From Kate at Small Dead Animals: No U-turns allowed
Dear Tom,
I find it hard to believe that the British Antarctic Survey would permit the deletion of relevant files for two recent publications or that there aren’t any backups for the deleted data on institutional servers. Would you mind inquiring for me? In the mean time, would you please send me the PP format files that you refer to here for the monthly sea ice data for the 20th century models discussed in your GRL article and the 21st century models referred to in your JGR article.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
Then in July… “Unprecedented” Data Purge At CRU
On Monday, July 27, 2009, as reported in a prior thread, CRU deleted three files pertaining to station data from their public directory ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/. The next day, on July 28, Phil Jones deleted data from his public file – see screenshot with timestemp in post here, leaving online a variety of files from the 1990s as shown in the following screenshot taken on July 28, 2009.
The Telegraph, today – Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row ….. Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full….
Now, here comes the other shoe! Hide the Decline!
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.”
[…]
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Here’s the Telegraph article. It would appear that a private prosecution is in the offing:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html
The more you uncover Anthony the more it stinks…….
Keep up the very good work you all. You are doing work of International importance and i mean that sincerely….
TRUST ME!! I know what I am doing and that is why I got rid of the raw data!!!
Now give the UN control of your country so we can fix everything else for you too!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Have no fear. This sounds like a job for Mr. Jones. In his 1255298593.txt email to Rick Piltz he says:
“The original raw data are not lost either. I could reconstruct what we had from some DoE reports we published in the mid-1980s. I would start with the GHCN data. I know that the effort would be a complete wate of time though. I may get around to it some time. As you’ve said, the documentation of what we’ve done is all in the literature.”
I say it’s time we use FOI to make him waste some time.
And the third shoe is…
The investigation will not find fault in CRU for doing this…and we’ll never know if they threw out data that could prove them wrong.
I wonder how much of this really relates to the AGW proponents. Could this have more to do with Jones?
Nobody is that stupid. “Value-added (quality controlled and homogenised)” is not data. It is a result.
And they want us to hand over $6 trillion, on the basis that their quality control and homogenisation was perfectly done?
Alchemy, anyone?
The warm has turned.
If the derived data is no longer reproducible, it is not trustworthy. It is no longer useful for science but must itself be thrown out as there is now no way to test or verify it.
“Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.”
When in the 80s was global warming “not an issue”? Certainly an issue in 1988 when Hansen testified before Congress. Why keep the “value-added” data in that case.
My guess is that whoever made the decision to throw the paper and tapes away didn’t do so because of a location move but because they thought the value-added data was good enough for government work. Incompetence? CRU has certainly demonstrated incompetence lately, and perhaps since 1995 or before.
Maybe Jones can be persuaded to write some code to extract the raw data from the “value-added”, before the door hits him in the arse while he’s on the way out. He may not be responsible for the purge, but he knew.
This I just can’t believe. A lot of this information would be recorded in journals of national historical import, notwithstanding their scientific value.
This is truly a scandal of epic proportions.
The man must resign. The results of all his work are not worth the paper (oh, hang on, he threw all that away) they were printed on.
This idea of “value added data” is a new one for me. What’s the scientific history behind that one? Did Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Rutherford, Eratosthenes, etc. also deal in value added data?
Well, he did say he would delete the files rather than giving them to Steve, Phil is evidently a man of his word…
The Science is scuttled!!!
One would have to say that the adherence to accepted scietific practice isn’t much to the fore at The Climatic Research at the University of East Anglia. I am aware that data do get misplaced and mislaid but to trash original raw data which are valuable in their own right and particularly in the current climate (no pun intended) could and should be available just as a check that all is kosher gives me a very uneasy feeling about the whole AGW scenario. GISS seems always to modify data upwards, the way “hide the decline” was perpetrated is hardly best practice and refusing to release data is just arrogant. That Professor Jones would rather destroy than release data is on record and it seems as if his sentiments are comonly held at the University of East Anglia. The whole AGW edifice is so shonky that it beggars belief that so many accept without question the mantras that “the science is settled” and “we must cut carbon pollution”. Surely even the most scientifically illiterate politicians must be starting to have misgivings about the rush to emissions trading schemes. Mustn’t they?
My question is how do you “homogenise” temperature data?
Cheers
Michael
Sorry typo. That should read Climatic Research Unit at the University of ast Anglia
Just moved over to Bing much better news coverage on climategate. Just shortcut save the main page of bing news on your desktop real easy transition LOL. Oh Im sure google will reconsider we hope.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/11/iowahawk-geographic-the-secret-life-of-climate-researchers.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
Tom Wigley was “in charge” of CRU from 1978 to 1993.
“In 1979, CRU hosted a remarkable, international, interdisciplinary conference (Climate and History), a turning point for the future work on historical climatology and the influence of climate on human societies. This type of work still has an important place in CRU’s research portfolio to the present day, although it has broadened to include the development and analysis of early instrumental records and the extension of important climate indicators and datasets as far back in time as possible.”
“As it became clearer, in the 1980s, that the world was warming, a question that was asked with increasing frequency was how much, if any, of the warming was a consequence of human activity? CRU had made an important contribution to the posing of that question, so was in an excellent position to attract some more research funding to address it. The UK Government became a strong supporter of climate research in the mid-1980s, following a meeting between Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher and a small number of climate researchers, which included Tom Wigley, the CRU director at the time.”
Good stuff. Hope it doesn’t inadvertently get deleted.
These issues were long suspected by many who frequented Climate audit and this site but now is being publicised for the whole blogosphere. I went to the Canadian Broadcasting Commission site and read Bob McDonalds article. I note that he actually stated, ” …. climate science stands on a firm footing of rigorous research and appropriately skeptical peer review”. Rigorous research seems to consist of denial of data and then its deletion and “Peer review ” looks like becoming a popular punchline for a bad joke.
I am reminded of the story that in 1945 the captured German Atomic scientists were secretly recorded discussing the news of the Hiroshima bomb and their speculations were so bizarre that the Los Alamos personnel listening to the conversations were driven to comment, ” Who are these clowns ? “.
WOW
So how do we take the article statement:
‘Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s’ That is, piles of papter records chucked out when they moved office in the 1980s
And then this press release:
CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available (28 November)
Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.
“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
curious and curiouser…
Its going to be fun watching them reconcile the many positions they’ve taken over the past few years. Their recent promise to finish getting releases from all the national weather services and to release all the data contradicts the idea that they only hold “value added” data.
Personally, I’m reasonably sure that without access to the actual raw data, as well as access to their complete process of “adding” “value” it is impossible to resuscitate their global temperature product.
The problem is that they weakened their own authority by publicly refusing review. Now, their clear actions with respect to FOI combined with their intimidation of critics, journals, and editors punctures any remaining gravitas they had fatally.
The UEA ought to be looking out for its future reputation. Being the home of a scientific scandal is not good for a university, regardless of how it comes out in the end.
Nothing to hide, of course. And who would want ‘raw’ data when they could have it expertly cooked by Jones, Briffa and the team?
A data Chow Mein, anyone? Just the stuff on which to base major policy decisions.
The special recipe used is secret, however, so you can’t do this at home, folks.
Not to worry, Gavin has now collected and released all the data and code skeptics should want in a directory on RC. While he makes the point that all the data or code any skeptic should want has always been publicly available, he has now gone to the trouble of compiling this directory. If something you want isn’t there- it will be because you don’t need or should not want it. This is a huge change.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
They say they dumped much of the raw data when they moved due to not having enough data storage capacity back then.
Okay, remember HARRY_READ_ME.txt
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html
From the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file:
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
The first line:
“READ ME for Harry’s work on the CRU TS2.1/3.0 datasets, 2006-2009!”
Then later in the file:
“You can’t imagine what this has cost me – to actually allow the operator to assign false
WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’
database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).”
and then from near the end of the file:
“OH FUCK THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m
hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”
But CRU’s press release says that v3 has fixed all the issues. Okaaay, then.
If you can’t repeat it, it’s not science.
This reminds me of the last scene in the Lord of the Flies. The adults have just turned up late to the party.
The post is misleading because no raw data was deleted by the BAS. It was simply converted to a format before use in the papers and deleting those files created more work for SteveMc. It may be annoying but it does not go against the broad principal of data retention.
I think it is very important to distinguish between this case and the CRU where it appears the original data was deleted making it impossible to anyone to check the HadCRUT series.
The science of prestidigitation – now you see it, now you don’t.
Roll up, roll up, ladies and gentlement, find the data.
Is it under this cup ……… no
Is it under the other cup …….. no
Lets start again. Place your bets.
(shuffle, shuffle)
Did UEA incinerate the paper data?
…In an old oil drum in the parkinglot??
….how many of Al Gore’s polar bears died because of that???
……I hope old Al is choking down his fraudulant $100M words…
Watts Up With That… Thank you for making data and stories available to average, non-scientific persons.
Any recent news of how Alan Carlin has faired at the EPA, since the SS enforced the Obama Climate Agenda?
I’d posted this previously but I’m not sure if I had a response. Does anyone know why the past 8 months of hadcrut3, hadsst2 and crutem3 data have been deleted ?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Phil Jones WILL lose his job over all this, and the pro-AGW lot will want to do what is now the buzz thing to do – wait for it… ‘Time to move on’. That’s what is said here in the UK now whenever a scandal surfaces. Those involved say, ‘Well, yes we made some mistakes and people have lost their jobs. Now let’s move on’. It’s meant to say that enough has been done to rectify the situation. Of course, in reality no such thing has happened and the problem surfaces again in the future! We’ve had this with social services getting involved in child cruelty cases. We’ve even had judges and social care managers saying, ‘This must never be allowed to happen again’. Of course, it does happen again because not enough is done in the first place to stop it happening again!
Barry Foster (01:42:17) :
As a fellow Brit i can only agree with you…..what shit state they’ve gotten us into.
MSM still head in the sand.
Complaints sent to 3 broadcasters and two letters to newspapers regarding A) Bias and B) Non reporting of an unfolding trainwreck.
Do likewise id suggest.
“value-added”
The spin comes with a good laugh.
As Bill (above) said, this is a scandal of epic proportions.
Surely it is time to have these fellows arrested.
Climategate Quiz on Youtube:
The news site that made the original quiz liked Jeffrey LaPorte’s video enough to post it on their website. Check it out here:
http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/gavin-atkins-shadowlands/quiz-now-on-youtube.htm
Jeffrey LaPorte’s website: http://www.JeffreyLaPorte.com
Twitter: http://tinyurl.com/lrxrnk
Nothing about it on radio4 this morning (uk). Just Milliband saying great things about Copenhagen.I find it hard to believe but it wouldn’t surprise me if ‘they’ did do a legally binding deal.There’s so much cash and Government tied up in this thing that it’s still going to take a fight like the Russians in Stalingrad to kill the monster. I like the NIWA scandal best – cranking down 6/7 stations temperatures right from the start of the dataset in each case by AT LEAST 0.5C. That’s a real clear cut frad IMO. The fact that NIWA won’t address it and keep coming back to subsequent station relocations is a sign they know the game’s up,I think.
The combination of “science” and politics is a deadly one, as we have seen in the last century.
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?…The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”….
“In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for ‘Science’. The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc. And even technological progress only happens when its products can in some way be used for the diminution of human liberty.”….
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'”
Great damage appears to have been done to both the current records and the GHCN. Where are all the Observers Reports that are handwritten?
How much of them were destroyed?
The GHCN does not jive with the stations mentions in HARRY_READ_ME as how far back in time the stations are supposed to go.
I have found some early station data in the US from the AMS records, which were taken from early observers, Signal Corps, etc. They are in monthly mean or monthy max/monthly min format.
Sacramento, CA from AMS jounal of 01-01-1884
YEAR(S) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN
1853 —- —- 59.8 61.0 68.0 77.0 75.0 71.0 76.0 78.0 53.0 —- —-
1854 43.0 52.0 53.6 60.0 62.0 67.0 80.6 69.5 65.0 60.0 55.0 48.0 59.5
1855 43.7 52.5 54.8 51.8 60.2 71.1 72.5 73.0 68.0 63.0 50.6 47.9 59.5
1856 48.0 52.6 57.0 58.8 63.9 71.1 75.1 69.6 70.9 58.0 52.2 46.9 60.1
1857 48.5 50.2 56.4 63.3 65.5 71.9 71.4 71.3 67.9 61.5 53.2 43.9 60.7
1858 45.0 52.2 53.7 59.8 65.2 69.4 70.8 70.6 68.9 59.5 54.2 47.7 59.5
1859 44.9 50.5 51.5 57.1 63.0 74.8 69.1 67.2 65.9 63.3 54.0 44.5 58.7
1860 46.2 49.8 53.3 57.8 58.5 65.6 73.2 73.5 67.6 59.8 53.5 43.5 59.0
1861 47.1 52.2 55.0 60.6 63.7 66.2 73.6 69.7 67.8 59.9 53.6 49.3 60.1
1862 46.4 47.5 53.6 58.0 61.2 69.3 73.2 75.0 70.4 67.6 53.1 50.9 60.2
1863 46.9 48.0 57.6 59.5 67.1 69.1 75.6 70.7 69.0 62.8 52.7 46.4 60.3
1864 49.2 53.6 56.1 62.1 68.5 71.1 74.8 74.7 69.8 64.5 53.5 46.5 62.8
1865 47.4 49.0 53.6 59.3 70.2 73.5 74.0 71.7 68.8 63.1 50.9 50.2 61.0
1866 46.5 53.5 54.2 61.9 63.1 72.2 76.2 76.0 72.2 65.2 53.8 44.1 62.1
1867 48.2 47.8 50.7 59.7 64.4 70.3 73.2 71.7 68.8 62.7 54.8 50.2 59.9
1868 47.0 50.5 55.0 60.1 64.2 69.5 73.8 71.2 68.3 62.0 53.0 46.8 60.1
1869 47.6 49.9 53.6 59.0 64.2 70.8 74.4 71.3 69.9 63.1 54.0 47.0 61.4
1870 48.6 51.1 53.0 57.0 61.0 69.3 71.8 72.6 68.0 63.6 53.4 46.4 59.6
1871 48.3 49.4 56.0 59.2 61.5 71.1 70.2 72.0 67.4 62.2 50.2 45.5 59.6
1872 48.5 53.3 56.8 57.6 67.0 69.2 71.4 73.1 68.8 58.9 51.2 48.7 60.4
1873 52.7 48.2 56.8 60.0 67.9 71.7 73.2 66.3 69.9 61.4 57.5 49.0 60.7
1874 45.7 49.3 52.9 59.5 64.7 70.2 72.8 70.9 70.7 61.7 63.5 47.7 59.8
1875 46.9 52.7 53.7 63.0 68.1 70.6 73.3 72.5 55.7 69.9 56.7 45.0 62.5
1876 48.8 50.2 54.6 59.5 65.7 76.9 74.0 72.8 70.1 63.5 53.3 48.0 61.7
1877 49.1 55.0 59.0 60.2 64.5 72.5 75.0 72.9 72.5 62.9 54.7 45.5 61.2
1878 49.7 51.3 56.7 59.4 65.5 71.8 73.4 73.4 69.0 62.9 55.5 48.6 61.3
1879 45.5 55.0 57.4 60.3 60.2 72.1 71.8 74.7 70.5 61.5 50.9 47.2 60.3
1880 43.5 46.0 48.8 54.6 61.6 66.6 70.9 69.7 68.0 62.1 49.7 44.0 57.5
1881 49.2 53.5 55.5 60.8 64.5 66.1 71.1 68.2 67.8 56.8 50.8 50.3 59.2
1882 45.1 46.3 53.0 55.8 64.0 68.1 73.4 71.9 68.4 58.4 49.5 46.2 59.4
So have they actually deleted the original data or simply put the original data in electronic form and then deleted the paper copies?
Well I’ve just canned google. Bling Bling for me!
No more Adwords $ for you boys.
So the CRU have lost the original temperature data and replaced it with their homoginized, quality controlled, constructed data. Oh dear!
But all is not lost because they can still troll through some DOE documents and reconstruct the original data. Hoorah!
These guys are so clever! I would never have worked out such a brilliant way of getting back to where I started.
Is there such a word as de-homoginized?
Correction: The above was the January 1883 Montly Weather Review from AMS.
Michael (00:50:41) :
My question is how do you “homogenise” temperature data?
Homogenization of data in meteorology and climatology is nothing nefarious per se.
It is simply a procedure to join data from various scribal versions or grafting a modern station record to the record of a nearby discontinued old station or correcting a long record for a UHI with the help of the neighboring rural stations.
Of course, it is best done with the actual knowledge of the issues with the homogenized dataset and the stations involved, i.e., when it’s done by local scientists from the original records and not by an algorithm just averaging points on grids.
Perhaps, a punishment for these crimatologists, while doing their time in prison, would be to manually reconstruct and recover the original data 🙂
It seems CRU spell temp without the ‘e’ as tmp.
There may be a more-or-less innocent explanation. I once worked in a lab where a lot of potentially valuable data was thrown away. The explanation was that a new Head had arrived, and the rash decision was his. That’s the risk you take when you appoint a bloody fool.
For a lighter moment about “Climategate” take a look at
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103
Michael (00:50:41) :
My question is how do you “homogenise” temperature data?
He may have meant “pasteurize” — purifying it by adding heat…
jbrodhead (01:23:30) :
Did UEA incinerate the paper data?
…In an old oil drum in the parkinglot??
No, on the roof near the weather station beside air conditioner.
Caroline Lucas [leader of Green Party here in the UK] was just asked about Climategate on TV [the BBC no less but at 0930 on a Sunday morning] – she was definitely a bit err err and said that whilst it was ’embarrassing for them [CRU], and that it hadn’t been getting warmer recently, everything was fine really…’
And the kicking that the leader of the Conservative Party is getting in the comments to his latest blog post warmed the cockles of my heart. James Delingpole is having great fun with it too.
I didn’t think we had enough time between the leak and Copenhagen to grab the steering wheel, now I’m not so pessimistic. Our politicians learnt a very painful lesson in public outrage only a few months ago.
The expenses issue broke trust completely and we are also hearing revelations about the [non] preparations for the Iraq war – the man in the street is probably more likely to believe AGW is a scam then ever before.
Fingers crossed.
Has anyone seen a copy of the Sunday Times magazine today in the UK?
A big graph on page 13 has got me puzzled. It is headlined ‘A century of rising global temperatures’ and charts ‘global mean temperature’ from 1900-2009.
What it shows is that 2009 is the warmest year on record and that there has been a sharp rise in temperature from 2000 onwards (from 14.2˚C in 2000 to above 14.4˚C in 2009).
Intermediate years:
1900 13.85
1910 13.4
1920 13.65
1930 13.8
1940 14
1950 13.65
1960 13.8
1970 13.9
1980 14.1
1990 14.2
2000 14.2
2009 14.45
Can’t find a web version I’m afraid.
The source is “John C Hammond MCIPR – The Met Office”.
It would appear that Auntie Beeb is being dragged into this mess in spite of her trying to ignore it:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html
The world was going to take my money in order to save the planet from ruin. The next eco scare is going to be plastic. They are Looters basically. Thanks Anthony and please don’t let up.
Can anyone identify “Harry”?
I’m beginning to warm towards this fellow. When Phil loses his memory (it was 10 years ago after all) Harry has all the answers. And his little asides, slay me e.g.(“With
a bit of luck this would go as smoothly as the Temperature run, ho, ho, ho.”). Harry can really do irony. He obviously knows all that he is doing is rubbish, but keeps on trying to twist and exhort the code to get the desired result. He really is heroic, but I bet he didn’t get to go to Rio, Bali, Kyoto and all the other exotic locales selected for IPCC meetings (didn’t they ever hear of video conferencing?), so I think we need to thank Harry, because the code is becoming the real temperature signature, it shows the deception on a grand scale.
So here’s an offer, If Harry will step forward, identify yourself Sir! I will be the first to donate a tenner via WUWT, to buy you a ticket to visit Rio, Bali and even Copenhagen, because doubtless, your job is nearly over, probably clearing your desk as I write. You need a good holiday after putting up with the intolerable burden you have shouldered for distorting science. Also, pity I’ve now retired, because I’d have offered you a job on the spot. Perhaps someone else might make you an offer.
Come on Harry own up, you’re a celebrity now.
Andrew, HaHaHa… I believe that one!
I have current local temp in my system tray, via WeatherBug. The source is located at a small airfield. In the Winter, we see occational temp spikes, i.e. Winter ’08/’09, watched fairly consistant spikes from ~10*F (correct) to ~80*F (incorrect fersure!)
I need to go look, but believe the sensor is co-located with the furnace exhaust vent… because spikes happened day and night.
I don’t buy it.
The should confiscate all their computers right away and check.
There are some pretty amazing programs to retrieve deleted files from computers.
The FBI, the CIA and MI5 have them.
These programs are part of the forensic investigation equipment.
Do you remeber, if you want to be sure data, even deleted data does not get in the wrong hands, destroy the hard disk.
can you imagine if this were the private sector, and a vendor being evaluated for some new technology came back to the customer telling them “just buy it, it works great”, we know because we trialed it.. and upon questioning the vendor told the customer that they no longer had any of the raw data from the trial, just the data they had “manipulated” and made to have more value – but of course those techniques were proprietary… – but now worries, trust us, we’re experts – you don’t need to see the raw data for yourself.. What a laughing stock it would be.
They probably deleted it july 27th.
But we are lucky. It seem that someone do have a backup.
From http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6634 july 2009
“OK, folks, guess what. I’m now in possession of a CRU version giving data for every station in their station list . “
Dr A Burns (01:32:11) : I’d posted this previously but I’m not sure if I had a response. Does anyone know why the past 8 months of hadcrut3, hadsst2 and crutem3 data have been deleted ? http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Regarding hadcrut3gl.txt: when searching via google for cached copies of hadcrut3gl.txt, the first hit also points to a cached copy dated from Nov. 17, 2009 of a file named hadcrut3vgl.txt.
Note the sublime “v”, obviously naming the variance adjusted version of HadCRUT3, while hadcrut3gl.txt isn’t found at all. The 2009 values in the cached copy of hadcrut3vgl.txt are:
2009 0.384 0.364 0.371 0.415 0.406 0.509 0.508 0.548 0.457 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.440
2009 82 82 81 79 80 80 81 82 81 0 0 0
while the corresponding values in http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt are now:
2009 0.362 0.343 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.352
2009 81 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Seems as if they are busy adjusting surface temperatures downwards.
Climate change denier Nick Griffin to represent EU at Copenhagen
See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/nick-griffin-bnp-copenhagen-summit
BBC covered the leakage vaguely this morning on topical news programme with political presenter Andrew Marr (already on message BTW as he’s done a recent enviro tv prog on the Beeb!) whilst interviewing Green leader MEP marxist socialist intellectual elitist Caroline Lucas, (no really, she is just that very animal)! 0f course she deftly swept it under the carpet (aided equally deflty by Mr Marr), & went on to drone on & on about how important Copenhagen is (well it is the capital of Demnark). They never seem to get a genuine sceptic scientist on to deal with this stuff, only someone on message, hmmm, I wonder, no surely the BBC cannot be culpable & corrupt, it’s funded by a pole-tax on the public after all. Everyone there is unbiased & impartial & fair. And the band played “Believe it if you like” as my dear old mother used to say!
I apologise for our venal scientists, everyone. This is a humiliating embarrassment for any decent Brit around the world. Where are the great scientists we used to have all gone?
Did you know that you can write a letter to UEA? Go to their webpage and tell what you think “Contact us”. I did. Don’t Insult them after all they are probably a good University (in other areas apart from “Climate Science) Haha.
BTW Wikipedia has removed Hockey Stick from both “Global warming” and “Climate Change” Looks like Stoat Connoley may not be in !00% control no more LOL The Climate Change page has also become very tiny……hahahah excuse me
Dr. Pielke, Sr. reminds his readers:
“The responses in the CCSP report clearly show the casual dismissal of the substantive issues with respect to all three of the global average surface temperature trends that are being used by policymakers to quantify global warming. The three data analyses are not indepenent assessments, and, based on our research…have a signficant warm bias.”
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/further-comment-on-the-surface-temperature-data-used-in-the-cru-giss-and-ncdc-analyses/
BTW Qudos (Hooray) to Cryosphere today (for not fiddling data too much, and showing fascinating graph and satellite images) AMSU (Roy Spencer) which shows warming hahaha (ironic isn’t it… but natural warming due to the fact that is only since 1979), RSS, BOM mean temps, rainfall data etc.. (Australia), DMI (they say when there is a problem ie recent rom October data.., viva Scandinavian honesty). Noorsex ice extent idem, boo to GISStemp and Hadley I say for fiddling global temps and tree ring data, Hooray for Finland Tree ring data showing no fiddling…
In order to actually believe their claim, you either have to believe that CRU either “controlled and homogenized” the raw data *by hand* from one piece of paper onto another before entering the data into their own systems or did the “controlled and homogenized” data entry on the fly while entering the data. “OK, 12 June 1957 high says 24C, I think I’ll type 22C.” And I guess that means they must actually have printed out aby data they had from magnetic tape first and dealt with it in one of those two methods as well.
But, since this actually is as stupid as it sounds, we all know they entered the raw data before performing the “controlled and homogenized” processing to get their “value added” product.
I propose we call this losing and manipulation of data phenomenon “Flat-earthing”. The appellation “flat-eathers” beginning to surface to refer to warmists who won’t review the data and the situation, is gaining ground, and so labelling the technique of fudging the data record likewise seems consistent.
Oh, and by the way… I guess that mean they deleted the data.
For those of you not in the States, I apologize for the reference, but is CRU/UEA an overseas office of ACORN?
@Dave (01:08:02) – Exactly right – the Harry files are even more damaging than the emails.
The climate models start with the flawed HADCRUT temperature profiles and data sets. Harry confirms Garbage In – Garbage Out.
The Harry_Read_Me file documents that Harry was not able to duplicate the CRU TS2.1 result using CRU’s own programs and data files! Then he documents his frustration trying to get the data files to work for Version 3. No wonder Jones didn’t want anyone else to see them.
Harry says –
* “am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!
* “But I am beginning to wish I could just blindly merge based on WMO code.. the trouble is that then I’m continuing the approach that created these broken databases.”
* “So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
… more details on his frustration with trying to work with the temperature data files, starting with Australia …
“getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.”
“I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.”
“Wrote ‘makedtr.for’ to tackle the thorny problem of the tmin and tmax databases not being kept in step. Sounds familiar, if worrying. am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!”
“Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have :-)”
——————
for more on Harry_Read_Me .. see the references from the earlier Dave (01:08:02) post, or here
“Global Warming” SCAM – Hack/Leak FLASH
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13
Their fall back position seems to be “our results are similar to those of other organisations.” But what if these other organisations have also been cooking the books?
Didn’t Senator Inhofe recently demand GISS make their data available for a senate inquiry? And don’t GISS also use the same raw data as CRU? Interesting times ahead.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
Will someone PLEASE produce a SIMPLE GRAPHIC.
(preferably by a respected scientist in the field)
A pie chart, bar graph, ANYTHING that gets the message easily across
showing % Natural Greenhouse Gase VS MANMADE Gases
ie 85% water vapour, etc,etc
IT NEED TO BE A PICTURE THE THAT THE PUBLIC, can understand..
The AGW people are STILL WINNING the main stream media debate.
because us sceptics are CRAP are presentation/media…
Put this graphic on the front page of EVERY website about climate gate.
For the cleverer among you put together, pictorially,
The relative % warming effect, broken down into the gases, h20, co2, methane, etc VS man made CO2 contribution.
PLEASE
@Dave (01:08:02) – Exactly right – the Harry files are even more damaging than the emails.
The climate models and IPCC conclusions are based on the flawed HADCRUT temperature profiles and data sets.
The Harry_Read_Me file documents that Harry was not able to duplicate the CRU TS2.1 result using CRU’s own programs and data files! Then he documents his frustration trying to get the data files to work for Version 3. No wonder Jones didn’t want anyone else to see them.
Harry says –
* “am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!
* “But I am beginning to wish I could just blindly merge based on WMO code.. the trouble is that then I’m continuing the approach that created these broken databases.”
* “So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
… more details on his frustration with trying to work with the temperature data files, starting with Australia …
Harry says –
“getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.”
“I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.”
“Wrote ‘makedtr.for’ to tackle the thorny problem of the tmin and tmax databases not being kept in step. Sounds familiar, if worrying. am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!”
“Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have :-)”
“…and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”
<>
” Andrew (03:44:52) :
Has anyone seen a copy of the Sunday Times magazine today in the UK?”
Yes. Fortunately my family were out when I saw it. The whole colour magazine this week sums up the sorry spin infested AGW fiasco. And that graph…which data does John C Hammond MCIPR – The Met Office use?
I am concerned that the climategate information is not getting to the people through the printed and television media. It is essential that enough pressure be brought to assure that they carry the stories. Without this publicity, insufficient pressure will be put on the politicians, and “cap and Trade” , the Copenhagen treaty and other malfeasences will not be stopped. I believe each one of us should participate in contacting their local media and highlighting the story and the serious nature of its content.
How might Monty Python have described this…
Phil: “We’ve got some HadCRUT”
Steve: “Ah, excellent”
Phil: “It’s a bit – adjusted”
Steve: “That’s okay I like it adjusted – lots to pick up on”
Phil: “It really is a bit adjusted”
Steve: “I don’t care how *#%$ing adjusted it is, give me the data”
Phil: “Oh”
Steve: “What?”
Phil: “The cat’s had it…”
oops, sorry for the duplicate ….
Yesterday I was engaged in a series of posts over at Climate Progress, Judith Curry’s post titled “An Open Letter…”. I was engaged in a debate regarding science being open.
First of all, it was amazing how completely tunnel-visioned so many of the people there are. One believes that if you even READ the leaked emails, you’ve committed some form of criminal act. Others constantly regurgitate the same mantra that I’ve seen on RealClimate, that 98% of the data is already posted, and they’ve been working to post the other 2%, and that all of this brooha is insulting to these hardworking real scientists. It was explained to me that Jones simply could NOT release the data due to the privacy issues, etc, and that he had really tried to make everything publicly available.
I then brought up the Jones email where he said he’d sooner delete the file than turn it over… and asked how that meshed with their statement…and…
I was censored. No further posts from me were allowed. Mind you, there was no name calling, no ad hom…just a discussion of points of view…and censored.
They truly still do not get it. They believe The Team are truly gods…even with the evidence that’s sitting in front of their own eyes.
Very disappointing, in fact, that the post is under the guise of “We need to have an open discussion with the ‘skeptics/deniers’ in order to help heal what has happened”.
Guess maybe they’re not all that interested after all.
JimB
Cold Englishman (04:02:12) :
Can anyone identify “Harry”?
No, but I’ll betcha he’s lurking or even posting at WUWT.
Lookatthecode…
Check out Anthony’s climate widget on the sidebar. Look at the temp curve plot, then the CO2 plot. Note that they are diverging… (diverging… now where have I heard that before…:)
Has anyone checked the dumpster. New sport dumpster diving for climate change.
Looks like we need to toss some college text books. They have “stories” based on deleted, altered or non existant data.
How many of the dirty dozen wrote text books? How many are out there and how many texts by other authors incorporated these vapor files that are discarded?
Looks like college credits in climateology are equal to carbon trading credits. 15 cents a ton. What does Judy say? Is she still in denial of there being “issues”????
CRU quality controlled and homogenised “raw” data -> GISS -> controlled and homogenised data -> public ?
The data is homogenised two times?
A poster on here [IIRC] refers to the leaker as a she – that’s the only time I’ve seen that and it was more than once.
Oh to be fly on the wall of their house – it must have been a terrifying and yet thrilling rollercoaster over the last week for them.
If you’re reading this – eternal thanks.
If the CRU cannot prove global warming, by reference to the original data, then we must assume global warming does not exist.
WakeUpMaggy (05:45:23),
IMHO, I think the leaker should remain anonymous for the time being. Because as soon as (s)he ‘fesses up, the whole focus by the Warmistas will be on the person, not on what the CRU did: diddling with the raw temps.
They use ad hominem attacks because they are effective. Don’t give ’em that by exposing the whistleblower. Let them squirm over their incriminating emails instead.
This past week has certainly confirmed another suspicion among skeptics. The media is truly in collusion on the whole deal. Just like the emails confirmed what we suspected about the scientists the media response demonstrates just how politicized it has become.
We can no longer trust anything printed in the MSM. Cancel your paper subscriptions and turn off all the news shows of any MSM entity hiding the scandal. Time for them to go bankrupt.
Re Google and climategate returns – it’s just jumped to 13.1m on the co.uk site but won’t autosuggest.
Hmm. I wonder if the IRS will accept some “value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data” next April. Income proxies seem to be showing a sharp decline.
The word is hitting the MSM in the US. Barone has a strong following in the States.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Global-warming-consensus_-garbage-in_-garbage-out-8595100-76438787.html
Meanwhile, back in the real world, here in Minnesota the third coldest October on record is on track to be followed by the 2nd warmest November on record (according to the local NBC weather guys).
And so it goes.
Harry may be the Hacker/Mole/Whistleblower/Hero.
But the whole CRU hierarchy reminds me of Mark Twain’s Editor’s advice when the
young Twain started to work for the”Territorial Enterprise” at Virginia City Nv:
““Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”
Didn’t Anthony discover that somebody submitted the same data two months in a row? Mostly Siberian stations, if I remember correctly, had submitted Sept data at the end of October. It was just last year. The question becomes how “quality controlled” is the data? Should it be “are the data?” “Is the data” sounds better and English is changing to allow the “is” but you never know when you’re going to run into a grammerian.
“I give up, you deserve to lose.
FOR F***S SAKE
YOU HAVE A GOOGLE AD HELPING TO SAVE THE PLANET FROM GLOBAL WARMING ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE WEBSITE.
Ads by Google
Help Stop Global Warming
Join thousand of people who want to send a message to global leaders
http://www.edspledge.com
look at the rubbish you are sayin in the comments here, all very witty and clever, AGW will roll, on and on, you little techy smugness, turns off the public…
Final FINAL time.
Don’t post here…”
Post on the Wall Street Journal, The Times, The NEW York Times,The Telegraph, The NEW York Times.
The BBC website.
Talk in language you art school son or daughter will UNDERSTAND.
LOOK at the BBC website they are true believers of climate change religion…
AGW will march on.
Please get a grip on the MEDIA
@Dave in Delaware (05:18:05) & Dave (01:08:02):
I’ve looked at the file too – Harry_read_me file. The CRU code may give the same result as GIStemp, but the way it is set up it couldn’t be more different. At least GISS start with real data. I could be way off, or perhaps I’m stating the obvious, but I wonder how much, even for surface temperatures, the CRU model starts with model data then adds the observational temperatures to give the model a dose of reality.
Andrew Bolt intv on ABC Insiders – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WhTV0M-iNE
Here’s a thought for you.
In the well known film “The Great Escape” the prisoners in Stalag Luft 17 dig three tunnels to freedom under the wire…. Tom Dick and Harry. Harry was the only successful one. Where the other attempts? may be the e-mail to Hudson at the BBC was one of them
Make you think don’t it
I wonder if there is any chance this story is going to spill over into the workings of GISS?
Cold Englishman (04:02:12) :
“Can anyone identify “Harry”? I’m beginning to warm towards this fellow.”
Someone should write an updated version of the song, “Wild about Harry.”
If the journals that published papers for these guys demanded data and code, it would not be lost. Or at least the probability of it getting lost would be less.
Paul (05:14:19) :
“I propose we call this losing and manipulation of data phenomenon “Flat-earthing”.”
The mot juste is a “forcing.”
Cold Englishman: If you go to the CRU website http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/ you will see the staff. The only person with any programming skill is Mr Ian (Harry) Harris (he also does “data manipulation”!). Not that I’m pointing the finger. You’d have thought they needed more than one person with programming skills and not just as the last of several skills.
But it’s only the main programme relied on by the world leaders to decide to spend trillions of our money, so hardly worth more than a bit of part-time effort.
Inspired by jbrodhead ☺ ☺
http://photoshare.shaw.ca/image/2/d/8/63987/wxstationburndata-0.jpg
Wouldn’t it be something if the pre-pasteurized data was in some files in the remaining unreleased 100meg of FOI2009?
Lucy, you have some ‘splainin’ to do.
Who will or can provide now real data, if any, in the world?
Just a thought for Phil Jones.
Much as I hate what he has done, I hear he has had to ask for police protection.
We know that various skeptics have been threatened, some quite seriously, in the past. I know that the gentle greens very often have not the least inkling of the dark green side. I don’t want to be party to encouraging hate actions that I’ve not heard about but have been inspired by the material surfacing here.
Only this morning I became aware that despite my best intentions I’m not immune to inappropriate reactions. I am glad that the moderator was aware. Especially now I hear about Jones being threatened.
their statement gives a whole new (and WRONG!) meaning to “value-added”.
Apols if this has been posted before, but if you want to see an example of the lengths the British government will go to alarm people about AGW, this £6m advertising campaign was forced off the air after almost 400 complaints.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/21/asa_climate_probe/
lookatthecode (06:29:07) :
“I give up, you deserve to lose.
FOR F***S SAKE
YOU HAVE A GOOGLE AD HELPING TO SAVE THE PLANET FROM GLOBAL
WARMING ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE WEBSITE.
I agree, very confusing to new visitors, of which there are now hundreds of thousands. I suggested deleted Google Ads several times, but the website owner seems to prefer the money from Google, more than having a consistent and unconfusing appearance.
Craig (06:27:07) :
I have used “is the data” all my life, but there again I was brought up on Scottish English!
I’m beginning to feel that this house of cards is really coming down now.
Who do we have to thank for it? The MSM? HA! WHAT A JOKE!
Websites, especially CA, and this one did the heavy number crunching.
Great Thanks to the NEW MEDIA for getting the story out.
1. UK Telegraph
2. Drudge Report
3. Hot Air
4. American Thinker
5. Talk Radio, yes especially Rush Limbaugh, love him or hate him
6. FOX NEWS
7. And the all other numerous sceptic blogs, there are so many I could never list them all.
It still aint over, though. There’s a lot of work left to do. It is Davids vs Goliath. But David has the sling and the stone (THE TRUTH). and Goliath just got hit between the eyeballs, and he’s teetering.
I’m a man of modest means, and the financial crisis has hit me too. But I’m going to leave a tip to both CA and WUWT. We truly do have something to be thankful for this Thanksgiving season. Thanks again.
“When it comes to his handling of Freedom of Information requests, Professor Jones might struggle even to use a technical defence. If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of the unit.
George Monbiot, Guardian 11/25/2009
“bryan clark (08:10:31) :
lookatthecode (06:29:07) :
“I give up, you deserve to lose.
FOR F***S SAKE
YOU HAVE A GOOGLE AD HELPING TO SAVE THE PLANET FROM GLOBAL
WARMING ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE WEBSITE.
I agree, very confusing to new visitors, of which there are now hundreds of thousands. I suggested deleted Google Ads several times, but the website owner seems to prefer the money from Google, more than having a consistent and unconfusing appearance.”
Sorry Bryan, but if you were here when Anthony made that decision, you know it was one he did not take lightly. It takes time and money to keep a site like this (and CA) going, and not enough of us hitting the tip jar to fully support it. And if I recall correctly, it’s an all-or-nothing deal with the ads.
And if someone is going to base their entire opinion of a site like this that now is world-renown…on the ADS that run on the site?…well…that sort of speaks for itself, in my book.
This is what the University of East Anglia said about its CRU in 2008:
CRU key to setting environmental agenda
Thu, 5 Jun 2008
The University of East Anglia – in particular its Climatic Research Unit – is the only university to be included in a list of the key bodies that have set the environmental agenda in the UK over the past thirty years.
The influential ENDS (Environmental Data Services) Report, a regular policy briefing for business professionals, is celebrating its 30th anniversary with a fact-packed special supplement reviewing the fast changing UK environmental scene over the past three decades.
In it, it outlines the most important people, ideas and policies during this period. Among the government bodies, the pressure groups and the businesses, the supplement names just one university: ‘The University of East Anglia (and its Climate Research Unit)’.
It cites Professor Sir David King, the UK government’s former chief scientific adviser, who described the school of environmental sciences at UEA to be “the strongest in the world”.
And it says the Climatic Research Unit, established in 1972, “is widely recognised for navigating the study of climate change out of an academic backwater and has set the agenda for the major research effort in this area ever since.”
Among the most influential individuals, it includes University of East Anglia Professor of Environmental Science, Bob Watson (Defra’s chief scientific adviser and former head of the IPCC and climate adviser to the Clinton administration), and the late David Pearce. Formerly of the University of East Anglia’s Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, David Pearce was a pioneer of environmental economics.
“The ENDS Report is a highly influential publication and we are delighted to be singled out in this way for inclusion in this list,” said Professor Jacquie Burgess, Head of the School of Environmental Sciences.
“Our Climatic Research Unit was investigating climate change before most people woke up to the challenges we face – and continues to be the leader in its field.”
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/events/crukey
Well, if the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia is “the strongest in the world”, what does that tell us about the current state of environmental science?
Glenn:
To add a bit of flesh to the bones of Prime minister Margaret Thatchers government taking an intrest in Climate in the 80s.
The British government at that time was in a long battle with the coalminers union.
An anti coal/carbon strategy developed as another tool to take support away from coalmining and Britains reliance on coal.
Thatchers former chancellor Lord Lawson now a major climate change sceptic has now admitted this was the case.
Phillip Bratby (07:42:37) :
Cold Englishman: If you go to the CRU website http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/ you will see the staff. The only person with any programming skill is Mr Ian (Harry) Harris (he also does “data manipulation”!).
Thank you Phillip, nice picture too, more hair on the chin than the head, looks like our man. We owe him a lot for his “REMarks”. perhaps programmers from now on should call them “REMinders”.
On a more serious note, you wouldn’t want to employ any graduate from this faculty, or indeed the entire university, would you? Totally disgraced. We shall see the likely result in next year’s student roll. Any able student will avoid this place like the plague, and UEA have themselves to blame.
I just helped my son with a sixth grade science project. It also involved time and temperature. He wrote the observations in a notebook. I told him “Now don’t lose that note book because…”. He finished the sentence for me “…we’ll have to do it all over again. Yeah, Dad, I know.”
Now, the CRU guys didn’t have that conversation, did they!
The servers at CRU need to be secured by law enforcement immediately, as well at those at all other relevant institutions (NASA). Additionally Jones and his team’s PC’s need to be seized and thoroughly scrutinized by an IT forensic team for cache and other trace data the may exist. How on earth could a a group of scientists willingly destroy raw data – it just boggles the mind. They will find their place in history but it will be far from what they expected.
WestHoustonGeo (08:54:19) :
I just helped my son with a sixth grade science project. It also involved time and temperature. He wrote the observations in a notebook. I told him “Now don’t lose that note book because…”. He finished the sentence for me “…we’ll have to do it all over again. Yeah, Dad, I know.”
Now, the CRU guys didn’t have that conversation, did they!
I understand that there may be a few million pounds left in the pot over at CRU. Seems a notebook with time and temperature data may have market relevance to Dr. Jones at the present time…
The ‘lost’ ‘destroyed’ ‘lack of storage space’ excuse broke a while ago, prior to ‘Climategate’. I suspected at that time it might be just more stiff-arming obfuscation, and that the genuine raw data could still exist. In the 80’s, it was quite routine official govt practice to microfiche original paper records of archive data rather than scan or digitally archive them as routine today.
The paper originals could well have been disposed of as claimed, but it would be incredible to jettison everything with no backup. Another possibility is that CRU only ever had paper duplicates, with the originals still intact in a storage vault somewhere. I still entertain the hope that they will be ‘rediscovered’, especially now that it is reaching the level of questions in the House and so on.
I appreciate the coverage by WattsUpWithThat. Is there a readily accessible comprehensive source that outlines the scientists and their roles within the IPCC?
Britannic no-see-um (09:26:17
Sure they have it over at the Met Office, and although they are definitely “On Message”, there are enough honest civil servants left to notice if the shredders are working overtime.
But I bet the shredders are busy over at UEA, and the Erase computer programmes. Bit of formatting anyone?
All this “value-added” data that the CRU has been selling – have they been paying Value Added Tax on it?
David Holland is not the only one to have put in a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about CRU withholding data. As soon as the leaked emails showed evidence of an alleged conspiracy between Professor Jones and his F.O.I. officers, to withhold data, I did the same.
As an active UK academic, CRU have even less reason not to have released the data to me.
Britannic no-see-um (09:26:17) :
2 scenarios:
1.) They had photocopies or microfische
2.) They had the originals
If 1, then the originals are both intact & archived.
if 2, then the originals are destroyed. Might I ask by what reason was CRU allowed to take original paper documents overseas from their countries of origin?
Who allowed them to do that?
This is a very critical question, what exactly they had in thier possession, and it needs an answer ASAP.
All you journalists out there, you need to dig like crazed dogs on this.
Lucy Skywalker (08:06:49) :
More than just Phil Jones are walking around with targets self-painted on them. When one’s actions pose a direct threat to the economic health of 2/3 of the citizens of the world, there is little room for doubt.
Re: lookatthecode (05:19:05)
You were looking for a pie chart of so called GHG’s, something I was looking for a year ago too. However although the approximate numbers I can give you are compelling, they are just working with the current in vogue theory that A) CO2 is a GHG, and B) there is a Greenhouse.
What I suggest to anybody who can think outside the box, and anybody who shares the interest in educating the public about this issue, that stands to enslaves us in a new eco feudalism do, is to step back and re-examine the whole issue fresh, free from the UN inspired dogma.
Hans Schreuder has brought people’s attention to the curious realization that technically, and scientifically rigorously speaking – there is no greenhouse effect from a thermodynamics point of view:
http://tech-know.eu/uploads/EPAInput.pdf
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Greenhouse%20and%20climate%20reality%20check.pdf
On top of that, something I think is more important to non science types is the whole concept of CO2, which is heavier than air, somehow also has the magic ability to rise from our exhaust pipes and form a two way mirror greenhouse layer many miles up (it doesn’t)
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/carbondioxidequotes.htm
If you’re looking for a magic bullet I would try that one. How can CO2 which is plant food, both feed the world’s plant based life at ground level, yet also lead a double life causing havoc miles above? It doesn’t. Yet this is the backbone of the whole ‘debate’. This is 5th grader type stuff, which is where the TV media usually operates, and we should really run with it. There is CO2 from airplanes higher in the atmosphere, but it sinks over time. The bulk of the UN hysteria is over tailpipe emissions and powerplant / industrial emissions, which also sink. Everyone knows the difference between a CO2 / N2 filled balloon which sinks, and a helium filled one. It’s time ‘climate researchers’ step up to the plate on this one, and start thinking about this. If the CRU leaks have come close to destroying a decade’s worth of scientific effort, why not use the opportunity to re-evaluate some of the dubious assumptions much of the science is based on?
As for your percentage of so-called GHG’s. As Schreuder points out water vapour actually cools the Earth not heats it, the only real GHG could be N2, or is it O2, I forget. But running with the theory that there is a Greenhouse and that CO2 is a GHG, Man produces roughly 3% of it, and the ‘greenhouse effect’ of the upper atmospheric CO2 is said to be, lets pick a figure, 20% of the effect. So 20% of 3% is piddly, and won’t really fit on a pie chart. These were the figures that led many people to be skeptics of a looming climate calamity from Man’s CO2 emissions. But the whole idea that CO2 can’t rise (or else there’d be no vegetation), and that really there is no Greenhouse Effect anyway, is much stronger. The general public always assumed that their tailpipe emissions, some of which was CO2, went upward, when clearly, CO2 never did. But unfortunately I don’t think anyone will pick up on this. It’s too hard to think outside the box 😉
There’s a new movie about to come out When Harry Met Smelly starring Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, the entire Wegman forty-four, and introducing a new star/starlet whose name may be divulged later. Produced by the UN IPCC in cooperation with the Bye Bye Credibility network. Directed by George Sorry.
Chucked out the raw data, eh? This has to be the real “tipping” point for climate change.
Gary Pearse (10:34:53) :
That point has me baffled. Who in thier right mind would allow original observations to get up and walk out the door? That is NOT how it is done in the scientific world. You take photos of the originals, you do NOT take the real thing. If this is what truly happened (walked out the door) there are more fish to fry the U CRU.
I question this all day long.
RE: vjones (06:34:18) :
“At least GISS start with real data.”
Actually, they start with USHCN adjusted temps and then they re-adjust them to suit
I seriously doubt that the original data is destroyed. It may no longer exist at the University of East Anglia but it must surely be extant in the files of the relevant Met Offices which provided elements of the original data set.
Now that sounds like an opportunity to get some grant money!
Yes, some grant money to go through mountains of original observations on microfische and get the raw data back into the public domain where it belongs.
Most of what I can dredge up right now is monthy means. Nice, but pre-condensed.
Should we start a worldwide network? I’ll take NNW Calif. for starters.
I’m in. Totally.
Destruction of data may not be a “scientific” decision, rather political.
They who hold the purse strings, do not care for scientific procedures and norms – this whole stinking fiasco bares the stench of the global power hungry; authority at all cost.
Look on the bright side…there’s a great opportunity here for a new reality TV series. Let’s call it ‘Top Climatologist.’ The contestants all receive a raw data set at the beginning of the hour, and the one who manipulates it in the most interesting ways is the winner! Mann, Jones and the rest of the CRU gang could serve as judges. And best of all — ED BEGLEY as MC!
>> Hugo M (04:34:41) :
>>Seems as if they are busy adjusting surface temperatures downwards.
Thanks Hugo. It will be very interesting to see what they do and what explanation is given. One more program “adjustment” is no big deal to these scammers.
Peer-reviewed papers and studies based on CRU-supplied data should be withdrawn, or at the very least have a disclaimer added to the top of wherever on the web they may be archived.
Can anybody point out the holes in this.
“Britain is not responsible for just 2% of CO2. British businesses operating overseas account for significant emissions. Anglo-Dutch owned Shell alone has emissions that exceed that of many countries. Anthropogenic enhanced global warming is caused by CO2 released since the start of the industrial revolution (c1800). CO2 released in 1850 still accounts for warming. The UK’s collective historic emissions make it the 4th biggest polluter. On a per capita cumulative historic basis we’re 2nd after the USA.
As for the CRU e-mail, read a little about how temperatures are calculated. Phil Jones (CRU) was refrring to anomolies in tree ring data, which would have over-estimated the temperature increase; and problems caused by using buckets to gather sea surface temperatures in the 1960s. His e-mail (if you read it) says he’s hidden data to show the real figures. He doesn’t say he’s hidden the real figures.
Natural climatic variation is caused by variations in Earth’s orbit, sunspot activity, El Nino, techtonic changes, and volcanic activity. Orbital ‘Milankovic’ cycles work on a 10,000, 40,000 and 140,000 basis, and cannot account for the present rapid warming. Sunspot activity all but disappeared recently, and man-made CO2 emissions exceed volcanic activity on an order of magnitude. Climate scientists use something called isotope analysis to date CO2 – in effect they know the origin of the CO2 is from coal.
All models from CRU and other climateic institute have been peer reviewed and scrutinised for years. Yet there is no significant diagareement from statistians or scientists; more so from ex-Chancellors, Top-Gear presenters, a few maverick journalists and bloggers. Who on earth do you think those who control the world’s economies listen to? Lord Stern or Jermey Clarkson?
I work in environmental management and studied climate science at university. I talk to scientists, environmental consultants and environmental managers. You’ll find that the vast majority who are informed believe the science. By the way, I’ve no links with the UEA’s CRU.”
Sorry if you can point out the holes could you post it hear, the auther is, Richard Burton, well it woud be .
http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2009/11/27/the-copenhagen-summit-is-of-historic-importance/
RexAlan (02:58:24) :
Well I’ve just canned google. Bling Bling for me!
This is what happens when you have one dominant search engine whose financial interests come first, Rupet Murdoch is another example.
Harry Plotter and the Climate Record Undertakers
Craig (06:27:07) :
Didn’t Anthony discover that somebody submitted the same data two months in a row? Mostly Siberian stations, if I remember correctly, had submitted Sept data at the end of October. It was just last year. The question becomes how “quality controlled” is the data? Should it be “are the data?” “Is the data” sounds better and English is changing to allow the “is” but you never know when you’re going to run into a grammerian.”
Make that “grammarian.” 🙂
“Data is” is OK. Here’s some material (two comments posted here a year ago by Peter W) that you can copy and paste the next time someone objects to it:
PeterW (19:49:26) :
The word `data’, in English, is a singular mass noun. It is thus a deliberate archaism and a grammatical and stylistic error to use it as a plural.
The Latin word data is the neuter plural past participle of the first conjugation verb dare, `to give’.
The Latin word ‘data’ appears to have made its way into English in the mid 17th century making its first appearance in the 1646 sentence `From all this heap of data it would not follow that it was necessary.’
Note that this very first appearance of the word in English refers to a quantity of data, a `heap’, rather than a number.
The English word `data’ is therefore a noun referring variously to measurements, observations, images, and the other raw materials of scientific enquiry.
`Data’ now refers to a mass of raw information, which is measure rather than counted, and this is as true now as it was when the word made its 1646 debut.
‘Data’ is naturally and consistently used as a mass noun in conversation: the question is asked how much data an instrument produces, not how many; it is asked how data is archived, not how they are archived; there is talk of less data rather than fewer; and talk of data having units, saying they have a megabyte of data, or 10 CDs, or three nights, and never saying `I have 1000 data’ and expecting to be understood.
The universal perception of data as measured rather than counted puts the word firmly and unambiguously in the same grammatical category as `coal’, `wheat’ and `ore’, which is that of the mass, or aggregate, noun.
As such, it is always and unavoidably grammatically singular. No one would ask `how many wheat do you have?’ or say that `the ore are in the train’ if one wished to be thought a competent speaker of English; in the same way, and to the same extent, we may not ask `how many data do you have?’ or say `the data are in the file’ without committing a grammatical error.
As a footnote; isn’t it lucky English is now genderless, making `data’ neuter, else we’d have to memorise masculine dati (dati dati datos datorum datis datis) and feminine datae, too?
It’s much simpler just to speak and write English.
PeterW (14:35:34) :
Data is; data is an English word. English includes many words originally press-ganged from Latin, which have changed their grammatical type.
As has been pointed out far more eloquently than I can:
“The majority of writers who would dutifully pluralise `data’ in writing naturally and consistently use it as a mass noun in conversation: they ask how much data an instrument produces, not how many; they talk of how data is archived, not how they are archived; they talk of less data rather than fewer; and they talk of data with units, saying they have a megabyte of data, or 10 CDs, or three nights, and never saying `I have 1000 data’ and expecting to be understood.
If challenged, they will respond that `data is a Latin plural’. Agree to this, for the sake of professional harmony, and carry on the conversation, making sure to mention that `the telescope has data many odd images tonight’ (it’s a past participle after all), suggest looking at the data raw images (…or an adjective) and that you both examine the datorum variance (surely they recall the genitive plural); suggest they give you the datis (…the dative), so that you can redo the analysis with their datis (…and the ablative). If they object ask them to explain their sentimental attachment to the nominative plural, that they would use that in all cases, in brute defiance of good Latin grammar.
re: lookatthecode (05:19:05) :
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE … Will someone PLEASE produce a SIMPLE GRAPHIC.
(preferably by a respected scientist in the field) … A pie chart, bar graph, ANYTHING that gets the message easily across … showing % Natural Greenhouse Gase VS MANMADE Gases … 85% water vapour, etc,etc … IT NEED TO BE A PICTURE THE THAT THE PUBLIC, can understand..
—————————————————–
I’ve found this to be a good resource – one of few i’ve found – that quantifies anthropogenic contribution to greenhouse gases
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Not only does it give raw shares but also effective shares after taking into account the varying effect of different forcings
Bernie in Pipewell (13:25:54) :
Sorry if you can point out the holes could you post it hear, the auther is, Richard Burton, well it woud be .
http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2009/11/27/the-copenhagen-summit-is-of-historic-importance/
Bernie, thanks for the offer, but I don’t think they need any help over there.
It looks like a lot of people are suffering because they – along with the elite Climate Scientists – don’t know anything about the Scientific Method and Process.
The references to “1984” in earlier posts are not misplaced: An act of wanton destruction by CRU that once may have been called ‘a Book Burning’ – has, with sinister Orwellian overtones, created a reduced compilation that now goes by the Newspeak-style label of ‘value added (quality controlled and homogenised) data’. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
It is still nothing in the Australian media, except for a short bit on Insiders at 9.30 on Sunday morning. Andrew Bolt of course. All eyes on the opposition. No one here is interested.
So I give way to despair. The ETS legislation will pass, we will reduce our 1.6% of greenhouse gases by 5 %. Our electricity charges will rise by 30%, transport, food, clothing, everything will increase in price, the government will make bucketloads in tax.
So it’s up to our friends in the northern hemisphere to pursue this. It won’t be the first time in history that Australia has been saved by the Yanks.
It restores my faith in humanity to check on progress here at WUWT. Keep up the good fight!
This entire data business is getting to resemble Monty Python’s work more each hour.
Do we know if any repository, anywhere, has an untainted climate data-set.
Has there been too much cross-pollination to assure data integrity?
And snow it goes!
Given the sorry state of the temperature measuring stations, as demonstrated clearly by Anthony, of what use would even the original temperature “measurements” be? GIGO
Does a temperature measurement made at a temperature measuring station before an airport was located at the same site have any value as to comparison with a temperature measurement made at the same station 80 or so years later with the airport operating?
on data are / data is:
The word datum (neuter singular), is Latin for “a given thing” and the plural, data, means “given things.”
Also, data (feminine singular), is Latin for “a given female [or some other feminine thing]”; the plural, datae, means “given females [or other feminine things]”.
If you choose to use a Latin word, you have to get the plural correct. To say “the data is,” is to say “the given woman is,” or suchlike.
Malo malo malo pravo malo malo.
[I’d rather be in adversity in an apple tree than a wicked man with a crooked pole.]
Steve (18:05:43) :
There are the photocopies (in pdf form) from
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html for US stations and
The American Meterological Society’s Monthly Weather Review
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-archive&issn=1520-0493
Somthing to find: The US Army’s Signal Corps Observers Records
The reason I maintain that Latin plurals (and all irregular plurals in English, for that matter) should be used properly is that precision is important in language.
Is it so hard to learn that the plural of criterion is criteria or criterions, that the plural of apparatus is apparatus or apparatuses (but not apparati), and that the plural of virus is either vira or viruses?
A major cause of the pervasive lack of ability to understand rational arguments, and the lack of understanding of scientific principles, is that (throughout the English-speaking world, seemingly) schoolchildren are not taught to use English with precision.
Those who condone the use of ‘continually’ to mean the same thing as ‘continuously’, ‘simplistic’ to mean ‘simple’, ‘alternate’ to mean ‘alternative’, ‘fulsome’ to mean ‘full’, ‘panic’ or even ‘chaos’ to mean ‘some amount of disorder’, and so on, are robbing English, the language with the richest and broadest vocabulary in history, of meaning, depth, subtlety and nuance.
So, what has this to do with the issue at hand? We notice, throughout the debate on AGW, so many people who actually believe that they can reason logically (and who can even, at times, refer correctly to logical fallacies by Latin name) but cannot actually formulate syllogisms correctly. I surely need not multiply examples, but the most common and (to me) vexing argument—I know that the days are getting hotter, and droughts and bushfires are worsening, therefore catastrophic global warming is true and dooms us all—would not be so uncommonly common if people were taught English properly. (Teaching English properly, for me, of course, means featuring grammar and logic as essential components.)
[with your leave, dear moderators]
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
On the one hand – the raw data is gone, and will need to be reassembled (presumably). What sort of scientists are these? Amateurs – I’m so angry.
On the other hand, at least I can claim to all and sundry that there really IS NO evidence of global warming. At least for the time being, until the data is reassembled.
Is this what’s called irony?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2396502/posts
Clive,
Re: “Inspired by jbrodhead ☺ ☺”
http://photoshare.shaw.ca/image/2/d/8/63987/wxstationburndata-0.jpg
Thanks Clive! That is great!… now I can sleep well… LOL!
Reply: Yay! One of my photo’s. ~ CTM aka jeez
Deadman wrote:
“If you choose to use a Latin word, you have to get the plural correct.”
That’s not so. Fowler states, “Latin plurals sometimes become singular English words (e.g., agenda, stamina) …” As long as it’s OK to employ those words as singulars, it’s OK to do the same for “data.”
Not only is it acceptable to use “data” as a collective singular, using data as a plural word is incorrect because it throws the speaker (including those who use “data are”) into inconsistency with his habitual method of speaking, as Phillip W. pointed out. He wrote: “‘Data’ is naturally and consistently used as a mass noun in conversation: the question is asked how much data an instrument produces, not how many; it is asked how data is archived, not how they are archived; there is talk of less data rather than fewer; and talk of data having units, saying they have a megabyte of data, …” For another example of this usage, look at the post just above this one, where the phrase “the raw data is gone” is used.
Because of this inconsistency with long-established and near-universal usage, and because, as Fowler shows, there is no real rule forbidding “data is,” “data are” will never be accepted–it will always sound odd or even affected. It’s counterproductive to make an issue about it, because the people criticized will not change their habit, but be determined to pay no attention to such criticism in the future. This backlash is what happened 100 years ago after schoolmarm grammarians makd a fetish of not splitting an infinitive, distinguishing between shall and will, etc. They lost the war, by going a bridge too far.
“Those who condone the use of ‘continually’ to mean the same thing as ‘continuously’, ‘simplistic’ to mean ‘simple’, ‘alternate’ to mean ‘alternative’, ‘fulsome’ to mean ‘full’, ‘panic’ or even ‘chaos’ to mean ‘some amount of disorder’, and so on, are robbing English, the language with the richest and broadest vocabulary in history, of meaning, depth, subtlety and nuance.”
I’m with you on those. I made a stink about the misuse of “alternate” in one of WUWT’s headlines about a week ago. And I’ve posted a couple of articles on an instablog on the Seeking Alpha site criticizing dozens of mis-usages by authors on the site. Here are links to them:
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/259051-roger-knights/34743-common-usage-errors-on-the-seeking-alpha-site
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/259051-roger-knights/35454-common-usage-errors-on-the-seeking-alpha-site-2
“A major cause of the pervasive lack of ability to understand rational arguments, and the lack of understanding of scientific principles, is that (throughout the English-speaking world, seemingly) schoolchildren are not taught to use English with precision.”
I think that precise thinkers are often “sticklers” in matters of language. But the linkage is fairly loose, and thus not likely causative, but rather correlative. For instance, people who are good at math or other logic-related skills often are poor at writing. Programmers are notoriously awkward in their language skills. Trying to teach them to write with precision would probably just make most of them self-conscious and silent, not fluent, and not any better at their math or programming.
PS: FWIW, dictionaries accept “data is.”
Patrick G (01:01:03) :
No evidence of Global Cooling as well.
Which must delight James Hansen, whose position is like one of those toys that you cannot knock over, all the weight is at the bottom, and it rights itself.
I’ m totally shocked by the University of East Anglia’s handling of this affair. I was once peripherally involved in a case of scientific fraud in which a high profile worker had falsified data. The response by the university was, quite rightly, draconian and we all became under suspicion. Our computers were removed, our records impounded and we were really grilled. The fraud was exposed and, fortunately co-workers were cleared of malpractice.
The “investigation” at UEA is being handled by the “Vice Chancellor for Research”, who is a member of the CRU.
The Vice Chancellor should have immediately suspended the involved parties and mounted an investigation by impartial investigators, including those appointed by grant-giving bodies. As it stands the whole issue has been fudged. Destroying primary data – unbelievable Nobody will believe a word that comes out of this investigation, which, I predict, will say that there were some irregularities, but the message about temperature is basically true.
Another thing that I think is interesting about climategate is that a lot of people seem genuinely disappointed that the Earth isn’t warming as they believed. They should be rejoicing!
>>Dr A Burns (12:40:43) :
>>> Hugo M (04:34:41) :
>>>Seems as if they are busy adjusting surface temperatures downwards.
>>Thanks Hugo. It will be very interesting to see what they do and what explanation is given. One more program “adjustment” is no big deal to these scammers.
I had to look into a dictionary for the exact meaning of “scammer”. Well, that’s a bridge too far. My impression is that many of these people are subjected to group presssure and Festinger’s law of Effort Justification. You also wondered why an obviously intelligent man like Harry hadn’t escalated the hopeless situation he faced? Perhaps he even tried? And what if there wasn’t a nearby stream he could divert in order to clean up this modern equivalent of Augean stables? Leaving open a door for an honourable retreat is always a good idea.
As noted in the email quoted above: HadCRUt is just a minor rehash of the GHCN data from NCDC. This is the same source data used by GIStemp. The reason CRUt, GIStemp and NCDC agree is that they all use the same basic input data and it has been artificially “cooked” by deleting cold thermometers. Whack There and don’t let these guys point in a “Circle of 3” each claiming validation from matching the guy to their left…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
David Jay (11:31:08) :
RE: vjones (06:34:18) :
“At least GISS start with real data.”
Actually, they start with USHCN adjusted temps and then they re-adjust them to suit
Um, there is a bit more than that. Up until 2007 GIStemp was a merger of GHCN (from NCDC) with USHCN for the USA. Then they stopped using USHCN (when it went to Version 2). Just a week or so ago they put back in the USHCN.v2 series (oddly, just after I published how to do it and showed that leaving it out induced a bit of bias… but I’m sure it was a coincidence 😉
So basically, for all the world OTHER THAN the USA, GIStemp is just a slightly munged GHCN / NCDC much as is HadCRUT. One is really admiring the nuances of the same stew… For THE USA ONLY, GIStemp merges the (now) USHCN.v2 data with the GHCN data and makes a hybrid.
Yes, that is as icky as it sounds and it is what the code does.
KeithGuy (03:01:32) :
Is there such a word as de-homoginized?
I don’t know if it is a word, but the process is what you do to make cheese.
First you curdle the milk to precipiate the proteins and fats (de-homgoinzing the solids from the liquids) then you supply “value added” by letting it sit in a dark cave for a while keeping outsiders away form it, only letting the cheese master approach the “stuff”. After enough fermentation, and “value added”, it is ready for release…
SandyInDerby (08:21:06) :
Craig (06:27:07) :
I have used “is the data” all my life, but there again I was brought up on Scottish English!
You can use the “programmer jargon” cover if you like. As an official Silicon Valley Geek, I can say with authority that use of “the data is” is common and normal. Use of “the data are” will get you looked at as one of those sorts… So if you want to fit in as a Geek and not as an academic, you use “data” as a non-gender English (singular or plural) mass-noun. And it’s OK.
It is, after all, jargon. (And it is NOT latin any more… unless, of course, you wish to enforce full latin syntax on all the OTHER loan words in English…)
I only just noticed the UEA admission of ‘loss’ of the original data was in August 2009, according to Roger Pielke’s blog http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/we-lost-original-data.html. Yet the UEA website today states that ‘over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years’ http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
So was the raw data lost? Or is the current UAE website wrong, and knowingly wrong?
While the mainstream media is bending into pretzels to keep the scandal under the rug, Climategate is already the biggest scientific scandal in history because of the global policy implications.
You don’t need to be a scientist to know that the religion called Climategate is taking on water and is about to sink. Just look at all the faithful rushing to the liferafts. Attack has now turned to defence. Next they will retreat then they will be forced to surrender. Alot of decorated careers will only be remembered for their comical rants.
To sign a petition use this link: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/NOC_NOW/
It appears that we have reached a stage in climate science where we need to create a new ‘independent’ and ‘transparent’ research institute, publicly funded, operating totally in the public domain, hosted on the internet, visible to all, with all data and methods available to all.
This ‘new climate research institute’ could be just a secure data store, ‘write once, read many’ where independent climate researchers from around the world can use raw original data, processed data, verify the methods of others, and publish their own data and methods.
In essence a climate wiki, without a delete facility.
To start the ball rolling, we need a large server and the first tranche of raw data.
Steve Richards (07:48:13) : To start the ball rolling, we need a large server and the first tranche of raw data.
Um, not that large a server… It will fit easily on a laptop (or a CD) and since you are bandwidth limited on the WAN side, any LAN port from the server will do…
I have GHCN data (several copies) feeding into GIStemp running on a PC with a 400 Mhz AMD chip. You need under 100 MB of storage per copy of the world temperature history, so the 10 GB disk on this old box would hold about 100 copies of the data… Plenty of room for variations from “raw” to “cooked” and steps in between…
And I’d start with the oldest, least “fudged” copy of GHCN input you can find. Then, one country at a time, find the original “really raw” stuff to fill in the the “before” copy…
So ANYONE with an internet spigot and a place to park a PC can get this ball rolling. I’ll provide consulting on GHCN, USHCN, USHCN.v2 and GIStemp (having gotten rather familiar with them all.) “Raw” data will require a distributed effort with folks working each national BOM for a copy of the original data or working the web sites for those with the data already published.
VerseVersari (19:07:21) : So was the raw data lost? Or is the current UAE website wrong, and knowingly wrong?
The raw data was lost at UEA, but a copy had been sent to GHCN, where it supposedly still resides.
This, to me, was a great and valuable statement by UEA. It says that they are 95% identical with GHCN. And GHCN is the NCDC product, so it says that CRUt and NCDC argree not because they are independent validations, but because they use the same cooked input data. (GHCN has recent thermometer deletions that bias the record.)
Finally, GHCN is the vast bulk of all the input to GIStemp. So it too agrees because it is substantially “the same thing”.
This means that when these three point to there left in a circle saying “Sure, you found problems, but I’m just like HIM, so I must be right anyway” they are being deliberately misleading. They ARE NOT INDEPENDENT, they are substantially THE SAME THING.
And this point needs to be made every time someone claims one of these turkeys is “right” because it matches the other one(s).
So yes, UEA lost the data (though Hadley may still have a copy) and yet, yes, the data is 95% identical with GHCN. And it is GHCN that needs the most through “cleaning up”. They have systematically stoped recording data from cold thermometers (at altitude, at latitude, and even with respect to large bodies of water).
The Stick is limp. Long live the limp Stick!