CRU inquiry: Published results still credible; focus on Phil Jones misplaced

by

The UK Parliamentary Committee released its report on the CRU email affair (I’m a bit late to the game, I know…)

Before going to the summary, let me highlight this important point made in the report:

Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.

Comparisons with other surface based datasets here; with satellite data sets here; with several bloggers’ reconstructions here.

CRU’s data handling has not inflated the warming trend, see e.g. here and here.

Here’s the summary:

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in November 2009 had the potential to damage the reputation of the climate science and the scientists involved.

We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced. Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. However, climate science is a matter of great importance and the quality of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work (including raw data) and full methodological workings (including the computer codes). Had both been available, many of the problems at UEA could have been avoided. [I think that is a very naïve preposition. BV]

We are content that the phrases such as “trick” or “hiding the decline” were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticized for making informal comments on academic papers.

In the context of Freedom of Information (FOIA), much of the responsibility should lie with UEA. The disclosed e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted, to avoid disclosure. We found prima facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics. The failure of UEA to grasp fully the potential damage to CRU and UEA by the non-disclosure of FOIA requests was regrettable. UEA needs to review its policy towards FOIA and re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in this area is limited.

The Deputy Information Commissioner has given a clear indication that a breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 may have occurred but that a prosecution was time-barred; however no investigation has been carried out. In our view it is unsatisfactory to leave the matter unresolved. We conclude that the matter needs to be resolved conclusively—either by the Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the Information Commissioner.

We accept the independence of the Climate Change E-mail Review and recommend that the Review be open and transparent, taking oral evidence and conducting interviews in public wherever possible.

On 22 March UEA announced the Scientific Appraisal Panel to be chaired by Lord Oxburgh. This Panel should determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built and it would be premature for us to pre-judge its work.

See also James Annan with a good dose of British sarcasm. Also Eli, Stoat. Image Nick Anderson.

Update: Another report investigating the CRU has been released, headed by Lord Oxburg of Liverpool. Its main conclusions are that they saw

no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.

and they remark that

it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.

The last conclusion seems very relevant in light of the recent discussions on this blog.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , ,

93 Responses to “CRU inquiry: Published results still credible; focus on Phil Jones misplaced”

  1. Tim Curtin Says:

    Bart, I can scarcely believe you produced the above without once mentioning the word “hockeystick”. Is it not the case that the majority of the CRU climategate emails relate to increasingly desperate attempts by Phil Jones, Mike Mann, et al et al including IPCC Coordinating Lead Author Overpeck who wanted to “deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature”, “to get rid” of the MWP and thereby vindicate the Mann-Jones hockeystick?

    And if, as you cite from HoC with approval, the data that Jones refused to release was already freely available, why did he refuse to release it?

    But that is a side issue, as the argument is not about the various instrumental records, dubious as some of them are, but about the proxy tree ring record which had to be suppressed after 1960 because it famously diverged (everywhere except in the IPCC’s AR3 and AR4) from the instrumental record.

    As for the HoC, it reminds me of the notorious Judge Jefferies tribunal which sent some of my family connections to the gallows in Somerset after the Monmouth rebellion of 1685 (some of the fighting on Sedgmoor was on my g^1-n grandfather’s land). The HoC Committee that exonerated Jones was drawn from the same HoC which in October 2008 passed the Climate Act, by c640 votes to 4, enacting on pain of death, or close to, emission reductions of 60% from 2000 by 2050. IOW, the Committee was like your friends’ blogs no more than a kangaroo/Jefferies court.

  2. phinniethewoo Says:

    we can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.

    Welcome to scientific scrutiny!
    If you cannot handle that , go work in a library.

  3. phinniethewoo Says:

    To equate the 130y temperature record with the satellite record is disengenious.
    Show us the satellite pictures demonstrating blogal cooling from, say, 1870, Dr Bart!

  4. phinniethewoo Says:


    CRU’s data handling has not inflated the warming trend, see e.g. here and here.

    Yeah , right: The Real Climate brainees.
    Talking trends is “likely” not your area of doctoral research..There is another thread on this blog clearly illustrating that one.

    In fact, the cover up of UHI effect by RC&the team is probably a case of shooting in their own foot.:
    It is undoubtedly so that CO2 is a GHG, and one should expect some correlation CO2 with a measure that reflects the calorific content of earth.
    However, TSA will always indicate certain puzzlement at the last 11 years of cooling in the face of a giant discharge of CO2 in that period.
    Probably any correlation is lost by discarding the UHI effect.
    UHI is something which is petering out : The West unleashed less HEAT because better insulation better cars and buying everything from China. So the UHI effect has maxed in western sites , where it caused a trend the last 75 years. This will certainly confuse correlation efforts.
    So UHI is petering out BUT important to interprete the 130y record.

    The problem I have as a “denier” is not that GHG will cause some temperature rise , but that present science reporting and observations do not warrant a trillion dollar “insurance” investment . There are many other higher priorities “out there”.

    The CRU emails contain nuggets like “you can’t say no to a conference to Tahiti..”
    Could Dr Bart explain the self sacrificing pure science ethics of that?

    I’ll take “climate alarmism” more serious when Ayatollah Gore stops jetting between his mansions, and Billions of “research” funds in fancy UN institutes is called a halt to.

    Cheers

  5. A C Osborn Says:

    Everybody in the UK new this would be a Whitewash before it even happened.
    If you read the information presented by other Scientists and the fact that most of them were not even questioned, it is even more obviously a Whitewash.
    Especially the Peer Review Process.
    It is a disgrace to the British Nation.
    Perhaps the French can do a better job.

  6. mikep Says:

    Numerous points to note. This was the result of a one day hearing to which the only sceptics asked were former chancellor Nigel Lawson and Benny Peiser, neither of whom are players in the relevant controversies. Most of the other witnesses were not experts in the controversy either, only Phil Jones himself. The report does not seem to have considered the written evidence presented to it at all. It does not seem to have even grasped the infamous “hide the decline” quote. What is being hidden from the readers of e.g. IPCC reports, even if known to journal readers, is that the reconstructions do not track temperatures in the late 20th century, which obviously raises doubts about whether they can be reliable trackers of temperature in the hundreds of years before the instrumental record. It’s not that the data from tree rings is unreliable – the data are what the data are. It’s that these data do not show what they “should” show. There are many other weaknesses in the report, including an apparent failure to notice the time line of the various data and FOI requests. The decision not to comply with FOI, for example, appears to have been taken before any FOI requests ever came in. The report, as far as I can see, has added nothing to the ongoing debate.

  7. JvdLaan Says:

    Lordy Lord, the Watts lot is all here. Conspiracists all over. But most of all lacking any idea about science, still stuck at MBH 1998, surfacestations.org, 11 years of cooling (!) and yes, All Gore is fat!

    And pretending they have a clue of what happened on the VS-thread…

  8. phinniethewoo Says:

    Edit: This is an English thread. BV

  9. phinniethewoo Says:

    you do for me the substraction 2009-1998 and wadayasee ?

    Only a true believer will now come mutter about error lines he sees in the sky

  10. JvdLaan Says:

    you do for me the substraction 2009-1998 and wadayasee ?

    Ah the new VS-method in all its beauty!

  11. phinniethewoo Says:

    [Clean up your language and remain on topic or take it elsewhere. This is not a garbage dump. BV]

  12. JvdLaan Says:

    @phinniethewoo

    A good site for you (and your Watt-friends here): http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/

    Your last comment (http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/cru-inquiry-published-results-still-credible-focus-on-phil-jones-misplaced/#comment-3843) is so childish and reveals your true colours.

  13. phinniethewoo Says:

    Thanks for the link jaapke

    My true colours do not matter as does not your White Knight Bono Ono Samouraism

    How about explaining how you see EXTRA heating in the 1998-2009 incongruent data , cooked for us by your CRU buddies. Data allegedly coming from the 4000 uhi sites.

  14. Shub Niggurath Says:

    JvdLaan
    You are bashing Watts in every thread. What happened — something went wrong?

  15. JvdLaan Says:

    @Shub Niggurath
    For starters is this beauty: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-3/
    I mentioned it on another blog, but a commenter saw nothing wrong with Watts article!

    His last: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to-anthony-watts/

    And since he is very influential and you lot seem all to come from there, I thought it was good to mention!

  16. JvdLaan Says:

    ..Data allegedly coming from the 4000 uhi sites….

    Do you mean all those UHI’s in the Arctic Ocean?

  17. Shub Niggurath Says:

    JvdLaan: Watts is a blogger. If he does science we can attack the science.

    We all ‘come from there’ as much as you all come from RealClimate.

  18. phinniethewoo Says:

    Well that’s an interesting one:

    Boats account for 20% of GHG, and shipping lanes cover about 0.001% of the sea surface.

    The ocean surface uhi sites are placed inside buoys on erm erm that’s right: Shipping lanes.

    Now don’t come straw man me with Bart’s satellite’s argument,

  19. dhogaza Says:

    Bart, you are reaping the fruit of having allowed VS’s nonsense to drive away the knowledgeable people who lost patience with the BS.

    [edit]

  20. A C Osborn Says:

    # dhogaza Says:
    April 10, 2010 at 15:27

    Bart, you are reaping the fruit of having allowed VS’s nonsense to drive away the knowledgeable people who lost patience with the BS.

    [edit]

  21. Bart Says:

    Phinnie,

    You bring up a whole suite of non-sequiturs. Check out http://www.skepticalscience.com/
    e.g. on the temp record.

    An Italian biologist looking at both the raw and the adjusted data found no difference in trend (link in the post).

    JeffID and RomanM’s temp reconstruction finds a larger trend than CRU does. I think Christy also reproduced the temp record, and found it was hardly different from CRU’s. So where’s the fudging of data? Over the past 30 years the satellite record and surface record can be compared and they look very similar. That means that at least over that time period there is some independent verification of the temp record. Then there’s all the other signs of warming (that I’ve repeatedly mentioned, but it seems to fall on deaf ears).

    Differencing the temperatures of two different years doesn’t say anything about the climate.

    Mikep,

    What’s being ‘hidden’ was described in the scientific literature. If someone wanted to hide something, they sure did a lousy job by openly discussing it in the literature.

    Dhogaza,

    As I wrote before, I’m on two minds of how constructive it is to keep the discussion as open as possible. Lots of people just regurgitating talking points is of no use, clearly. But amidst that, some may actually bring some worthwhile thought to the table. VS did, and so did others. Plus, one way or the other, finding common ground is important.

  22. phinniethewoo Says:

    Over the past 30 years the satellite record and surface record can be compared and they look very similar. That means that at least over that time period there is some independent verification of the temp record.

    Hahahhahahahahahaha
    Where did i last read this argument ? Oh yes : In the Kinderguardian.
    -Were you looking for a manufacturing fault in thermometers??

    I am aware of Hansen,yes: He is replacing New-York uhi sites, which maxed out their uhi offset in 1850-1925 with sites that still have a lot of uhi power to offer , for his narrative.

    For all that other “the end is nigh” stuff for which you did not get enough of our attention: why don’t you open us a new thread on swimming polar bears then?

  23. dhogaza Says:

    It very much IS a garbage dump after your many [edit]’s and pseudo scientific “reluctance” to admit AGWH-alarmism is worse than islamism.

    Well, Bart, if you think anyone seriously interested in discussing science is going to wade hip-deep through stuff like this, you’re seriously mistaken.

    Just look at who’s posting in this thread, the end of VS’s thread, etc.

    Bye …

  24. A C Osborn Says:

    dhogaza Says:
    April 10, 2010 at 17:39

    That is the whole point the Thread with VS was a quality Scientific debate, this isn’t.

  25. phinniethewoo Says:

    If there was one poster SPAMMING in VSs thread it was clearly dhogazza.

    I hope someone else is taking a record of the VS thread as it will no doubt soon look like it is the director’s cut from “an inconvenient truth”

    Signing off.
    Let dhogazza , marco & aapke have their moment in the light.

  26. MapleLeaf Says:

    Well Bart stating the facts has hit a nerve, so it now seems that your blog is under siege by those in denial. Good job, more work for you though.

    Those in denial can try and distract and detract form the inconvenient truths and fcats, but this is very clearly a Kitzmiller versus Dover moment for the denialists (H/T to Mike at SheWonk) and I understand that fact hurts.

    The anger and frustration of those in denial shown here and elsewhere is misplaced. McI and others in denial had a perfect moment to make a convincing case against CRU and Jones to the bi-partisan HoC committee, and they had an epic fail, and that is their fault and their fault alone. Please, go and yell at them. The trouble is that they have nothing, and they have been feeding you what you want to hear, which have been false allegations and rhetoric, which do not hold up to closer scrutiny and fact checking. So they (McI and Watts et al.) have betrayed you, not the HoC committee.

    Now, we need to take this a step further and have McI and other contrarians taken to task for their mischief and abuse of the FOI process and for libel.

    In the mean time, the planet continues to accumulate heat.

  27. Anonymous Says:

    MapleLeaf:
    I thought that we were deniers as in those who ‘deny the Holocaust’ or something like that. Not as those ‘in denial’ in a psychological sense.

    Are you saying the skeptics are in some kind of grief reaction?

  28. mikep Says:

    Bart, I made perfectly clear that the divergence problem was discussed in the literature – though not solved , of course. So the point is why was this discussion not carried over into the IPCC and like fora?

  29. MapleLeaf Says:

    Mikep,

    Not sure what you are talking about. The ‘divergence problem’ was discussed in AR4. Read here,

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html

  30. MapleLeaf Says:

    Anon@20:05,

    Wow, it did not take very long for Godwin’s law to be realized.

    Nobody said you are denying that horrific event anon. Whether or not you are a true ‘skeptic’ is debatable– one would need to read more about your position on AGW before deciding whether or not you are a true skeptic.

    And yes, I suggest that those in denial are “grieving”, in a way. And, instead of directing their anger at those who failed them (the “skeptics” who submitted evidence to the HoC committee), they are blaming others for the failures of the “skeptics” to make a compelling case. That behaviour is rather juvenile. McIntyre also needs to grow up and take some responsibility for his failure instead of going on a witch hunt against the HoC committee. Heck, he even started a witch hunt of the Russell committee shortly after it was announced– just to sow the seed of doubt and conspiracy in his acolytes’ minds and feed the what they want to hear.

    What you fail to understand, is that McIntyre et al. have convinced you that they have a compelling case, when the evidence and facts have long shown that they do not. So you have been deceived and lulled into believing that fraud had been committed, for example, when in fact was not. The real fraudsters are CA and Watts etc. I can understand that reality would annoy those in denial about AGW. So to deal with that inconvenient truth, it seems those in denial are now denying the reality of the HoC’s ruling, as they did with the PSU ruling. It is all rather predictable and to be candid, pathetic.

    And mark my words, the reaction by those in denial will be the same when the Russell and Oxburgh committees largely vindicate CRU and Jones. So far those in denial have been very consistent in that behaviour.

    So please, go over to CA and take McIntyre and McKitrick to task for failing you.

  31. dougie Says:

    MapleLeaf Says:

    April 10, 2010 at 21:51

    ‘Wow, it did not take very long for Godwin’s law to be realized.’

    & the rest about M&M etc.

    how sad, how do some folks live with themselves? i give up on human nature at times.

    the truth will out, that’s my only hope in this debacle.

  32. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Wow! A consensus guy talking about the Godwin’s law!

    You *must* be aware that it was a public relations strategy to brand those who doubt anthropogenic global warming as ‘deniers’ so as to connote, imply and bring to mind the Holocaust to mind and evoke a reaction of horror and disgust.

    It was a label given by you guys, to us. :) Who ‘realized’ Godwin’s law first?

    Which is why I asked about being ‘in denial’, that is all. I somehow forgot to put my name in – never happened before.

    There are many issues to Climategate that will never be examined in their fullest detail in present-day spineless Britain. One does not actually need McIntyre’s indepth analysis to understand that. Nor does it make you someone ‘in denial’ if you do not have any respect for these ‘inquiries’ that have been carried out. CRU wanted power and backing and it has it. McIntyre and McKirtick do not matter one whit to climate-change obsessed Britain.

    One of my former mentors lost his promotion because a post-doc who was first author with him in a paper in Lancet put in data which he could not ‘retrieve’ when some questions were raised.

    I can understand why Jones deserves some sympathy and I certainly feel for the man seeing as how he thought the temperature data belonged to him, but I do not understand why you should not look at McIntyre with an open mind. He has performed invaluable service to the world of climate science. Perhaps Shewonk’s been messing with your head?

  33. MapleLeaf Says:

    Shub,

    He has performed invaluable service to the world of climate science.

    And right there your credibility tanks. I did, initially, look at CA with an open mind, even used to visit there for a while (not posting, just observing). With time, I became suspicious of M&m’s true motives.

    Shub, when did McI last publish a paper? When did he last audit a skeptic’s paper? Heck, when did he last “audit” a paper (last September?). McIntyre has admitted that he has to “feed the blog” (that was his defense when questioned why he has not published. In fact, CA reads like a gossip column nowadays.

    Additionally, McIntyre sat on the Yamal data since 2004, all the while accusing others of not sharing it with him– even in late 2009 he was doing that. Also, Stephen McIntyre said “James Hansen and his disciples have a more jihadist approach”. McIntyre accused Briffa and other paleo climate scientists of being addicted to Yamal data like “crack cocaine”. McIntyre orchestrated the vexatious FOI requests using his blog. McIntyre has still not removed (as far as I know) the sensitive NASA GISS information posted by someone on his blog. I could go on and on, but I hope that you get the point. McIntyre has quite the reputation, but not for the reasons that you would like to believe. Then McIntyre has the audacity to claim that:

    “Everything that I’ve done in this, I’ve done in good faith”

    Shub, you have been duped. And what is sad it is not as if there have not been ample warnings and information out there for your to conclude that. Yet, you choose to ignore them. McIntyre is going to go down in flames, in fact, the tide may have already turned against him. There is still time for you to jump ship, or are you really that devoted to McIntyre?

    And if you think that M&m (2005) advanced the science. No it did not,

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/

    PS: Jones knows that the data didn’t belong to him, and was not necessarily his to share. And who said that “I’m a consensus guy”? Stop distorting.

    PPS: Aaah, so only those gutsy yanks can get to the bottom of the stolen emails (sarc). I’m glad that you acknowledged that one does not need McIntyre to examine the email scandal in its fullest detail– yes, that is obvious. Anyhow, sure sick Limbaugh, Beck and Inhofe on the climate scientists. Oh, too late, Limbaugh et al. have already had a shot and made fools of themselves.

  34. Tim Curtin Says:

    MapleLeaf: you have made a number of misleading statements here, I hope you will do the decent thing and retract them.
    1. “McI and others in denial had a perfect moment to make a convincing case against CRU and Jones to the bi-partisan HoC committee, and they had an epic fail, and that is their fault and their fault alone.” Really? (i) Steve McIntyre was not invited to appear before the HoC committee. (ii) The Committee failed even to mention the hockeystick, which was the main topic in nearly all the CRU emails. (iii) The HoC committee is NOT bi-partisan on climate matters, as 99% of the HoC voted for the 2008 Climate Change Act.
    2. “…we need to take this a step further and have McI and other contrarians taken to task for their mischief and abuse of the FOI process”. But even the HoC admitted that it was the UEA that had abused the FOI process, and that Steve’s resort to multiple requests came only when all his initial requests had been rejected.
    3. “In the mean time, the planet continues to accumulate heat” Neither you nor the HoC produce any evidence for this statement. The GISS et al data “showing” a 0.7oC rise in GMT since 1900 are fully explicable by measurement and aggregation errors, including in particular the absence of the tropics from the 1900 starting point (see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/, then go to Maps, and use the dialogue box to see what the global instrumental coverage by latitude was in 1880-1900).
    4. Then you said to Mikep,”Not sure what you are talking about. The ‘divergence problem’ was discussed in AR4. Read here, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html.” That is a really great ‘discussion’, with one and one only substantive reference to “divergence”, which was nothing more than denial of the real problem, namely lack of correlation between tree ring and instrumental temperature records when BOTH are available for any given period. How convenient that, as your IPCC link notes, such correlations are not possible because of ‘the lack of recent tree ring data at most of the sites from which tree ring data discussed in this chapter were acquired’.
    5. “[Steve Mc] even started a witch hunt of the Russell committee shortly after it was announced…” Well, the Nature guy quickly did the right thing and resigned, but Boulton, who falsely pretended he’d had nothing to do with CRU since 1980 and is open-minded on climate change, was soon found to have fibbed on his CV and to be one of the most active warmists in British academia, whilst surrounded at Edinburgh by many former CRU staff and their associates.
    6. To be candid, it is MapleLeaf that is pathetic with his/her biased account of the HoC and PSU exonerations of Jones and Mann.

  35. Tim Curtin Says:

    Further to my last, MapleLeaf is additionally averse to offering any new information of his own.

    It is a strange “Science” that depends on wildly different measurements of its main concepts.

    For example, Phil Jones’ CRU asserts that the Mean Annual Temperature at Cape Bruny (bottom tip of Tasmania) 1950-80 was 11.95 while the Mean for 1998-2008 was 12.7, for an anomaly of 0.75oC. However Australia’s BoM asserts the average for 1950-80 was 11.80 while the average for 1998-2008 was 12.45, for an anomaly of 0.65. Meantime Gistemp agrees with Australia’s BoM that the mean for 1950-80 was 11.80, but, whilst being incapable of citing ANY temperature data for Cape Bruny since 1980, claims the “anomaly” from 1950-80 since 1980 is a mere 0.34oC.

    With divergences like these, no wonder the plane carrying Poland’s President crashed, as using margins of error less than those noted above are enough to kill all of us.

    So here we have “Science” a la 21st Century. Any old garbage will do, like a range of more than 100% between CRU and GISS for the anomaly from 1950-80 for 1998-2008. Bart, I will be fascinated to see your defence of these absurdities.

    Until Climate “scientists” (if any, there are none worthy of that title here in Australia, least of all Wigley, Karoly, Pitman, et al.) can find a way to agree on the basic measurements needed to support their demands for life threatening measures to reduce life enhancing CO2 emissions, Bart should close all his threads, for the sake of humanity.

    12.445
    Anomaly 0.6479
    GISS 50-80 11.797
    GISS anom 98-08 0.3423

  36. Shub Niggurath Says:

    MapleLeaf: I am calling you a consensus guy just to refer to the fact that you adopt a non-skeptical, non-denier position. I dont want to use terms like ‘warmer’, ‘warmista’ etc.

    “Jones knows that the data didn’t belong to him, and was not necessarily his to share.”

    I was trying to find and concede some grounds for Jones’ possessive behavior with the data but apparently you think otherwise!

    “Not necessarily his to share”
    Jones can *prove* this by sharing with the world the texts of the confidentiality agreements. Russia and Sweden have issued contradicting statements, and both of these are high-latitude countries – where the warming is supposed to occur.

    The whole exercise in chapter 6 AR4 is about presentation of the highlight – Figure 6.10. The hockey stick became a Pastafarian thing – who do you give credit for that?

    McIntyre runs a blog – why would you not expect him to use some vivid expressions once in a while? Surely you cannot complain that he does not write papers *and* that he writes crazy stuff on his blog both. The IPCC scientists who we high regard for were talking trash in their emails too – beating the crap out of someone, calling someone else a moron. I do not think they are any lesser scientists because of that.

    Following and recording the official process, especially if you are someone who believes in due process is very much required in this frame of time. Do you think Jones and Mann are writing papers post-Climategate? Mann has admitted he is not. Jones is obviously not. Does that make them ‘evil’? No.

    Original contributions have in fact come from other corners in climate science – Frank et al, Rosing et al, Solomon et al, Wolf et al… why, even this blog. I am sure there are many more.

    If you argue that scientists cannot fight a blogger, think again. Think RealClimate – set up and run solely to fight for the anthropogenic consensus. Gavin Schmidt and the foul-mouthed denizens have defended Mann and Jones no end with usage of equally vitriolic words. They have beaten McIntyre there hands down.

    The debate has gotten uncivil and there is lot of bad blood. It is my opinion that we newcomers (atleast I am) should try to see things for what they are, but do not have to get caught up on either side of previous fault-lines.

    The score looks bad now:
    PSU Inquiry – interviews two people only
    HOC: Does not interview McIntyre
    Russel: Bolton is in there. They put Philip Campbell in there to begin with. (Who *are* these guys who made this committee? How stupid can they be? They are living some 80-100 years in the past, where no one had Google and everyone appeared gullible.)

    The HoC committee glosses over the the hockey-trick ‘trick’ referring merely to the fact that Jones has published in Nature about the stick. They conclude thus and refer the matter to Lord Oxburgh who is a member of GLOBE.

    This GLOBE thing is in their own words ‘a forum for ideas and proposals to be floated in confidence and without the attention of an international spotlight’. Are they discussing Britain’s military secrets? No. They got together in 2007, ‘to discuss the 2012 climate agreement,…’ Go figure.

    As I said, the score doesn’t look good.

    Regards

  37. MapleLeaf Says:

    Tim and Shub (aka McIntyre acolytes),

    I’m busy today. So I’ll just make a couple of points. Nice to see how you ignored the evidence provided which demonstrate that McI has not operated in good faith and that he has not advanced the science (if anything he is hampering it by harassing scientists with vexatious data requests:) I also asked some questions about his “auditing”. Crickets. Plenty of straw men arguments and OT arguments introduced by both of you though.

    The HoC committee was bi-partisan, politicians from both sides of the floor were represented. You know that. Wy McI or you would think that he was so special that they should interview him and not all the others who submitted evidence is beyond me. Time was an issue, but there is no reason why McI should have received preferential treatment over the others who submitted evidence. In contrast, Jones had the right to speak and defend himself against the accusations of fraud etc. that were made against him.

    Regardless, McI did get to present evidence (how you do distort). In fact, many contrarians got to submit evidence. And on the sum of it, their evidence was not compelling. Go figure.

    “Steve’s resort to multiple requests came only when all his initial requests had been rejected.”

    That would be a lie. “All his initial requests”? Regardless, have you considered the fact that they may have had very valid reasons not to share the data? Of course not. [H/T to J Bowers].

    “Exceptions to the duty to disclose environmental information
    12. – (1) Subject to paragraphs (2), (3) and (9), a public authority may refuse to disclose environmental information requested if –

    (a) an exception to disclosure applies under paragraphs (4) or (5); and

    (b) in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

    (2) A public authority shall apply a presumption in favour of disclosure.

    (3) To the extent that the information requested includes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject, the personal data shall not be disclosed otherwise than in accordance with regulation 13.

    (4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that –

    (a) it does not hold that information when an applicant’s request is received;

    (b) the request for information is manifestly unreasonable;

    (c) the request for information is formulated in too general a manner and the public authority has complied with regulation 9;

    (d) the request relates to material which is still in the course of completion, to unfinished documents or to incomplete data; or

    (e) the request involves the disclosure of internal communications.

    (5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect –

    (a) international relations, defence, national security or public safety;

    (b) the course of justice, the ability of a person to receive a fair trial or the ability of a public authority to conduct an inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature;

    (c) intellectual property rights;

    (d) the confidentiality of the proceedings of that or any other public authority where such confidentiality is provided by law;

    (e) the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest;

    (f) the interests of the person who provided the information where that person –

    (i) was not under, and could not have been put under, any legal obligation to supply it to that or any other public authority;

    (ii) did not supply it in circumstances such that that or any other public authority is entitled apart from these Regulations to disclose it; and

    (iii) has not consented to its disclosure; or

    (g) the protection of the environment to which the information relates.

    (6) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a public authority may respond to a request by neither confirming nor denying whether such information exists and is held by the public authority, whether or not it holds such information, if that confirmation or denial would involve the disclosure of information which would adversely affect any of the interests referred to in paragraph (5)(a) and would not be in the public interest under paragraph (1)(b).

    (7) For the purposes of a response under paragraph (6), whether information exists and is held by the public authority is itself the disclosure of information.

    (8) For the purposes of paragraph (4)(e), internal communications includes communications between government departments.

    (9) To the extent that the environmental information to be disclosed relates to information on emissions, a public authority shall not be entitled to refuse to disclose that information under an exception referred to in paragraphs (5)(d) to (g).

    (10) For the purposes of paragraphs (5)(b), (d) and (f), references to a public authority shall include references to a Scottish public authority.

    (11) Nothing in these Regulations shall authorise a refusal to make available any environmental information contained in or otherwise held with other information which is withheld by virtue of these Regulations unless it is not reasonably capable of being separated from the other information for the purpose of making available that information.”

    The MWP has nothing to do with the underlying physics and theory of AGW. Do you not understand that critical point? Also, read the RC link that I provided above. And the science would be truly and well served if faux science blogs like CA and WUWT shut down ;)

    The contrarians demanded the HoC committee, it backfired because of their own inability to make a compelling case. Now please, stop blaming everyone else for your failures. And no, there is not a conspiracy around every corner as you seem to think.

    Have a nice day.

  38. Bart Says:

    Tim,

    “Steve’s resort to multiple requests came only when all his initial requests had been rejected”

    You probably have a different time in mind, but I stumbled across this post at WUWT, where Steven Mosher describes how McIntyre was initially (2002) given data by Jones. So, Jones initially showed goodwill to McIntyre, and withdrew his goodwill when it became clear to him what McIntyre was all about.

    McIntyre asks the rhetorical question: “What changes took place between 2002 and 2009 that are relevant to a refusal decision?”

  39. Tim Curtin Says:

    Thanks Bart, I was too much in haste and did not recall the earlier exchanges between Stev Mc and Phil Jones. I still do not think that Phil emerges simon pure whatever the HoC found – nor that his unwillingness to reveal his “homogenisations” and value adding to the raw data in creating his CRUT series can be justifed as by MapleLeaf invoking IP rights etc. HadleyCRUT formed the basis for major legislation by the HoC in 2008, and there was and is a valid public interest in how the homogenisation etc was done. Jones prevailed on the UEA to deny release of this information – and then UEA not Jones cops the blame from HoC!

    I noted previously how Phil’s CRU manages to “value-add” its anomaly at Cape Bruny in Tasmania (.79) for 1998-2008) to more than double that in GISS (0.34) – probably due only to the incompetence of both (GISS manages to report its anomaly despite having no data for Cape Bruny from 1993-2005!!!). Luckily their errors here there and everywhere tend to cancel out, hence the remarkable but fortuitous close correspondence between their trends as shown by Bart in his Global thread.

    Given the enormous financial implications for all of us from policies based on such shonky data, there is a case for beefing up the WMO so it can produce some better quality data than either CRU or GISS are capable of.

  40. MapleLeaf Says:

    Tim Curtin,

    1] You say “The Committee failed even to mention the hockeystick“.

    Wrong and misleading, the HS is mentioned on pages 18, 19, 23, 25, 27 of the HoC report. I addressed your other misinformation in my previous post today.

    2] Both Bart and I showed your statement about all of McI’s FOI requests being turned down to be false. So you were the one being misleading.

    3] You state “Neither you nor the HoC produce any evidence for this statement. The GISS et al data “showing” a 0.7oC rise in GMT since 1900 are fully explicable by measurement and aggregation errors, including in particular the absence of the tropics from the 1900 starting point

    Actually, the GISS data go back to 1880, and between the 1880s and naughts, global SATs have increased by about 0.9 C, and almost 0.6 C of that has been observed since the sixties. Anyhow, there is plenty of evidence which demonstrates that increases in GHGs, from anthro activities, have played a major role in modulating the warming observed in the last 130 years or so, especially since the fifties and sixties. Read Murphy et al. (2009, JGRA), for just one example. Non one in the know is saying that higher GHGs alone (or higher CO2 equivalent) alone explain all the warming over the period in question. This is a common red herring and myth used by those in denial about AGW.

    Also, nobody is claiming that the SAT record is perfect (have you failed to noticed the error bars they use to quantify the uncertainty?), but it is robust and the best we have. Specifically, the warming in the global SAT records (from GISS, NCDC, JMA, Russians and HadCRUT) have been corroborated by radiosonde data(RATPAC) since 1958 and by satellite data since 1979. The surface SAT record has also been corroborated by CCC, Zeke, JeffId (skeptic) and RomanM (skeptic). Other biological metrics also support the facts that temperatures have increased, see paper by Rosenzweig et al. (2008, Nature) title “Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change” in which they looked at 80 studies and 29,500 data series. Rosenzweig et al. determined that evidence of human-induced warming can be found around the world in how plants and animals are responding to the warming.

    Anyhow, your post trying to claim that I was being misleading, is misleading in itself.

    4] Tim, you are weaseling and grasping at straws and moving the goal posts. MikeP asked why the discussion about the divergence problem discussion was not carried over to the IPCC. I showed him where they both mentioned it and discussed it. Now it may, in your opinion, not have been discussed sufficiently, but it was mentioned and it was discussed in AR4. It has also been discussed ad nauseum on blogs (DeepClimate, CA, RC etc.). EOS.

    5] My point about McIntyre’s antics stands. His modus operandi is well known and understood. The fact is that unless McIntyre or one of his acolytes is leading the committee or the committee lead was handpicked to be led by sympathetic to his cause (e.g., Wegman), McIntyre will never be happy with the choice.

    6] You are entitled to your misguided and biased opinion. The reality and facts are on the side of science.

    I’m not even going to waste my time addressing the nonsense included in your diatribe of 14:09.

    Shub @ 14:36. You are standing on one side of an abyss with the other people in denial about AGW (e.g., Lindzen, Singer (Mr. Tobacco) Monckton, Plimer, Morano, Heartland, CEI, CATO inst., Fraser Inst., young earth creationists (e.g., Spencer, Christy, McKitrick), WUWT and CA).

    On the other side stands the science and knowledge amassed over more than 100 years (e.g., NASA, NOAA etc.). Thanks, but I choose NASA et al., Lindzen might be able to convince me that climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 is closer to +2 C. So far Lindzen’s attempts to demonstrate that have all failed (including Lindzen and Choi 2009). That was so bad that even Spencer dismissed it. For now, the best science and data available show climate sensitivity to be close to +3 C, and that is something we should be concerned about.

    Anyhow, from now on how about we politely agree to disagree.

    PS: Yo guys have two more kicks at the can. Probably won’t pan out for you, but you never know– Russell and Oxburgh will be taking a much more detailed analysis and critique of the CRU affair, and there is dirt there, make no mistake, no dirt that challenges the underlying physics and theory of AGW though. Regardless of the outcome, I will respect the committee’s findings. Barring some damaging findings, the contrarians will have to just keep manufacturing scandal or will have to steal some more emails.

  41. Tim Curtin Says:

    Re MapleLeaf’s diatribe, at his 5] “My point about McIntyre’s antics stands. His modus operandi is well known and understood. The fact is that unless McIntyre or one of his acolytes is leading the committee or the committee lead was handpicked to be led by sympathetic to his cause (e.g., Wegman), McIntyre will never be happy with the choice.” There is something called balance, as in composition (more or less) of US Supreme Court. McIntyre was in no position to have Edward Wegman appointed, a person in any case of highest standing in the US Statisticians Community (author of 5 books and 170 articles), Fellow and sometime Board member of the ASA, and as Wiki says:

    In 2006 Joe Barton, chairman of the United States House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee and Ed Whitfield, the chairman of the subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, requested that Dr. Wegman prepare a report on the statistical validity of Michael E. Mann’s “Hockey Stick graph”, for the hearing “Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments,” [2] [3][4]

    Dr. Wegman assembled an ad hoc panel of himself, David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin Said at Johns Hopkins University to prepare the report on a pro bono basis. At the hearing to present it, Wegman said “We were asked to provide independent verification by statisticians of the critiques of the statistical methodology found in the papers of Drs. Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes published respectively in Nature in 1998 and in Geophysical Research Letters in 1999.” Note the pro bono – how long before ML accuses Wegman of being not only handpicked (by a Canadian at that!) but in the pay of Phillip Morris and/or Exxon?

    As for the cherrypicked temperature trends you mention, how much was due to autocorrelation and how much to GHGs?

    Re HoC and hockey stick I have to apologise again, I had relied inter alia on Bart’s summary at top of the thread.

  42. A C Osborn Says:

    MapleLeaf Says:
    April 12, 2010 at 06:20
    The MWP has nothing to do with the underlying physics and theory of AGW. Do you not understand that critical point? Also, read the RC link that I provided above. And the science would be truly and well served if faux science blogs like CA and WUWT shut down ;)

    Better tell Phil Jones as he obviously doesn’t realise.

  43. sod Says:

    Note the pro bono – how long before ML accuses Wegman of being not only handpicked (by a Canadian at that!) but in the pay of Phillip Morris and/or Exxon?

    Wegman was a republican pick. many details have come to light recently.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/wegmans-report-highly-politicized-and-fatally-flawed

    the Wegman report was NOT impartial. and new methods have confirmed the hockey stick results.

    this again, is a denialist talking point.

  44. A C Osborn Says:

    sod Says:
    April 12, 2010 at 13:15 “new methods have confirmed the hockey stick results. ”

    Are you saying that the latest methods show an almost flat line prior to 1970 as the original did, with ALL prior temperature anomalies below 0?

  45. MapleLeaf Says:

    Tim Curtin, you also need to read about some of the plagiarism that took place in the Wegman report. I’m not going to help you with links. Do some skeptical digging. And McIntyre did work with Barton et al., he was very influential in getting the Wegman report going b/c the eminent NAS panel did not give them the result they wanted. If at first you don’t succeed… ;)

    Osborn “Better tell Phil Jones as he obviously doesn’t realise.”

    Osborn “Are you saying that the latest methods show an almost flat line prior to 1970 as the original did, with ALL prior temperature anomalies below 0?”

    Go and read the papers in question, and you will see. I’m also curious which graph you are talking about. Please provide a link to a journal paper or IPCC.
    Straw man argument. Next.

  46. MapleLeaf Says:

    Corrigendum to post @19:06,

    Osborn “Better tell Phil Jones as he obviously doesn’t realise.”
    Straw man argument. Next.

  47. Eli Rabett Says:

    Given that the surface station in Manhattan is in a shaded glade, wanna talk about how all those stations have a warm bias? As a matter of fact, if you leaf through the surface station pictures you see many stations which are shaded by trees.

  48. Eli Rabett Says:

    There are two FACTS that some people constantly loose track of by accident or purpose

    1. The requirements for making available data backing published articles have changed over the years. For example, authors of papers published in 1990 in Nature were not required to share anything beyond what was in the paper with anyone. In any case such requirements vary from journal to journal even today.

    2. Authors are generally NOT required by granting authorities or journals to maintain data or anything else used in any paper beyond seven years, even less in some cases.

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/eli-has-been-thinking-bit-about-muir.html

  49. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Maple
    “Tim Curtin, you also need to read about some of the plagiarism that took place in the Wegman report. I am not going to help you with links…”

    You must be referring to the paranoid ramblings of DeepClimate. It is disappointing to see you peddle outright falsehoods for a position which the original author himself redacted from.

    The fact that Deepclimate had to perform radical surgery on that thread and all its comments did not bother you?

    Tim, this is the thread Maple is referring to, but hesitant to provide links. You can read it yourself and come to your conclusions.

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/17/wegman-report-revisited/

    Eli
    I agree that the standards about ‘data-sharing’ and data archival change. But isn’t it a poor excuse for defending one’s position? Jones and Mann kept hearkening back to an earlier era when scientists would be taken for their word, when open standards and access had taken its grip on many scientific fields. In the instances when data finally became available, the internal inconsistencies immediately came under the spotlight.

    How did Briffa, Mann and Jones all end up using the same excuse about data and shot themselves and climate science in the foot? It was a tactical and strategic error. Instead of focusing on the miniscule and immaterial fossil fuel and libertarian think-tank links of McIntyre and McKitrik and thereby clutching at straws the Team could have undertaken inclusive maneuvers – (like joint papers) to pull them into the fold and thereby defused the situation.

    Instead they let it all grow wild by talking down to McIntyre and pretending to themselves that those inside academia are superior to those on the outside. They wanted to keep McIntyre out of the system and thereby discredit him. They are solely responsible for the present mess.

    I write from a position sympathetic to the team and climate science. Who cares about acolytes and such things? If you force me to be one, I’d rather be on the skeptics’ side.

    Regards

  50. MapleLeaf Says:

    Shub,

    “It is disappointing to see you peddle outright falsehoods for a position which the original author himself redacted from.”

    Oh how you distort. DC retracted statements made with respect to allegations made about Rapp’s possible role in the Wegman report, no retractions were made concerning the evidence gathered against Wegman.

    From DC,

    “Update, Dec. 19: This post has been substantially revised to remove speculation about Donald Rapp’s possible role in the Wegman report. I apologize for any embarrassment caused to Donald Rapp or Edward Wegman by that speculation.”

    In fact, DC goes on to say in the update:

    “There are also more details about large swathes of unattributed material found in the Wegman report…”

    Unlike, WUWT et al., DC had the integrity to set the record straight wrt Rapp’s alleged involvement in the Wegman report (a report which was a contrived, politically-motivated move). Maybe I missed some retraction DC made wrt Wegman, I’m doing this on the fly.

    Keep your eyes on DC the next little while, there are likely to be more disturbing revelations about Wegman.

    Anyhow Shub, I’m way too busy to have to waste time arguing your falsehoods and distortion. I’m intrigued how your “skepticism” is so asymmetric that you dismiss the serious allegations (supported by evidence) brought forth against the skeptics.

    What will it take to convince you that AGW is real? Spencer’s UAH data showing a record warm 13-month running mean? Inhofe declaring that he was wrong (although that will never happen). What?

    PS: Have you read “the ambiguous dog”? Read it sometime, it sums up McIntyre very well. People have avoided working directly with him for good reason. That is McIntyre’s own doing and not the fault of others, and do you even know for sure that McIntyre wants to collaborate with Briffa et al.? I do not think so, not when he goes after Jones, Briffa, Mann, Schmidt and Steig (et cetera, it is a long list) like a rabid dog. As for the Ivory tower argument, read Foster et al. (2010), Foster is not in the alleged academic ‘ivory tower’, yet is the lead author on a paper with some of the big names in climate science.

    Goodbye and good luck.

  51. Igor Samoylenko Says:

    Bart,

    You should add the following quotes from the Oxburgh report next to your quote about the need to involve professional statisticians more to put it into perspective:

    Dendroclimatology
    [...]
    3. Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by
    accident rather than design, in the CRU papers that we examined we did not come across any inappropriate usage although the methods they used may not
    have been the best for the purpose. It is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results. The published work also
    contains many cautions about the limitations of the data and their interpretation.
    [...]
    8. After reading publications and interviewing the senior staff of CRU in depth, we are satisfied that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with
    integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not valid. In the event CRU scientists were able to give
    convincing answers to our detailed questions about data choice, data handling and statistical methodology. The Unit freely admits that many data analyses
    they made in the past are superseded and they would not do things that way today.

    9. We have not exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the dendroclimatological work, but it seems that some of these criticisms show a
    rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU. They seem also to reflect a lack of awareness of the ongoing and
    dynamic nature of chronologies, and of the difficult circumstances under which university research is sometimes conducted. Funding and labour
    pressures and the need to publish have meant that pressing ahead with new work has been at the expense of what was regarded as non-essential record
    keeping. From our perspective it seems that the CRU sins were of omission rather than commission. Although we deplore the tone of much of the criticism
    that has been directed at CRU, we believe that this questioning of the methods and data used in dendroclimatology will ultimately have a beneficial effect and
    improve working practices.

    Temperatures from Historical Instrumental Records
    [...]
    4. Like the work on tree rings this work is strongly dependent on statistical analysis and our comments are essentially the same. Although there are
    certainly different ways of handling the data, some of which might be superior, as far as we can judge the methods which CRU has employed are fair
    and satisfactory. Particular attention was given to records that seemed anomalous and to establishing whether the anomaly was an artefact or the
    result of some natural process. There was also the challenge of dealing with gaps in otherwise high quality data series. In detailed discussion with the
    researchers we found them to be objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a
    particular agenda. Their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible. All of the published work was
    accompanied by detailed descriptions of uncertainties and accompanied by appropriate caveats. The same was true in face to face discussions.

  52. DLM Says:

    whitewash

    The public is not buying it.

    See latest polls.

    See Copenhagen.

    But I hope this whitewash helps Dr. Phil to stop contemplating suicide.

  53. Igor Samoylenko Says:

    DLM,

    Can you at least try to be consistent? If you think it is whitewash, why did you quote it in the other thread? Or is it the whitewash for all conclusions you don’t like and is not whitewash for the conclusions you like (such as the call to collaborate with professional statisticians more)?

  54. DLM Says:

    It a whitewash that contains a few shreds of truth. As little truth as their ideology would allow.

    Please do not insult our intelligence by expecting us to believe that it was an impartial, and thorough investigation.

  55. JvdLaan Says:

    See latest polls.

    Oh polls, how much in the USA believe Evolution is the best theory to explain biodiversity?

    Speaking of insulting one’s intelligence…

  56. Igor Samoylenko Says:

    In other words: “I pick what I like and ignore everything else”. Great attitude!

  57. DLM Says:

    Jvd,

    Actually, I was thinking of a very telling poll on public opinion in a far more enlightened and GREEN country. Have you seen the report from that right-wing tool of BIG OIL! and U.S. imperialism: Der Spiegel

    “Climate Catastrophe
    A Superstorm for Global Warming Research

    Meanwhile, there are growing concerns in Berlin that German citizens could become less willing to pay for costly efforts to protect the climate. A poll conducted on behalf of SPIEGEL already signals a dramatic shift in public opinion and suggests that Germans are losing their fear of climate change. The strong majority of 58 percent who said they feared global warming about three years ago has declined to a minority of 42 percent.”

    The people are losing their fear. What are we going to do? Can we whitewash this?

    The scare tactics of the alarmists are not working anymore. Sorry.

  58. DLM Says:

    Igor, Igor

    Please allow me to quote myself: “I pick what has veracity and discard the bull $%^*.”

  59. JvdLaan Says:

    @DLM
    Keep your strawmen army to yourself. I do not trust polls in general when it is about science. Do a poll on astrology, tooth fairy and Noha’s Ark. You would be surprised, or not, depending what you believe yourself

  60. phinniethewoo Says:

    jaapke

    is it becoz polls are a statistical instrument that you do not trust them?

  61. Eli Rabett Says:

    Shub, the argument has not been about whether it would have been preferable in some sense to retain twenty year old data, but the denialists insistence that there was a DUTY to do so and that they have a right to all documents generated in that research. As Eli has shown, no such duty was imposed by the 1990 publication by Jones in Nature by the journal. Moreover, university and government rules only require data to be held for seven years.

    However Eli eagerly awaits your and your ilks strong financial support of the Eli Rabett Fund for Storing Climate Data Forever (coming soon) which will enable CRU, GISS, NOAA and all the rest to run servers, hire staff and make all of this available to you on a finger touch basis

  62. DLM Says:

    jvd,

    You are not discussing science here, you are discussing politics. The purpose of these anti-denier sites is to attempt to counter any skeptical argument against the catastrophic AGW agenda, which is a political agenda. If it was only about the science, the discussion would remain among scientists. Nobody else would be interested in this mundane BS, if you people weren’t claiming that the world is about to burn up and everyone has to revert to the stone age to prevent it. But I got news for you, by any political measure, your campaign is losing very badly. Public opinion polls show the credibility of your cause is circling the drain. The feckless crowd of the political elite who flocked in their private jets to that big party in Copenhagen are not moved to do anything substantive about the world being in imminent danger of burning up. What does that tell you?

  63. Shub Niggurath Says:

    ” Eli Rabett Fund for Storing Climate Data Forever ”

    Admit it, Eli. That *is* a good idea. An idea that the CRU did not live up to.

  64. mikep Says:

    I hope you are all aware that the Oxburgh report only seems to have considered 11 CRU papers, leaving out most of the contentious ones and not considering the CRU role in the IPCC at all. Moreover it seems that the 11 papers may have been chosen by CRU, they are certainly almost identical (10 out of 11) to the list that the UEA submission suggested to Parliament should be looked at. Finding that these 11 papers are Ok (ish) has therfoer almost nothing to do with the issues at stake.

  65. DLM Says:

    mikep,

    Steve McIntyre has done his usual thorough job in posts raking the whitewashers over the coals. It’s not surprising that they didn’t want to hear anything from him:) Oxburgh in charge, is like putting an attorney on retainer for the Mafia, at the head of an investigation into organized crime.

    You have to wonder what people are thinking when they say, with a presumably straight face, that these blatant whitewashes vindicate the cast of characters in Climategate, HockeystickGate, HimalyaGate, and etc.Gate.

    Can they honestly believe what they are saying?

  66. Eli Rabett Says:

    Shub, so contribute. Talk is cheap, data repositories cost.

  67. JvdLaan Says:

    polls are a statistical instrument…

    Hahahah, you are so funny….

    So the theory of evolution is therefore true in most northern European countries, but not in the USA?
    O dear, reality has a liberal bias…

  68. JvdLaan Says:

    @DLIM
    Can you talk only in Strawmenlanguage?
    You said I didn’t talk about science, well, your anti-science attitude is for us all to see. You can only rant on scientists and add they are after world supremacy and that they want you to go back into the stone age. You have had obviously no scientific background, so I wander what your motive is really. Did the schoolnerd ran off with your highschool sweetheart 50 years ago? ;-)
    And I have no campaign whatsoever, only I defend the scientific facts about AGW (and evolution). Which measurements to take, I do not know, but really, I will never ever concur any dictatorial measurements. Nobody here does. So please stop these false accusations

  69. phinniethewoo Says:

    @j’ke
    sod might be good at detecting clowns, as they are defined in your pathetic little l’tard worldview, he is certainly not good at understanding the world around him: Reality , “Out There..Visible through the windows of the fancytaxoverpaid for institute”

    # sod Says:
    March 26, 2010 at 06:47

    Observations imply that, if the data are to be believed, the planet has warmed gisstemp(2008)-gisstemp(1881)=0.43-(-0.2)=0.63 degrees, in the period 1881-2008.
    sorry, but this is [edit].
    VS is nothing but another guy who is trying to confuse the uneducated by lots of math.
    the idea that you should just compare the difference between two years instead of looking at a linear trend is [edit].

    so when sod travels from london to milan, will he say he has covered 2000 miles, or will he publish us an encyclopedia with lots of waffling about his walkabout?

  70. Robert Murphy Says:

    DLM said:

    “If it was only about the science, the discussion would remain among scientists.”

    That disqualifies people like Watts, McIntyre, McKitrick, Monckton, and so on. Have you called on them yet to stop spreading disinformation and making outlandish accusations concerning the integrity of climate scientists? After all, none of them have any background as scientists, let alone as climate researchers. If the discussion were to remain among climate scientists, the denial-sphere would be out of business.

    Fact is, there is no real controversy about the broad claims of AGW among those scientists who actually study the subject. The *controversy* that does exist concerning the broad claims of AGW are almost entirely manufactured by people who have no background in the subject. The impressions and opinions of economists and TV weathermen are no more relevant than those of Joe Shmoe on the street.

  71. cynicus Says:

    In one of phinniethewoo’s funny blurps of blind denial he/she claims:

    Boats account for 20% of GHG, and shipping lanes cover about 0.001% of the sea surface.

    The ocean surface uhi sites are placed inside buoys on erm erm that’s right: Shipping lanes.

    Now don’t come straw man me with Bart’s satellite’s argument,

    No need to refer to the excellent agreement between satellite and thermometer measurements. Just look at the ARGO buoy distribution. You claim all oceans from the Northpole to the Southpole are just one big shipping lane?

    Also, care to explain the strawman argument please?

  72. phinniethewoo Says:

    cynicus

    hahahaha

    when you make a statement like :
    1970-2000 is 0.4 degrees hotter than
    1940-1970

    then you have to make that statement with observations done with the same equipment,or for my part better equipment but at least in the same place , in 2000 as in 1940.

    the strawman argument like:
    “here, i found a tweet with satellite links or with modern buoys”
    just isn’t valid.

    I see this strawman argument redeployed over and over again.

    [edit]

  73. phinniethewoo Says:

    but it is a nice try cynicus and I agree:

    An extensive and professional (read: not done with any of the consensus clowns in charge) TSA analysis of the oceans and shipping lane locations with the best resolution available (daily recordings)
    should reveal the upwards skewering uhi effect of the shipping lanes.

    or maybe not.
    the “earth temperature” measure is a fata morgana anyways.

    since 1995 an encompassing global temperature picture is recorded of course by means of satellites and many more buoys
    But they will only give us historical info from 1995+ onwards.
    Not from 1940.

  74. DLM Says:

    Robert Murphy,

    Al Gore is the Nobel Prize winning champion of the climate science consensus. He is embraced and honored by the climate science establishment. He is a fraud. But you are just indignant about Watts and McIntyre. They call that hypocrisy.

    And the credibility of the settled science circles the drain.

  75. Robert Murphy Says:

    DLM, Al Gore is not a scientist nor is he trying to be one. He’s expressing (for the most part) what the vast majority of climate scientists already have come to understand. He’s an activist. Watts and McIntyre are the frauds, pretending to be scientists (and not activists) and pretending to do science while in fact tearing down real scientists in the process.

    “But you are just indignant about Watts and McIntyre.”

    I shouldn’t be mad when people who don’t know what the hell they are talking about make baseless accusations against honest scientists, in an effort to deliberately confuse people and misinform the populace? They should be ashamed of how they’ve acted, but they lack that level of honesty.

    Tell you what though. If you want, I’ll accept for the sake of argument that Al Gore shouldn’t be looked to for answers concerning climate science. Neither should frauds like Watts, McIntyre, McKitrick and Monckton, none of whom have any relevant backgrounds in the field either. Remember, YOU were the one who said:

    “If it was only about the science, the discussion would remain among scientists.”

    I agree. Lets have just the climate scientists discuss the issues. Your side will have a handful of cranks and contrarians. My side will have the vast majority of climate scientists. You *really* don’t want to go there.

  76. DLM Says:

    Robert Murphy says: “blah…blah…blah…”

    As the credibility of the settled science circles the drain.

    Keep up the good work, bob.

  77. Robert Murphy Says:

    DLM says”I’m not listening! I’m not listening!!” as he is unable to answer any of my points. Typical denialista.

  78. DLM Says:

    You misquoted me, bob. I am not surprised.

    The denialistas are winning, bob. Sorry.

    It’s not the heat that is missing. It’s the science.

    The dogma will continue to crumble, on it’s own.

    That should cover it, bob.

    PS
    Try to stop being so fearful, bob.
    Free your mind, and your a$$ will follow.
    Watch my stocks bob: HDVY.OB POSC.OB
    And the rich get richer.

  79. Tim Curtin Says:

    Rev Father Murphy (SJ etc) said 21 April: “If you want, I’ll accept for the sake of argument that Al Gore shouldn’t be looked to for answers concerning climate science. Neither should frauds like Watts, McIntyre, McKitrick and Monckton, none of whom have any relevant backgrounds in the field either.”

    Dear Rev: you are obviously not worth suing in respect of your defamatory statements about Watts, the Mcs, and Chris Monckton. If you were you would have to justify your allegation in court. The “relevant backgrounds” claim was used against Galileo which is why I know you are a CC Rev or wannabe. Watts collects data, the Macs have every qualification for analysing it, and Chris is as much entitled to proselytise as you, but with more hard facts than you have marshalled so far.

  80. Bart Says:

    Can we keep the discussion on substance please?

  81. JvdLaan Says:

    @Tim Curtin, finally, we’ve been all waiting for, there he is, Galileo! My bullshit bingo card is full!

    Now it is tempting to mention Bozo the Clown, but you all have been addressed clowns already, I will not ;-). And Tim Curtin keep your threats to yourself, but it was nice reading since everyone knows you now.

    @Turris, please take your medicine if you already are on meds, since your random thoughts randomnize in all directions! And Down syndroms are not patients, please show some respect.

  82. cynicus Says:

    hahahaha

    when you make a statement like :
    1970-2000 is 0.4 degrees hotter than
    1940-1970

    then you have to make that statement with observations done with the same equipment,or for my part better equipment but at least in the same place , in 2000 as in 1940.

    I completely agree. And it’s why noone serious would make a comparison like this. So please, show me, which scientists or prominent pro-AGW spokesperson makes statements like this? It seems to me that you are making this argument up so you can easily shoot it down. Invent a strawman to disprove a non-existing strawman. Very funny indeed.

    the strawman argument like:
    “here, i found a tweet with satellite links or with modern buoys”
    just isn’t valid.

    Where’s the strawman argument in there? As it happens, satellite temperature measurements correlate pretty well with the Argo floats. So where’s the research that shows that buoys don’t correlate with satellite readings? Have you done the appropriate analysis on the Argo data to prove your point?

    I see this strawman argument redeployed over and over again.

    Well, maybe if you only look at the contrarian weblogs you’ll I see these unsupported and demonstratively untrue statements redeployed over and over again. But that’s hardly a surprise isn’t it? Maybe you should complain to them…

    I take it back that the consensus science looks like tin-foil-hat science:
    It is more like moronic libtard science as scribbled up by dow syndrome patients ? I fail to see any coherence in it all, to be honest.

    If you would be honest, you wouldn’t write the nonsense about the Argo floats vs satellite temperature readings as you’ve done twice now.

    Can you please leave out comments about ‘Dow syndrome patients’? I don’t see any reason to abuse their unfortunate condition in this discussion. I wouldn’t mind Bart removing comments as low as this.

  83. Robert Murphy Says:

    DLM said:
    “You misquoted me, bob. I am not surprised”

    And *I* actually said “Blah blah blah”? Sorry, I’m new to this forum and wasn’t aware you’re the resident troll.

    Mr Curtin, I’ve read Galileo, and you’re no Galileo. And neither are those frauds Watts and McIntyre, McKitrick and Monckton. Watts collects *data*? He takes pictures and is allergic to doing mathematical analyses. The Mc’s most definetely does NOT have the creds to analyze the data. Two are economists, the other is a journalist who has delusions he’s a member of the House of Lords.
    But enough of this. Pearls, swine; you know the rest. Playing wack-a-mole with morons is not my idea of fun. The main thing is the fact that after all this time, no credible accusations have been substantiated against climate scientists, and the denialistas can’t stand it.
    “Galileo” and his pet monkey can have the last say. :)

  84. phinniethewoo Says:

    cynicus

    -the 1940-1970 1970-2000 statement was the highmark of the IPCC for the last few years?
    Has it been recanted?
    I would not think so becasue it is the only statement that carries any scientific legitimacy with it about our “changing climate”.. all the rest : swimming polar bears, molten glaciers is all hype without substance.
    Allegedly the temperature recoring statment would NOT be hypre.

    -I agree the IPCC came at it without any statistics of any value that’s for sure.

    -Argos:
    The origins of Argo can be found in the 1990-1997 World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE). WOCE is part of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and set out to collect an unprecedented set of observations.

    You tell me why the Argos buoys, switched on in the 90s, scrutinously verified by satellites, have anything to do with the 1940-1970 1970-2000 statement..
    Are you going to invoke pre-active anti-causal quantum mechanics for this??
    You tell me where the buoys used in 1940 were located, and we take it from there.

    About the Argos buoys: you show dots, I talk shipping lanes, which are ribbons on the map: could you show me a graph with the Ribbons AND the dots, please? just for convenience. I don’t think the buoys are been serviced by helicopters.
    hahahaha
    I contend now, for a give-away to you, that the boats servicing the buoys are bigger than they were in 1940, and they are serviced more frequently? that would cause a UHI effect indeed on them.

    UHI:
    In my opinion it COULD be scientifically statistically demonstrated that there IS a UHI effect in the oceans, around the buoys. Satellite temperature data could be TSA processed and the shipping lane ribbons could be retrieved out of the data. Just give me piece of the billion dollar “research” pie, and I’ll do that for you.

  85. phinniethewoo Says:

    Robert Murphy

    Your rant isn’t 21st century science either.

    The IPCC & the consensus institutes alike & their 1000s of “scientists” keep on “updating” their many documents daily because of the work of 10 hobbyist scientists that are NOT paid by many many “research grants”

    The West’s universities , eduKation in general and research funding is rotten until the bottom.
    And it appears there will only be a clean deck made on this when the “far” right takes over.

  86. Shub Niggurath Says:

    What Mr Murphy, wandered in over from CACC?

    Who taught you the word – denialista? :) Welcome to Bart’s – where some of us denialistas are vainly attempting to co-exist with the warmistas. Hang around, be of gentle manner (no spitting against the wind please) and let us see if we can learn some climate science.

  87. Scott Mandia Says:

    Bart, you might be interested in this little piece of research I just did:

    Climategate Coverage: Unfair & Unbalanced

    Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences
    Selden, NY
    Global Warming: Man or Myth?
    My Global Warming Blog
    Twitter @AGW_Prof
    “Global Warming Fact of the Day” Facebook Group

  88. cynicus Says:

    phinniethewoo: no armwaving “it’s the IPCC, but you will have to prove it yourself” please. You’ve apparently seen this thing that you’ve got problems with many times so you should be able to give a link, no?

    You tell me why the Argos buoys, switched on in the 90s, scrutinously verified by satellites, have anything to do with the 1940-1970 1970-2000 statement..

    Haha, you’re really funny: you want me to defend something that you yourself claimed.

    About the Argos buoys: you show dots, I talk shipping lanes, which are ribbons on the map: could you show me a graph with the Ribbons AND the dots, please? just for convenience.

    If you read my first reaction to your nonsense again, you’d see a link to the shipping lanes as well as a link to the buoy positions. If you want to overlay the two images; go ahead, but anyone can see the dot’s don’t match the lanes. Sorry, but your ocean shipping lane UHI argument refuses to leave port…

    I don’t think the buoys are been serviced by helicopters. I contend now, for a give-away to you, that the boats servicing the buoys are bigger than they were in 1940, and they are serviced more frequently? that would cause a UHI effect indeed on them.

    It’s a give-away for sure. Instead of assuming stuff, you could also start looking it up: What’s the lifetime of an Argo buoy and What happens when the buoy stops working. Sorry, but your ocean shipping lane UHI argument still refuses to leave port…

    UHI:
    In my opinion it COULD be scientifically statistically demonstrated that there IS a UHI effect in the oceans, around the buoys. Satellite temperature data could be TSA processed and the shipping lane ribbons could be retrieved out of the data. Just give me piece of the billion dollar “research” pie, and I’ll do that for you.

    What? You haven’t done any analysis of the data? Well, that sounds exactly like the “US surface temperature record is a fraud” meme by mr. Anthony Watts et ak: after years of parroting still no analysis, but already proven wrong by many others reconstructions in their spare time. Sorry, but I guess your ocean shipping lane UHI argument has been chained to the port wall…

    While you are very entertaining writing nonsense about the Argo floats a third time, it’s really an embarrassment. Worse even, it could have been prevented by just a simple visit to the Argo website. Dunning and Kruger would find you an interesting case, I’m pretty sure.

  89. DLM Says:

    Try to control your anger bob. You know our last days are coming, as the big warming apocalypse approaches. Let’s try to reconcile, before it’s too late. The warming is accelerating, right bob? Do you think that Al Gore has enough time to get another movie out?

  90. DLM Says:

    Prof. Scott,

    Maybe the media think that it is not news, when a whitewash ends in a phony ‘exoneration’.

    And perhaps the media are beginning to realize that the catastrophic AGW dogma is crumbling, and they are jumping off the careening bandwagon, before all the wheels come off.

    Nice try though.

  91. phinniethewoo Says:

    What we all DO know is that first 3 hot summer days in a row , all the repainted lefties will crawl out of the woodwork again with defty “scientific reports” on why the end is nigh. The BBCs taxoverpaidfor cannons all pointed to the injustice of not mitigating CO2.

    There is no point trying to win any intellectual argument here with the dow-syndrome– crowd here.

    The economist Mancur Olson describes very well the mechanism how a new soviet union filled to the nook with parasites can emerge from the West..All by chanting Obama psalms and describing the perceived injustices.

    The only approach to this is to describe perceived injustices ourselves.
    And we do not need even to imagine one Ayatollah Gore style:
    Why do we have a society in the West with institutionalists, gov rats, quangocrats and big corporation( who are all hand in glove with big state minions) mufti’s , on one side , with all their indefinite life long perks , and the other half of society who actually has to toil for the party all of their lives?
    This is an injustice.
    The climate research institutes, like all universities and research organs, should churn churn churn. Everybody shuld have his chance to blog about have the time for long discussions how the war is injust etc etc. Everybody should have that right. Everybody should have the occasion to work at the lower end.

    It is not because they are so “skilled” that warrants all the corporate protectionism. It is an injustice.

    i would not mind to complain a few years about too much CO2 , at taxpayers’ expense, in a fancy “research” position.

  92. phinniethewoo Says:

    I do not know about the argos buoys btw, neither do I have any issue with them I think (apart from that they likely cost too much– have they been outsourced to China? no..why not, how come?)

    What I do have issue with is with the irrefutable 1940-1970 1970-2000
    “scientific” conclusion, which is completely corrumpted by UHI.

  93. phinniethewoo Says:

    cynicus
    You tell me why the Argos buoys, switched on in the 90s, scrutinously verified by satellites, have anything to do with the 1940-1970 1970-2000 statement..

    Haha, you’re really funny: you want me to defend something that you yourself claimed.

    ?? I did NOT write that the buoys , scrutinuously verified by satellites, have anything to do with the 1940-19701970-2000 statement.
    How can something switched on in the 90′ , scrutinuously verified by something switched on in the lat 90s have anything to do with a statement involving the 1940s?

    hahahaha

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 127 other followers

%d bloggers like this: