s. They have been fudging it since!
Yeah, they think everyone behaves the way they do so they use the same ‘model’ to imputed motives to the ‘bad’ guys.
Dang illiterate cell phone text correcter!
Indeed, it’s called ‘projection’.
We really are in the ‘looking glass’ here.
I cannot be the only person who laments the corruption of real climate data by ‘authorities’ over the last two decades.
Phil Jones from UEA admitted in a Climategate email that the original data could not be recovered…
And here are these ‘activists’ protecting the corrupted data?
Tsk.
Another sad day for science I fear…
Not at all Alistair, this crap never was science to begin with. It has always just been political, ideological, agit propaganda. Besides, it is now the perfect opportunity to tun this back at the alarmists and fraudsters and accuse them of wanting to NEVER be held to account by having their data audited and all their data fiddling exposed. That was the gift of the UEA emails, it revealed the depths to which these con artists would go to conceal their secret techniques.
Wasn’t it the CRU at UEA that erased a hard drive with original climate data?
No, it was the original paper records that were lost or destroyed during a move to new premises.
Phil Jones also said he would rather delete the raw data files than give them to Steve McIntyre.
That’s because Steve was trying to find something wrong with the data.
If Steve would have left it alone everything would be okay.
We might even still have a solid hokey stick.
“. . . data at high risk of being removed from online public access . . .”
Some of this may be charts and tables that have been based on dodgy data or manipulated for persuasive/alarmist effect. These indeed might be deleted or modified by the new administration’s top employees.
My thoughts exactly. This “archiving” effort may just be a backup plan to “disappear” fudged data, in case there are (dare I hope it?) Fraud Trials sometime in the foreseeable future.
Why would Trump want to delete the fabricated data – he needs it for the prosecutions.
Right-o, UofT wants to be like Hillary and ‘save’ the evidence from the light of scrutiny.
Why would skeptic delete data?
That data is going to be Exhibit A.
It had occurred to me that this was a secret code word for “delete all the data”.
I not see that you had already posted my same thought, worded slightly different.
But, whether psychological projection or a coded dog whistle, the one thing we know is it is the Warmistas who delete data not the Skeptics.
Most of the ignorant faithful have no idea of what’s actually going on though. I’ve seen lots of my liberal friends posting this on Facebook.
Perhaps meaningful subpoenas from Congressional Committees for original data,
documents, and notes (including e-mails) to numerous researchers, like Mann,
Santer, Funkhouser, Bradley and Tom Karl, as well as the EPA, NOAA and the
Department of Energy would make everyone feel “safe” from selective deletion of
documentation.
That would take the information out of the dreaded Trump administration’s hands
and put it on the public record, with the researchers giving testimony under oath
before Congress as to how it was derived.
…or has someone tried to plow this field earlier, before the political climate
changed ?
“You’re going to collect all of the climate data?”
“Yes, we have to archive it to protect it from the skeptics!”
“And what if someone wants to see the copies?”
“What, so they can find something wrong with them? Don’t be daft! Nobody will ever see this stuff, if we have anything to say about it. By the way, we need a million dollars up front and another half-million dollars a year for paying people to not hand out the data. It’s to protect the climate, you see.”
Well, as AGW folk have never particularly bothered about archiving their own data, this shouldn’t take them very long to pull off!!
Climate data should be saved from the climate scientists themselves in the first place unfortunately..
+999999999
That reminds me , has Lonnie Thomson archived his publicly owned data yet.
Well, he’s dead, but no. There were some oft-used cores he never archived. It’s ok, climate scientists just took his word for it. After all, IT’S SCIENTS!
I suspect that a lot of Lab Support ‘climate scientists’ have little in the way of qualifications other than attending ‘green awareness’ courses .
I would be glad to be proved wrong hence show us your certificates.
I can’t, I lost the original and there was no backup.
I would have but mine too is lost in time and Canada bought up all the backup data sources
Oh dear, isn’t “hacking” illegal? The EPA is a United States Government agency, advocating the deliberate hacking of it, is a criminal act.
If any hacking takes place the perpetrators should be prosecuted.
Perhaps Mr Trump’s transition team may wish to remind them about that.
michael
It seems that it depends on what it is hacked.
Assagne is, on many people´s eyes, a hero. “Look at what he uncovered, it is soooo interesting,” they say.
Climategate hack was illegal, Mike Nature trick is out of contest, Do not read. It is boring, anyway.
Football leaks is fantastic, look at all that info these hackers gave us. We will have front page news in our newspaper for the rest of the month with these leaks. That is what some european newspapers are thinking.
But it is illegal to hack Hillary´s e-mails. These russian hackers want Trump to win. Do not look at the e-mails, they are private, Trump won because russian hackers released the e-mails. That is illegal. Did I say “do not look at the e-mails”?
If the emails were hacked at all, and not disclosed by an insider….
“If the emails were hacked at all, and not disclosed by an insider….”
That was the unofficial opinion of the police who investigated the matter, the whole investigation cost £85,000 (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/uk-police-close-climategate/ ) which by the standards of the British police would barely pay for the coffee and biscuits.
urederra December 14, 2016 at 3:02 am
“It seems that it depends on what it is hacked.”
“But it is illegal to hack Hillary´s e-mails. ”
Hillary’s E-maisl were bleach-bittened. She broke the law. Hacking is a none issue, other then to prove she broke the law. Podesta emails may have been a hack or an insider. Because of the time line cut off, it is more likely a Democrat then a Russian. If it was Ivan they would have gone back for “second helpings”. We would have gotten more.
As for the Russians wanting Trump to win, so what. everyone has a preference as to who should be the U.S. President. Everyone one in the United States cast their vote on the information that was available to them. If the Russians provided information on double dealing within the Democratic leadership, to bad. Those people should not have been engaging in it. And in fact the leaks show that it was not the Russians influencing and interfering with the election process but rather the Democratic leadership themselves. Ivan just alerted us to it.
michael
Anyone think the “archiving” will be followed by a “deleting”. After all, can’t leave all that data, code and methodology lying around for the non-believers to “find something wrong with”
good idea.
It is quite possible the administration might want to prevent collection of data which would prove embarrassing to its position.
For similar reasons, I don’t believe we’ll see any attempt to examine or ‘prove’ the data is fraudulent, as alleged.
I suspect we will see a government suppressing scientific data for political reasons.
Griff
It is quite possible
thethis CURRENT administrationmightDOES ALREADY want to prevent collection of data which would prove embarrassing to its position.For similar reasons, I
don’tbelievewe’llwe HAVE ALREADY SEEN MANY attempts PREVENT ANYONE FROM examining or ‘proving’ the data is fraudulent, as alleged.I
suspectwe will CONTINUE TO see THIS CURRENT ADMINISTRATIONgovernmentCONTINUING TO ATTEMPT TO suppress REAL scientific data for political reasons.I suspect we will see a government suppressing scientific data for political reasons.
We are seeing governments suppressing scientific data now for political reasons. What do you think the whole CAGW is founded on? It is not science.
Hmmm
Government suppressing climate data for political reasons…
Hmmm
Sounds a lot like the last 8 years…
Stool
More of the same then?
Speaking of projecting …
“It is quite possible the administration might want to prevent collection of data which would prove embarrassing to its position.”
Yes, Obama’s administration might well do exactly that, with good cause.
The incoming administration will have no necessity to, of course.
Did you even read the email where climate scientists ADMIT to hiding data?
Griff,
“…quite possible…. might want…. I don’t believe…. I suspect….
Another data driven confirmation of the ‘Settled Science‘!
Anyone seen Climate Otter???
All this prompts the question – after the University of Toronto have assembled their vast archive of ‘saved’ climate data, will they permit general access to it, or is it to be saved from scrutiny as well as deletion ?
maybe they have a clean copy of the CRU data?
This is the same university that recently reprimanded a professor (Jordan Peterson), twice, for failing to use the “gender neutral” pronouns “Ze” (He) and “Hir” (Her). Professor Peterson said he refuses to use these terms because they are based upon “rubbish” science (sound familiar?). Proponents of this “theory” claim that differences between males and females is an invention of society and that scientists have no way of accurately looking at gender in the absence of sexism and misogyny.
Law professor Brenda Cossman, director of the Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity (oh boy) at the University of Toronto, stated there are reasonable limits on free speech in certain cases such as protecting human rights. She believes that refusing to use gender neutral pronouns in an educational setting could be found to be discriminatory. Is this woman for real!
This is the same loony mindset behind global warming alarmism. Note: Spell check insists the words “Ze” and “Hir” don’t exist. I going to report it to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal tout suite.
Not to mention that “gender” isn’t the same as “sex”. When you say “sex”, you’re referring to male and female, physical sexes. When you say “gender”, you’re SUPPOSED to be referring to masculine and feminine, which are behaviors.
the word “transgender” used to be “transsexual”. It changed somewhere along the way. Sex is a bad word, apparently, even when used clinically. On a health insurance form I filled out a few days ago, they didn’t ask my sex, they asked what my gender was, and gave the choices of “male or female”. Clueless.
Do they know that you can buy a 2 TB external hard drive for $80 ????
Oh please – let’s encourage them to use robust procedures – even if it’s for some daft imagined reason.
Trump could nip this in the bud by suggesting the Library of Congress or some other location be a repository.
Russian Hackers have already backup up the data for them.
Is the data still available so that we can create a movie showing the temperature record’s past being pushed down and it’s present being pulled up with the thumbtack stuck in at 1945?
What good is a record where we don’t know what the 1950 temperature will be next week.? They are snapping a picture of a work continually in flex. Trump is going to be blamed for whatever they want to blame him for. I still had the capacity to be shocked at the climategate felonies – not any more. The insider who released the climateer emails (like the Bernie Sanders supporter in the DNC who released the anti-Bernie stuff which was blamed on the Russians), will eventually be known – maybe a release after his death.
so these folks have/are/want to set themselves as Guardians of Data.
Who decides what to keep and what not to keep read= Delete if not these self-appointed Guardians?
Then who decides who can see or use this data or who can add to to it, or especially what can be added?
No, I don’t think anything could *possibly* go wrong there…….
The question anyone from industry would ask is: “what do their ISO9000 compliance procedures say about data archiving” – the answer from almost all academics is “what’s ISO900, what’s ‘data archiving'”, etc.”
I wonder whether they want to archive GISS’ October version of global temperatures, which has now been altered to raIse temperatures in recent years (surprise, surprise!)
Fortunately you can still see October version on Wayback – you certainly won’t see it on GISS.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/gavin-caught-cheating-again/
I remember a certain NASA page that should be carefully archived, something along the lines of`
`SC24 is going to be the biggest ever`
just before it got smaller. if they cant find it I will send them my copy, I`ve got it stored carefully on a memory stick