Climate change data dumped

[notesdev]

Source: TimesOnline (UK)

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.

...


Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

---

The data supporting global warming catastrophism appears to be highly elusive, almost as if someone doesn't want it to be found...

[Aramchek]

1. yeah, it must be something else melting all the once permanent icecaps, eh?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JonQ]

66. The question is not global climate change

but rather mans role in it.

I can demonstrate quite clearly that earthquakes occur. Anyone who denies it would be moronic. But it would require a different argument to prove that we have a role in creating them.

[PaulaFarrell]

129. Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/top-5-ways-that/

[NickB79]

136. Geothermal Power Plant Triggers Earthquake

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/geothermal_powe.php

"Christian D. Klose of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, reports that over 200 quakes can be attributed to mankind's activity in National Geographic. The most severe example was a quake of magnitude 5.6 in Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, an area not prone to seismic activity. The quake hit on December 28, 1989, killing 13 people, injuring 160, and causing US$3.5 billion in damages--more than the entire value of the coal mined over the life of the Newcastle operation. Klose suggests that similar activity could be caused by CO2 sequestration, the process of pumping CO2 into deep underground reservoirs."

[JonQ]

145. Ahaha

You're really stretching on that one. Would you say earthquakes in general are manmade?

I'm going to have to remember that one, people who buy this theory also believe man is responsible for earthquakes.

[Quantess]

162. "I'm going to have to remember that one". What are you waiting for?

I'm sure Free Republic will get a kick out of that little tidbit when you repeat it there.

[philly_bob]

236. JonQ: Could you tell us about yourself?

How did you get involved in debunking the global warming hypothesis?

What are some of the other issues you care deeply about?

[Zhade]

210. Are you really a denier? You're THAT fucking stupid?

NT!

[JonQ]

262. Do you really think dumping scientific data

conspiring to prevent counter arguments from being heard, and manipulating said data to get a desired result is acceptable?

Are you that scientifically illiterate and dishonest?

[Nihil]

276. Have you thought of asking NASA if they agree?

Seeing as how they provided the copies of the original data that UEA were using ...

Maybe NASA (being American and all that) are somehow more reliable than those
damn foreigners in the old Empire who cheat and change their data?

I'm sure that given your energy in this thread (and their parallels in DU) that you
would have done that simple task before casting your slander/libel on the
UEA scientists?

Or maybe you are "that scientifically illiterate and dishonest"?

[JonQ]

277. That is an assertion

put forward by some users on here, not by NASA or the CRU. I would imagine "those damn foreigners" as you call them, would have had the wits to know where their data came from and had it been stored elsewhere they wouldn't have simply said: it's gone, sorry, our bad. THey would have said, go ask NASA, look for data with the accession numbers . . .

Sorry but you've turned your own speculation in to verifiable fact, but unfortunately only in your own head.

[Nihil]

279. No, you are wrong (again)

> That is an assertion put forward by some users on here, not by NASA or the CRU.
> I would imagine "those damn foreigners" as you call them, would have had the
> wits to know where their data came from and had it been stored elsewhere they
> wouldn't have simply said: it's gone, sorry, our bad. THey would have said, go
> ask NASA, look for data with the accession numbers . . .


Strangely enough, this is almost exactly how Professor Jones answered his critics
right at the start:

>> Refuting CEI's claims of data-destruction, Jones said, "We haven't destroyed
>> anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the
>> National Climatic Data Center."


In addition, the resulting derived dataset (which is, I believe, still available
for download from CRU) was shown to be in conformance with other datasets:

>> Tom Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
>> National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., noted that the conclusions
>> of the IPCC reports are based on several data sets in addition to the CRU,
>> including data from NOAA, NASA and the United Kingdom Met Office. Each of
>> those data sets basically show identical multi-decadal trends, Karl said.

(Both of the above are from http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3)


Not surprisingly, Professor Jones also pointed out this correlation between
independent datasets:
>> Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely
>> independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate
>> Data Center in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore
>> our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves;
>> there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.

And to remind others that the CRU *were* cooperating before the "hack":
>> We have been bombarded by Freedom of Information requests to release the
>> temperature data that are provided to us by meteorological services around
>> the world via a large network of weather stations. This information is not
>> ours to give without the permission of the meteorological services involved.
>> We have responded to these Freedom of Information requests appropriately
>> and with the knowledge and guidance of the Information Commissioner.

(Both of the above are from the UEA statement of 24-Nov-09)

W.r.t. the use of "bombarded" in the above statement, I remind people that
one particular self-appointed "skeptic" submitted 58 FOI requests in a five
day period ... a tactic that will be familiar to DUers who have encountered
repeated yet pointless interruptions from disuptors who should have been
tombstoned a long time ago ...

[JonQ]

284. Again, you are going by the personal claims of those involved in the scandal

until the actual data emerges (rather than hypothetical) you have to admit that their word is insufficient to base an entire theory on, don't you? You do know that science is based not on personal trust and faith, but demonstrative and reproducible evidence? Until it is shown we have nothing but the words of those accused that they are innocent.

[Viking12]

287. You are hereby accussed of evil-doing

There, now no one can ever trust a word you say and you can't even defend yourself.

BTW the data is right here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/

Check it yourself.

[JonQ]

289. Oh no! I am accussed (sic)!

From this day forth I shall be known as a heretic, who went against the proclamations of gaias earthly representatives (whose will be done), who did not believe the prophecy as told by the casting of bones er .. . the making up of data. And so thusly we are all doomed to burn by gaias wrath! Fear her righteous judgment via carbon dioxide!

I shall henceforth wear the scarlet A (for accussed) on the back of my pantaloons.

[defendandprotect]

227. Global warming will also increase earthquake activity . . .

[24601]

272. And Solar Flares, too n/t

[JonQ]

285. And terrorism

and tsunamis, and reality TV shows, and spitting on the sidewalk, and everything else that people don't like.

[Igel]

176. I'll intrude.

The problem isn't the current state. That could arise in any number of ways. Some isolated events are interesting but not horribly useful. Barley in Greenland in 2006? Ah, that means it's like it was in the 1500s. Lake Titicaca has drought and evaporation and how very low water levels? Ah, that repeats the 1940s "warm spike". The tundra's thawing and exposing forests for the first time in 2000 years! 2000 years? Ah, the Roman warming period. Climate change in the US SW leading to drought? Ah, turns out that most of the 20th century was above average in rainfall, so the climate "change" is "reverting to average." Oops. All of the anecdotes sound horrible, and they sound worse when put together. Data is, in some sense, the plural of anecdote.

Still, isolated examples aren't dreadfully useful for science. They are useful for the press, for politicians, for activists engaging in agitprop.

The problem isn't the historical data. They're also unimportant in many respects. They're crucial in that everything's built on them. But by themselves they're just numbers on the page, and not very useful ones at that.

The problem is that the data have to be adjusted. This is inevitable. Over 150 years we have different kinds of equipment located in different areas, produced using different technologies. The areas have been changing--a weather station on the edge of Baltimore in 1810 would now be close to downtown. Locations where measurements are are inconsistent, and the nature of the measurements are inconsistent. Then you have to extrapolate conditions over an area from a single adjusted data point. Ooh.

The problem is that the entire hypothesis relies crucially upon whether the adjusted data fit the projections of the models based on assertions as to how the sun, Earth's atmosphere, oceans, cloud cover, and human-caused changes to the atmosphere and cloud cover interact over time.

In all of that there's experimental error, and error in adjustments. There are errors and uncertainty in the models because a lot of the things going into forming the are empirical and contain error and uncertainty. I'm disappointed that I almost never hear the error and uncertainty mentioned--and when I do it's usually put badly and almost unintelligibly.

So while your example is entertaining, it doesn't really mean a whole lot in the debate.

[ananda]

2. The UEA has a lot to answer for.

However, just because one university has questionable
practices and emails does not change the science
around human caused global warming and the effects
of pollution and carbon emissions.

[notesdev]

5. Actually it does

since this is the underlying basis for all the "we're all going to die from global warming" claims.

Just to give a little benefit of my experience... people who believe they are telling you the truth (whether in reality right or wrong) don't try this hard to make data inaccessible. They've rigged the data and they know it, and now they are deleting/have deleted it to cover their tracks.

[time_has_come]

10. "this is the underlying basis for all the 'we're going to die from global...."

on what basis do you say that?

And on what basis can you say data has been "rigged"?

[notesdev]

17. It's the source of the temperature reconstruction

As far as the data being rigged, the East Anglia emails and documents reveal that to be a quite explicit process. It's actually documented right in the code that they rework all the post-1960 data to conform to their theory, rather than the other way around. Search on "climategate" and you will be treated to an amazing demonstration of what scientific fraud looks like.

I was as stunned as anyone when I learned that these guys are the only source for actual scientific justification for the global warming theory. As we can see now it was never science at all.

[time_has_come]

28. Were you STUNNED? Really? The only source? Where did you learn that?

smalldeadanimals.com?

Come on man, people here are not idiots. Your comments and claims are without merit.

But I'll give you a chance. Show me just one, just one email from this hacked data that shows that scientific fraud occurred. Don't just make a claim, and don't come back and call me a religious cultist unwilling to look at anything outside my core belief....because I'm asking you to show me. I will read it.

Please don't just send me to some massive website with an agenda though. You said "As far as the data being rigged....emails and documents reveal that to be a quite explicit process." And you said "actually documented right in the code that they rework all the.....data to conform to their theory".

No, "search on climategate" is not good enough. You're making specific claims, "amazing demonstration of what scientific fraud looks like".

If it's so "amazing" then surely, SURELY you can point me to at least one, maybe even two, specific emails that demonstrate to any reasonable person as you feel it has to you.

Otherwise you're full of shit, hughly.

[Ghost Dog]

34. I wish you luck obtaining a satisfactory reply.

I've received no reply at all to the following exchange at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x498943 :

notesdev ... Sat Nov-28-09 11:53 PM Response to Original message
2. Quite amazing

how skilled they are at getting people to not only accept but enthusiastically welcome an unaccountable, unelected, undemocratic system of global governance. The question is will this farce be able to continue in the wake of ClimateGate?

...

Ghost Dog (1000+ posts) ... Sun Nov-29-09 08:40 AM Response to Reply #2
5. Well, at least you refer to (and decry) "global governance",

rather than "Global Government", perhaps to (unsuccessfully) avoid association with the anti-NWO nutjobs.

You are, presumably, viscerally against the USA being a party to any International Treaties and similar such as, say, the World Trade Organisation, the International Tropical Timber Agreement, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Geneva Convention and so many others?

I think we can see that this poster is probably interested in "ClimateGate" based on a pre-existing ideological point of view.

[krkaufman]

56. had to chuckle when reading the quoted bit...

how skilled they are at getting people to not only accept but enthusiastically welcome an unaccountable, unelected, undemocratic system of global governance.

I thought he was referring to the WTO.

[SpiralHawk]

61. He is full of republicon 'factiness'

eom

[notesdev]

85. I learned that from warmers themselves by asking basic questions

Find me another source for global temperature reconstruction that agrees with and does not rely on the Jones/Briffa/Mann reconstructions and I'll take a look. While you're at it please provide an explanation of why the Medieval Warm Period suddenly disappeared once these clowns got control of the IPCC.

>Show me just one, just one email from this hacked data that shows that scientific fraud occurred.

Here's a whole list of them:

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/private-climate-conversations-on-display/?sort=oldest&offset=6

I'll highlight a few for your pleasure:

• Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)


• Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)

• Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)

• Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)

• Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)

• Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)

• Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)

• Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)

• David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)


Then there's the program code itself, which has some very revealing comments, including:

. FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro ; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD - but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

and

* FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=<1881,1940>
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=<1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904>
valadj=<0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$[br /> 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(…)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj



If someone got caught doing this at NASA, how long would they keep their job?

[alfredo]

149. the question is, did these guys win the day after peer review?

[lapfog_1]

38. Again, this is a lie.

I stored the data for NASA, I know where it is. East Anglia is NOT the authoritative repository.

[jwirr]

Thank you because that is exactly what we need to debunk this attack,

[Abq_Sarah]

113. Okay, then

Where is the "authoritative repository"?

Who is storing the raw data?

Why has it not been released?

[lapfog_1]

121. As far as I know, the authoritative repository

for MOST (but not all) climate data is NASA. Specifically, ESDIS. Located here:

http://esdis.eosdis.nasa.gov/

I don't know of any other repository as large in scope or as complete in raw data as the one at NASA.

However, I don't think there is any formal designation as the "World's authoritative repository".

And all of their data is available. Go to their site, fill out a form, get the data.

[Ghost Dog]

41. Please see #26. n/t

[beardown]

51. You've only got half the story

Per your statement that "It's the source of the temperature reconstruction" which implies that all of the data has not only been stored in one place, but it's now been lost. Who does that remind you of?

Rumor has it that after Cheney left office that he got the job as the archivist for all climate change data, got it all moved to one storage room, and then 'lost' it as he always does.

We'll know for sure if the rumor is true if the climate data is released and it shows a justification for the invasion of Greenland.

Hey, as long as I'm responding to a nut case conspiracy thread I might as well join in. Hey, is it more fun if you actually believe the nutty conspiracy?

[lapfog_1]

23. You lie,

Just like Joe Wilson.

I stored the data for NASA. I know it's all still there, and in multiple places.

I worked with climate science people all over the globe. NASA was the authoritative location for ALL of the climate data. The various universities were simply repositories of COPIES of the data. There are multiple copies.

[niceypoo]

46. You actually believe that the basis of global warming comes from the University of East Anglia?

:rofl:

That is just stunningly ignorant

[Warren Stupidity]

48. It is a well known fact

in freepertown.

[Zhade]

211. Why is the douchebag idiot OP still on DU?

He's clearly a liar and a troll.

[CreekDog]

157. the data was dumped in the 1980's and you're saying they conspired then to prove this now?

makes no f****** sense.

[karynnj]

208. What is your experience with data?

as you claim to be giving people the benefit of your "experience".

PS It was not a matter of "deleting it". It was not retaining old magnetic tapes that it was stored on.

[bemildred]

3. "Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s"

And the Mighty Wurlitzer(R) spins on ....

[endless october]

4. how do they keep their jobs?

as a scientist, i would have been thrown out on my ass for similar behavior.

[notesdev]

8. Because GW is propaganda, not science

No scientist would behave as the emails reveal these people have behaved. Were science an actual religion, data deletion would be right on top of the "thou shalt not" list, perhaps just after "thou shalt not deliberately misrepresent what thou knowest be true".

[time_has_come]

13. Global warming is propadanda?

No, global warming denial is.

Tell me, would you point at past warming events as evidence that current warming is natural? Or have you developed an opinion that the world isn't actually warming?

No more blanket slander, tell us what you have chosen to believe.

[Aramchek]

14. Sen. Inhofe, is that you?

[defendandprotect]

228. What a ridiculous man . . . . watching him in a hearing is frightening . . .

to think that we actually have someone this stupid in Congress -- this uninformed --

is frightening!

[nickinSTL]

27. have you actually looked at climate change data yourself?

or searched any peer-reviewed journals on climatology online?

Guess what, it isn't just based on East Anglia's data - every legitimate scientist in this area in the world agrees global warming is happening. Whether it's being influenced by human activity is the only thing that's debatable.

If you think otherwise, you must agree with a former friend of mine, who believes that every scientist expert in this area of study in the world is part of a global conspiracy.

[krkaufman]

58. Yes, it's a conpiracy designed to keep themselves funded ...

... so they can retain their lavish lifestyles, and keep the fossil execs from Exxon, etc languishing in poverty. (Who has the truly profitable agenda?)

[Abq_Sarah]

115. Well, since

No one will release either the data or the models required to replicate the studies, it's disingenuous to ask if they've looked at the data, isn't it?

Same for peer review. The data isn't reviewed, it's the strength of the Author's name.

[nickinSTL]

169. you can find climate data

if you just look for it.

You can't look at this East Anglia data, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there to be found.

To say that peer reviewed articles are on the strength of the author's name is to indicate a complete lack of understanding of peer review, IMO. Peer reviewed articles MUST include supporting data to be published.

[Abq_Sarah]

222. Including the historical raw data

That CRU admitted they "threw out"?

[kestrel91316]

37. Because of some emails out of context we can ignore the fact that

glaciers around the world are disappearing at light speed, and the same for the Greenland ice cap, and apparently also the Antarctic ice cap?

Wow, cool. I'm gonna go buy me a Hummer or three.

[lapfog_1]

49. This is a last ditch coordinated attack in advance of

Copenhagen, to discredit climate change scientists and the data behind it.

It's bullshit and a number of posters here that are either completely misled or intentionally deceitful should not be here to spread their misinformation.

I worked for NASA for 10 years (1989 to 1999). My title was Chief Scientist. My job was Chief Architect for Data Storage Systems. I was building multi-petabyte storage systems back when a petabyte actually was very impressive.

I worked with a group from NASA Goddard called the DAO (Data Acquisition Office). They were the primary group in NASA to retrieve Earth Observation data from all sources (remote sensing satellites, earth weather station, ocean buoys, military and cargo ships, etc). I stored their data for them. They gave it to the EOSDIS program at NASA Goddard, where it was distributed to universities around the world. There was a blue ribbon panel commissioned to review EOSDIS, I was selected by my division chief to be the Storage Review Manager. I believe that they implemented most, if not all, of my recommendations.

I have numerous published papers in peer reviewed journals and 3 patents in the area of Data Storage. I also chaired IEEE meetings and ACM meetings on storage related topics. I was also the NASA representative to the IEEE standards committee on hierarchical storage standards.

This story is bullshit.

Raw data products are not interesting to anyone in climate science. They haven't been corrected for instrument variance nor combined with other instrument or platform data to form more accurate products. The climate modelers are only interested in the complex products, not the raw data (once they have been assured of the accuracy of the complex products). Some university in GB is NOT the authoritative source for any of the raw data that I collected and stored for the DAO. They *might* have been one of the repositories for certain products from EOSDIS. But they were never the only location where any of the data (raw, processed, etc) was stored.

[krkaufman]

59. I think I can predict your response to the ending ...

... of 'Terminator 2.'

Thanks for the insight.

[notesdev]

88. Right...

and the flood of warmer hysteria stories that just happened to come out this week, well, the timing of those is angelically innocent coincidence.

Pay no attention to the carbon-trading financiers behind the curtain, nor to the fact that carbon dioxide emissions are a far better proxy for economic activity than they are for temperature.

[sudopod]

205. Well, the Copenhagen conference is kind of a big deal. :3 nt

[tidy_bowl]

110. And we have a winner....

... for the operative sentence in your post, (once they have been assured of the accuracy of the complex products). Without the raw data anything that is derived from it is SUSPECT. It has to be for how can you prove otherwise? There must be a complete audit trail back to the raw data otherwise it is impossible to check and therefore unreliable. We should be calling for complete transparency of all data that has been used for AGW modeling, etc. That is so it can be checked by others not at the center of the issue. Anything less is unscientific and dishonest ultimately. The issue here is what is the REAL truth. That is all I am interested in and let the chips fall where they may.

[lapfog_1]

117. You are an idiot.

Mostly a complete one.

The raw uncalibrated data is useless.

What you are saying is that we can't be sure of the temperature of a pot of water without the HEIGHT of the mercury in the thermometer. Because once you apply NUMBERS to the mercury, you've CALIBRATED the thermometer. Scientists write down the temperature of the water, as measured by the thermometer, in DEGREES not in "so many centimeters of mercury". After they are assured that the thermometer has been calibrated. They might, depending on the instrument, routinely re-calibrate it. Bet you don't re-calibrate the thermometer you stick up your ass to take your temperature. Bet you don't tell the doctor "I think I'm running a fever, the thermometer read 2.7 cm of mercury this morning!".

That is what the raw data is. The height of the mercury in the tube, not the degrees. It's called a level 0 product. Nobody uses it. They trust that the operator of the instrument is doing their job and calibrating it whenever the maker of the instrument recommends. They want the calibrated data for their models.

[kestrel91316]

128. GW is very real. But so are the armies of PAID CORPORATE SHILLS

who piss all over the internet trying to deny scientific facts.

[lapfog_1]

132. Many of them here in this thread, apparently. - n/t

[karynnj]

209. Thank you for writing this - this smear of scientists is disgusting

[Warren Stupidity]

45. How exactly do 'the emails' reveal 'these people' have behaved?

Or, more to the point, are you lost or just trolling on purpose?

[tidy_bowl]

105. You shall have....

....no other Gods but us.

[CreekDog]

158. you're posting propaganda, not science

you aren't offering any evidence anyway.

[bemildred]

6. Britain's Climate Research Unit to release data in wake of Climategate

In an about face brought about as a result of more than a thousand leaked emails last week, Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) announced it would make its data publically available, something which it had refused to do previously. The unit however has admitted that it did not have access to much of the raw data required to reconstruct climate records because it had been deleted.

In a statement on its website, the University of East Anglia said it would make the data available once it obtains releases from non-publication agreements it had signed with other entities. Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the university said, “CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements.”

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d29-Britains-Climate-Research-Unit-to-release-data-in-wake-of-Climategate

[DissedByBush]

80. What a turnaround

In the emails they were conspiring to use the non-publication agreements as an excuse to prevent the release of data.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[bemildred]

95. Yeah, but now I'm confused, I thought the data was gone, deleted.

Now they are going to release it all.

[DissedByBush]

164. Some data is gone

From what I hear mainly long-term historical data.

[lapfog_1]

171. If it was long term historical data

and not collected by remote sensing, then it will be easy to reconstruct. It's not like this university fielded a collection operation over the last 300 years and squirreled the data away and then "lost it". If it's long term historical data, then it was collected (however painstakingly) from thousands of sources around the world. Weather stations, town records, etc, etc. And it won't be all that "raw" either, as those records never included the raw data, only instrument (if that) data observed by scientists and meteorologists from that time.

There are many copies. Your town probably has one someplace in the town government, a listing of each days high and low temperature, cloud cover, precipitation.

You send requests for copies of ALL of it, thousands of cities, millions of data points, and you make a global temperature record. Even ships 200 or 300 years ago made routine weather observations. It's all been kept (more or less). The original records (and copies) are still around.

We have the historical record. Despite the claims by the deniers here. They weren't only copied to a computer tape and then thrown away.

[bemildred]

172. Like from before magnetic media, from books and stuff?

Which would still be there in that form, if anybody wanted to go get it? Not data that these guys generated in the first place?

[DissedByBush]

174. I don't know the whole story

Apparently it's mainly magnetic media that's gone.

[bemildred]

178. Well, then, the data is only lost if there are no copies.

The whole point of magnetic media is to have copies.

But the more fundamental point is to show that this data is somehow irreplaceable, for some relevant reason. It was thrown out in the 1980s, nobody seems to have noticed the lack until now. It's hard for me to get worked up about it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

7. Do you also believe there's a cover up about the moon landing?

That original footage was also lost.

The raw data was thrown out in the 1980s, before climate change was as important an issue as it is today.

[Overseas]

55. Sadly, New-Agey Anti-Climate Change PR

seems to be targeting people they can get to believe that the moon landing was a hoax too.

Maybe if you believe in invisible causes of all kinds of phenomena, skillful PR can get you to close your eyes to the evidence all around us. Empirical evidence matters far less if you believe in angels and demons.

I was really sad to reunite with an old friend recently who told me he just didn't believe in global warming. He had decided all the photos of rapidly retreating glaciers, ice caps breaking up, and the mountains of other data were all faked. Later in our visit, he revealed that he also believes the whole moon landing was faked, too.

His trusted source was one of those Everything You Know Is Wrong sites. Never mind the photos and data from thousands of different scientific sources.

Scientists disagree, you see. I guess he and his friends have faith, and that feels better than alarming facts on the ground, and evaluating varied interpretations of the data.

Another regrettable aspect of that group of deniers is that they aspire to be less materialistic, so one would think they'd welcome a worldwide reconsideration of speedy industrialization.

[DissedByBush]

181. I don't believe in angels and demons

I am a skeptic in all things.

The fact that global warming has what appears to be a large quasi-religious movement behind it doesn't help its credibility with me much.

Neither does the jostling for the trillions of dollars in payout.

I have been skeptical about the CRU for a while since they refuse to allow peer-review of their data.

Yet again my skepticism pays off.

It is funny that we're going on this new environmental priority.

It's not like we don't still have over 1,200 toxic waste sites to clean up in the US alone.

I guess toxic waste wasn't sexy enough. We needed some vague catastrophe that would kill us all, not just poison the locals.

[Overseas]

220. It is a pity you aren't skeptical of the sophisticated PR to discredit the danger

of the kind of global warming we've been seeing in the last 200 years.

Millions have been spent to make the fact that scientists disagree about the exact course climatic destabilization resulting from the deterioration of our atmosphere will take seem bigger than it is. Scientists are not religious leaders-- they can't give you one dogmatic interpretation of the course a destabilized climate will take. Depends on how quickly the oceans heat up and how that affects the currents we have relied on for centuries.

I am not skeptical about it because I have been watching the accelerating effects for decades now. I remember the gentler forecasts scientists gave us so as not to be too alarming. We have now exceeded those.

Of course we should be cleaning up toxic waste sites too.

And what is wrong with financing alternative energy and conservation technologies if they will help us preserve the limited resource of petroleum for a little longer? That's worth it to me. Supplement oil with solar, wind and conservation and we'll be less desperate as supplies dwindle further.

[DissedByBush]

223. The burden of proof is on the advocates

Not the skeptics.

"And what is wrong with financing alternative energy and conservation technologies if they will help us preserve the limited resource of petroleum for a little longer?"

I thought that was just common sense long before the global warming hype.

I originally signed on to environmentalism because I grew up in the smog-filled L.A. area so I've experienced what pollution can do. Sorry, no playing outside today, smog alert again.

But there's a difference between financing and subsidizing. Any solution that is not economical will become a drain on us taxpayers and thus is not really "renewable."

[Overseas]

226. Are you unaware of the large subsidies we've given fossil fuels?

Good heavens! Big oil has always gotten lots of tax breaks and half our military budget. So don't try that "economical" crap on me. The way we've been pushed around by Big Oil has been a gargantuan drain on us taxpayers, and they bank their profits offshore, like the war profiteers do.

But I've been around for a while. I remember when the free marketeers were telling us in the late 70's how alternative technologies just didn't work out in terms of cost benefit ratios. Well, then the environmentalists suggested incorporating all the costs of the dirtier fuels, including cleaning up the pollution, tax deductions, offshoring profits, and the resource wars, and suddenly, it was no longer fashionable to discuss Cost Benefit Ratios.

I'd have rather poured billions into Green jobs and technologies than into decimating Iraq and Afghanistan.

Petroleum is far less economical in the long term.

The really irritating aspect of alternative energy to corporate giants is the decentralization of power resources. Big Oil has enjoyed its control.

If you haven't seen The End of Suburbia please do. It is a charming movie about how the growth of the use of the automobile and gas "too cheap to meter" shaped our country and what that portends.

If you'd been watching all the articles over the past couple of decades, about how the earth has been changing, and reviewed international perspectives on those issues, you might be more inclined to believe the 99.9% of scientists, rather than the 0.1% that can be dug out of the woodwork to speak everywhere about their doubts.

And like another poster on this board said, "And someone ought to tell the icecaps to stop melting so fast."

[DissedByBush]

254. 99% of climate scientists are paid by whom?

Governments. The same ones who want to do a power grab under the guise of saving the planet.

[Overseas]

255. Oh please! Pull the other leg while you're at it !

A power grab by government? That would be a switch. We've been so heavily dominated by the "Free Market" (aka Private Cash) for so long, I wish governments were grabbing back some power.

And oh golly gee how scary-- they might be pushing us toward a course that will give thousands of small businesses a lot of work to do throughout our economy. Oh No! More Work! Whatever will we do with all that retrofitting work?

And American climate change deniers have a big hurdle to overcome-- the international community, where science education still goes on. Empirical evidence still means something. When they see the photos of the melting, and hear from residents of the Maldives about the rising sea levels, they don't think that Demons of Communism Have Possessed Those Folks!-- they just realize that global warming has accelerated as scientists had said might happen, and we ought to do something about it.

So save me your Big Bad Government Is Taking Over -- hysteria already! I want those green jobs now.

[DissedByBush]

256. Sea levels and photos mean nothing

The question is whether anything we can do can affect it.

I don't really care that it could be our fault. We've done a lot of damage to this planet that is clearly our fault, so what's one more thing?

BTW, when is the last time a business took over and took away the freedom of the people? When was the last time they purposely murdered millions?

Government has. Government still does.

"We the people" means little when the political power structure is running things.

[24601]

273. That was faked - shot on a movie lot. I saw it on TV. n/t

[time_has_come]

9. What a strange comment you tacked onto this news item...

...are you so ignorant of the subject that you think this unadjusted data from one laboratory is the only evidence of global warming?

This CRU hacked email story is more pablum for weak minds desperate to ignore the overwhelming evidence that global warming is happening and human activity is the cause. I'm seeing denier writings taking this latest nugget and claiming that the world has actually been cooling for dozens of years, and there's been a conspiracy to hide it. So then what of this weekend's news about permanent sea ice all but gone?

I'm more than a little sick of the stupidity. I guess a "socialist conspiracy to redistribute wealth" is more sexy and less scary than the reality. It would be nice, though, if these people mired in delusion would be quietly mired and let serious people try and preserve our climate.

[bemildred]

11. It's not stupidity, it's deliberate lying and misinformation. nt

[Aramchek]

15. you're talking about Global Warming denial, right?

or do you think it's normal to have no polar icecap in the North

[bemildred]

20. I'm talking about this "Climategate" bullshit, which is a pack of lies.

Climate change is real and (more of less) continuous throughout the history of the planet. I'm worried about large scale methane release and another Permian-Triassic event, and these morons are worried about protecting corporate profits. There are not going to be any corporations if Global Warming continues as it is.

Wikipedia

[Aramchek]

30. you're deluded if you think pumping millions of tons of Carbon into the atmosphere has no effect

sure, there are natural cycles of cooling and warming,
but those cycles were in a homeostatic balance before mankind jumped up and down on the scales.

[bemildred]

35. You seem confused about my views.

I.e., I do not think that "pumping millions of tons of Carbon into the atmosphere has no effect", nor did I say that.

FWIW, there is nothing contradictory in the ideas that 1.) the planet has warmed and cooled in geological time for "natural reasons", sometimes dramatically, and 2.) human activities can and do have effects on global climate; and I think that we are well on the way to human activities having profound effects on global climate.

We are a very successful species, but we don't seem to have got the hang of managing our "side effects" very well yet.

[Aramchek]

36. so you believe in Man-made Climate Change, you just disagree with one research institute's methods?

[bemildred]

40. I believe you are misinterpreting what I said.

I don't see where I questioned any research institutions methods.

[Aramchek]

42. what are you saying? Man-made climate change is a hoax or no?

[bemildred]

44. Where did I say that? nt

[HughMoran]

12. "Because GW is propaganda, not science"

I think your question was answered above.

[time_has_come]

16. You call that dishonest flippancy an answer?

If all we're doing is throwing shitballs then I guess it is an answer. In truth though, it's just a generalized slander from an ignorant person.

[notesdev]

18. I'm used to it

it's all they got, so it's all they throw. Religious cults work that way, they dissolve into incoherence when presented with information contradictory to their core beliefs.

[HughMoran]

22. Reposting your own words from above is "Religious cults work that way"

:rofl:

:crazy:

[time_has_come]

24. whatever

The only incoherence on this thread is you, pretending that this big revelation means the disappearance of all global warming evidence.

Whatever truth you think you possess on this I suggest you take your own advice. Don't marry yourself to it too tightly. Don't stray too far from reality.

[Syntheto]

32. I'll stand up next to you here...

...because everybody knows that if the exact same story came out about hackers/leakers/bullshit artists/whatever getting the story out about a group of scientists from the other side, that is, those who don't believe that climate volatility is caused by human industrial activity, and the emails were exposed for perusal, the true climate change believers (the Gorists) would immediately declare that criminal charges should be brought, probably after torture and public humiliation, against those people who weren't dignified enough to deserve the name scientist. The Gorists would praise on high the courage of the hacker/leaker/bullshit artist/whatever for fighting the 'establishment' (ie, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, Big Steel, All Western Industrial Concerns, the usual) and coming to save the planet. Phil Jones, Mike Mann and the rest would be on 24/7 soberly telling how little time we have left and how we've lost precious time because of the LIES spread by those who deny Gore.

Instead, it's the other way around, and the various news organizations are going the hell out of their way to bury this story, which is the most important scandal since Piltown Man.

Fight the good fight, pal.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Ah EvilAlGore

Stay frosty.

[JonQ]

74. He does stand to make or lose a fortune

based on their results.

Ask yourself, if it were anyone else, for any other field of research, would that persons personal stake in getting the "right" results come in to question?

If exxon funded a study showing their gasoline did not cause pollution would anyone on here question that study on the grounds of personal interest?

[krkaufman]

64. If the consequences were as grave as many state, then there'd be a story.

But rational people understand that, at worst, if the "tampering" story is true, it likely only implicates one group of researchers at one locale, and their messing with data can easily be reviewed. I welcome running the numbers, again, but, relative to agenda-driven advocacy, my "bias" will remain on the side of the public scientists.

edit... p.s. It's "Piltdown Man." And, come to think of it, your Piltdown Man reference provides a good example. Did the Piltdown Man (actual) hoax in any way inconveniently "untruth" Darwin's theories?

[JonQ]

75. That's the problem

it can't be reviewed because the original data is gone. You have only their word to go on.

[krkaufman]

83. Their copy of the original data may be gone . . .

... but that assumes their copy of the data is actually gone, and that they were the only organization with a copy of the data (which I find highly unlikely).

IF the above proves true, that there was only one copy of the data and it is now gone, THEN there may be a story significant beyond the possible disgrace of one group of scientists and their associated institution.

[JonQ]

86. But defending them requires speculation

that they are telling a lie for some reason, that others had copies, that it doesn't matter either way, etc.

I suspect that if they merely had a copy of someone elses data they would have mentioned that.

Something along the lines of "we have lost our copy, we are retrieving the originals from ______", rather than "yeah, we tossed it out, our bad".

[lapfog_1]

97. No it doesn't.

I fucking stored their data. It was my job. From 1994 to 1999.

Speculation? Bullshit.

Again, you lie.

[JonQ]

99. Funny how the researchers involved don't know that they have the data stored

clearly they should be asking random people on the internet where it is, everyone on here seems to know. :rofl:

[lapfog_1]

111. Nope, just me.

Just because I happen to be a former Chief Scientist at NASA. Chief Architect for Storage Systems at NASA Ames Research Center. Group Lead for Storage and Local Area Networks. One of my major "customers" was the DAO or Data Acquisition Office, which is the lead group responsible to EOSDIS (the climate data folks) for collecting all climate data for the planet Earth. I also led the review team for the contract that Lockheed had in the mid nineties to provide a storage system (distributed storage system) for the climate scientists. I reported to my Division Chief who reported to the Directorate Chief who reported to the Administrator who reported to the Vice President of the United States. I sat in (as a back bench participant) at a meeting with Al Gore, who wanted to know WHY a satellite (MODIS) was in cold storage at a Lockheed facility for months longer than it was supposed to be and costing NASA about $1.5 Million a month. The reason was simple, they didn't have the data storage system built to capture the data from it.

And I'm really tired of you.

You can either believe me or not, I don't give a crap.

[JonQ]

116. Quick to the labratory!

They need your wisdom to find their shredded, er accidentally misplaced files.

It is amazing that you are more of an expert on where this group stores it's data than the current head of that group. Kind of says that they don't know what they're doing.

[lapfog_1]

125. Twist this all you want, but your still wrong.

I don't have any idea where they put their copies of their tapes.

They say they threw them out when they moved buildings.

Good for them. It wouldn't have mattered anyway. Tapes more than 5 to 7 years old are likely unreadable by anyone. The oxide falls off.

But they don't USE the raw data anyway. They use the calibrated data.

Open your mind just a little (I know, it's hard for you)... what they are saying when they say they lost the raw data is like this:

An instrument records the height of mercury in a thermometer. A tape is made of THAT HEIGHT. The thermometer is calibrated and some numbers applied to the height of mercury (degrees Celsius) and another tape is made that only records the measured temperature as numbers. They lost the tapes with the measured height of the mercury, not the ones with the numbers.

That's what they lost.

BFD.

If they got their data from instruments around the world, then they aren't the only place where the raw data is stored (even uncalibrated). Way old data, from weather records and ships pre-satellite days, NEVER HAD A RAW COMPONENT as people just wrote down the calibrated numbers.

[JonQ]

140. "I don't have any idea where they put their copies of their tapes. "

But you do seem to know what data points they had and where they stored their backups.

"An instrument records the height of mercury in a thermometer. A tape is made of THAT HEIGHT. The thermometer is calibrated and some numbers applied to the height of mercury (degrees Celsius) and another tape is made that only records the measured temperature as numbers. They lost the tapes with the measured height of the mercury, not the ones with the numbers"

Wow, no that is not correct, not at all. The raw data was adjusted to account for regional variances, urban sprawl, moving sensors, etc. That is radically different than what you are misrepresenting it as and is very much in need of review.

You can dissemble all you want, but there is no justification for discarding data, none.

You are going to great lengths to defend bad science, why?

[lapfog_1]

144. Bullshit.

I dealt with the P0 date (product 0). This was raw instrument readings. Uncalibrated. That's what they mean (what EVERY climate scientist means) when they say "raw data".

Yes, the raw data was adjusted, for for the instrument or source (after that it's P1 data or product 1). MANY MANY steps occur before you start taking into account things like urban sprawl (that's a P3 data set). For remote sensing data you have things like water vapor and atmospheric density... then you start looking at things like ground cover.

When a climate scientist talks about "raw data" they are literally talking about telemetry, whether from a remote sensing satellite or an ocean buoy or automated ship board weather station. It's telemetry data.

You are NOT a climate scientist.

P1 data (calibrated for the instrument that reports it) is of interest to the climate scientists. That's it.

This was stressed to me by every climate scientist that I met in my time at NASA.

[JonQ]

146. Nope, you are mistaken

you can claim whatever you want. You are still coming back to the unenviable position of defending the destruction of scientific data.

Question: how do you review a mathematical model for accuracy without the data used to create it?

[lapfog_1]

147. They have the calibrated data.

just like when you were a boy in chemistry class and you wrote down the NUMBERS that were measured in your experiments.

You keep failing (intentionally) to understand that basic fact.

Not only that, but I'm willing to bet that the raw data tapes that they lost (or disposed of) are NOT the only copies in the world. I feel certain that we here in the US have copies, or can make them from other saved raw data sets. Something else I'm pretty sure you know as well, but you want to make the case that they are either "bad scientists" or "evildoers". (that was your boy W's term for it, right?)

[JonQ]

150. That have the data they have come up with

based at one point on existing data. As the scientists are the ones being accused of dishonest here (and have demonstrated it) I will take their word with a grain of salt. You wouldn't take as proof someones word that they are honest would you?

"Not only that, but I'm willing to bet that the raw data tapes that they lost (or disposed of) are NOT the only copies in the world."

Earlier you were insistent that there had to be additional copies, now you are "willing to bet", what changed?


"I feel certain that we here in the US have copies, or can make them from other saved raw data sets. "

Oh good, that clears everything up because this was all about your feelings.

[sudopod]

153. You sound just like Andy Schafly, who suffered greatly in the nuclear lolocaust

I've provided a link to.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/lenski_gives_conservapdia_a_le.php

[lapfog_1]

165. There isn't enough information from the posted articles

to know what raw data they had and what was the origin.

However, NASA does have complete datasets (both raw, calibrated, and further refined) of ocean and land surface temperatures going back decades) and of calibrated (not raw) datasets for more than a century (nobody recorded raw data back then, all we have are the calibrated instrument readings, and we have to trust the method of calibration).
In addition, NASA has ocean depth temperatures (at different levels of completeness) both raw and calibrated going back several decades, and NASA has CO2 levels going back thousands of years (thanks to ice core data). In addition, NASA has ice coverage data and, more recently, ice thickness data, both raw and calibrated and higher level products. And, in addition, NASA has ocean level data (to varying degrees of certainty) going back millions of years. They also have vegetation date (down to near sq meter resolution) going back decades, both raw and calibrated, And water vapor, and cloud cover, and so on. I probably have touched on only a little bit of the data that's been collected and stored.

The amount of data is staggering. Literally Petabytes, 10s to 100s of Petabytes by now, possibly Exabytes. A Petabyte is a million Gigabytes. If you have a 500GB disk drive, NASA has 20,000 of them full of climate data.


And NASA isn't the only repository.

Here is a link to the current repositories just in the United States, not including partial repositories for specific data sets at various Universities and foreign governments.

http://esdis.eosdis.nasa.gov/dataaccess/datacenters_img.html



And this doesn't include the "safety in numbers" backup sites.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure that this group at some university has a constructed partial data collection distributed in full or in part by one of the NASA centers.

[JonQ]

175. Ok, you're still not getting it

without knowing what the original data was, what points they chose to use, what they discarded, how they adjusted it we cannot verify their work. I can't be done.

This is a simple concept that I can't get through to you: research requires transparency, we have to be able to go over what they have done. Destroying that data set makes this impossible.

We have only their word on what they did to "adjust" that data. That is not good enough.

[Zhade]

214. You don't understand basic science.

You see, when a scientific theory is put forth, it's tested.

Climate change theories have been tested. For decades. The facts have not only held up, they've been refined and retested countless times.

If they were found lacking BY EVEN ONE SCIENTIST ON THE PLANET, climate change science findings would be adjusted -- thrown out if necessary. They haven't been, because actual science done by thousands of scientists independent of each other prove that we are affecting the planet's climate.

[JonQ]

219. No, I'm sorry

but I don't have the time to explain to you why you're wrong. I'm kind of in a serious discussion with someone who isn't so misguided.

[sudopod]

151. Please remember that your reasoned responses are good for those of us out here

who aren't as well informed, regardless of whether our reality-challenged friend here chooses to believe what's in front of his nose.

Personally, it makes me very happy to know that we've got actual experts floating around here, and I am fascinated by this little window into the inner workings of the scientific enterprise.

Thanks for the info!

[Zhade]

215. Seconded. It's good to have actual facts to throw back at the dumbass deniers.

By the way, all you denial fucks -- thanks for making the planet a worse place to live for my son by your willful ignorance. I hope you fucking live to regret your foolishness -- and suffer for it.

[JonQ]

221. Clearly you are a scientist

and have a clear and dispassionate view point that we should all listen to.

[WriteDown]

233. There is always the option of building a rocket to...

send your son to a distant world where their red sun will give him untold powers....

[acsmith]

166. i don't think that anyone is questioning your CV

they just don't think you know more than the researchers in the OP who said the data was lost.

[lapfog_1]

192. Then you haven't been reading this thread.

Including all the snarky remarks about "how wonderful it is to find that all the East Anglican people had to do was consult with DU, since everyone here knows where the data is".

And I'm not claiming to "know more than the researchers". I'm sure they "lost" there raw data (actually, they threw it away when they moved to a new building, according to statements made). I DO know more about how the Climate Data was STORED when it was gathered from the remote sensing data collection system (satellites, ocean buoys, weather stations)... simply because *I STORED IT*. And I know how many copies I made, where those copies went for further distribution, and where the backups were kept. My system. My team. My budget. Your tax dollars (very well spent, imho :)). This isn't the only data I stored for NASA.

The researchers are claiming the "data is lost". However, if it was historical data gathered from period recordings, those original recordings still exist (even if only on paper somewhere). Pain in the ass to reconstruct, but not impossible. If, OTOH, the data is more recent, and gathered by remote sensing equipment, then I did, in fact, store it. And all these guys ever had was a copy. Again, possibly a synthetic copy from more than one source, and it might be a pain to put together the exact tapes that they started with, but it's certainly possible.

[JonQ]

194. You've made a definitive conclusion

built atop alot of "probablys".

Do you know exactly where they got their data, where it was stored, which subset they chose to use, etc?

[Zhade]

213. Thank you for defending the truth. Sadly, we all know you're right.

Even the stupid asshole deniers in this thread know it -- hence their desperation in trying to pretend climate change accelerated by humans isn't all too real.

They're terrified, so they turn to lies for comfort. Doesn't matter -- reality doesn't give a FUCK how stupid they are, or how shrill their denial becomes.

[WriteDown]

234. Burn the witches!!!! nt

[lapfog_1]

94. Again, you lie. - n/t

[JonQ]

101. Again I don't, what does this accomplish in your mind?

[Zhade]

212. All we've got -- is the facts. Meanwhile, you're a fucking liar.

I think history will show we warned idiots like you, and you'll realize all too late that you helped fuck up the planet.

[glitch]

21. If only it were a "socialist conspiracy to redistribute wealth" I could rest a litte easier.

But give the kid a break, jobs are scarce out there and no one is buying this latest denier "surge" anyway.

[JonQ]

67. A lot of people are taking this seriously

as it deserves.

[sudopod]

154. A lot of people take the moon-landing-hoax theory seriously. nt

[JonQ]

179. Big difference

between questioning the validity of something that happened and questioning the strength of a model used to predict future events.

Also we didn't have leaked correspondence from NASA detailing how they faked it.

But is your argument people believing falsely in hoaxes in other incidences proves that all proposed theories must be right?

[sudopod]

182. Hey, you're just asking questions, right? =D nt

[JonQ]

183. In this instance

I'm pointing out errors made by researchers.

And researchers should not be upset when people ask them to explain and defend their work, that is a given.

[sudopod]

184. Nah, ur just a trollin.

I'm a seasoned troll. I can tell from the pixels and having seen a few trolls in my time.

The guy who gave the UEA CRU their copies of the raw data onto cassettes posted on this thread and you ignored the hell out of him. He also made the very valid point that the original copies on cassette wouldn't be readable after so many years, due to the iron oxide falling off. I guess they ought to have kept them, but it's no crime to not want rooms full of useless crap following you around forever, especially if the same stuff can be re-downloaded off the web at any time.

No one's really that thick as you're putting on, so you've just gotta be stirring shit.

That, or I need to have less faith in humanity.

[JonQ]

186. The guy who claims

anonymously to have done all that has said that he suspects they have the data stored elsewhere. He has provided no evidence other than "other people store their data with NASA", so it logically follows that everyone must. False.

I'm instead going with the guy who actually works there who would have mentioned where the data was stored if it had a backup.

Who do you suspect knows more about this situation: anonomyous person on the interent, or the guy who heads up the organization in question?




Surely you can understand this much?

[sudopod]

187. *Shrug*

He posted a link to the system where the UAE got their stuff. Any interested party could take that data, calibrate it in the way they describe, and run it through their code to see if the results match.

[JonQ]

189. Apparently he's more of an expert on their data

than they are.

But, but he posted a link!

:rofl:

[sudopod]

191. Any interested party could download that data,

calibrate it in the way they describe in their paper and in their personal records, and run it through the CRU code. If the output matches, they're off the hook because they'll have shown that the NASA data set is the same as the original one they worked with back in the day. You just have to find someone who understands basic science and can compile code that's a few years old. Conversely, if it doesn't fit pretty closely, there's some splainin to do.

That is a lesson, my friends, on why reproducibility of scientific results is important.

Wouldn't you agree that this procedure would be an adequate way to determine whether UEA is guilty of bad housekeeping or a cover-up?

[JonQ]

193. Again, you are making the assumption that they have it over at NASA

Your hero has NEVER ONCE STATED THAT. He has said that he thinks, or suspects it to be there.

You are leaping from "I suspect" to "it is true" and then basing your arguments on that. You assume it to be true, in the absence of evidence. I guess it would be a matter of faith.

"That is a lesson, my friends, on why reproducibility of scientific results is important."

And impossible, without the data.

[sudopod]

196. Ok, call it "yet to be determined" if NASA still has it.

IF (and only if) NASA does have a copy of original data, though, and they run this test, would you agree that UEA is not engaged in a cover-up, but rather should only be spanked for messy housekeeping practice?

If they are lying, this would catch them out.

[JonQ]

197. If NASA does indeed have it

and they verify the researchers models and make all the relevant info available to everyone, then I would not have a problem with it. I would still say the person who made the decision to destroy information should be fired for poor judgement (if he's still around) and a review of their basic data handling protocol would be necessary. But I would not say that is a sign of a cover up in that case (although the timing is awfully suspicious don't you think?).

[sudopod]

199. Ok then. :)

I can say amen to that. What we just discussed is likely the process that will take place, so we should know for sure in a month or two. A verification run should go much faster than the original research since the code is already all there and computers are much faster than they were back in the day. I doubt this will sink back under the radar before then considering how high the stakes are.

This is the same way the cold fusion guys got plowed under. When other scientists, using the same methods and same materials couldn't reproduce the same results as Pons and Flieschmann, then everyone knew that cold fusion as described couldn't be right. If these guys are up to schenanigans, they'll get pwned pretty hard. If not, they'll still get made fun of for enabling such a ruckus, and it will be well deserved, and everyone can get back to work.

[lapfog_1]

206. You do realize that the original magnetic tape

even if kept in pristine condition, is now completely and utterly useless. There probably isn't even the hardware technology still in use that can read it (if it's from 1989), not to mention the channel attachment hardware, the formatting software (we used ANSI standard tape records, 80 characters a record, full headers to every block - just so someone could read it later with some simple software - sadly, for the final EOSDIS system, that standard was not used, I'm pretty sure they used a proprietary tape format). Of course, now tape wouldn't even be used to store data. Tape is so last century. So, to read the tapes you would have to:

1) Hope the tapes have all of the oxide still on them (very unlikely).

2) Find a device to read them and find a method to attach such a device to a modern computer (your best hope is SCSI).

3) Hope someone somewhere has the software that was used to write the tape so you know the format.

4) Port said software to some current computer platform. Debug it and hope you have all the "exceptions" covered.

Then you might be able to read the damn things. And then what? Apply the same correction to the raw data and see if that matches your P1 "corrected data" and then all is well? What if it doesn't? Do you then throw out the research? The problem that you were harping on earlier about the need for "scientific repeatability" doesn't apply to this research. The reason is that the one and only earth is what we are "testing" and that there is a time component. We cant' go back in time and recapture observations. The best we can do is decide to reject certain data points (due to instrument or human failure) and derive our conclusions from the rest. That's it. Either that or reject all such historical observations. In which case we can no longer draw any conclusions about "change".

[JonQ]

218. That's why you generally update your data files

when your data stored on floppies is getting to the point that it can't be accessed because who uses floppies anymore, you don't simply throw them out and say oops, can't use that anymore, lets just move on. You transfer the data files, unaltered, to a CD. Simple enough. This is stuff you assign grad students or interns to do on slow days. You can't suggest that all data stored prior to the invention of the harddrive will simply have to be discarded?

"Apply the same correction to the raw data and see if that matches your P1 "corrected data" and then all is well? "

I would suggest a) reviewing the methods they used to correct said data for validity b) make sure the adjusted numbers match the original after applying said corrections and c) rerun the model.

"What if it doesn't? Do you then throw out the research?"

You throw out the model, keep the data points, start over. Are you seriously saying that we should keep a model, and base trillions in spending on it's conclusions, that is shown to be wrong, simply because it would be a pain to rethink it? So what if the earth isn't the center of the universe, we'd have to redraw all our astrological charts, it'd be such a nuisance, let's just keep that model for now.

"The problem that you were harping on earlier about the need for "scientific repeatability" doesn't apply to this research. "

Repeatability is a major issue, it is indispensable. If it can't be independently verified then it isn't science. And if it doesn't apply here then they are not conducting research. How can you even argue that they, unlike every other single scientist on the planet, should be relieved of the responsibility to provide data in such a manner that other scientists can test their conclusions? We should just go on faith here? Repeatability, that I "keep harping on", is a cornerstone of scientific research.

"The reason is that the one and only earth is what we are "testing" and that there is a time component. We cant' go back in time and recapture observations. "

Which would suggest that it would be a good idea to keep past data points, rather than trashing them, wouldn't it?

"The best we can do is decide to reject certain data points (due to instrument or human failure) and derive our conclusions from the rest"

We can't repeat their work in the past collecting the data, but we most definitely can repeat their work analyzing it, which is what I've argued, starting with the raw data, but that is unfortunately not possible now. So yeah, we can't verify their work, which is what I've been saying all along. They have with this boneheaded move essentially robbed the world of some degree of knowledge that can never be recovered. I would call this a "big deal".

[boppers]

224. FWIW, SCSI would likely be overkill now.

SCSI was great about ten/twenty years ago, but serial tech has kind of spanked it, because the underlying clock rates of the data bus far exceed the speed the media can be read/written. I know a lot of the older tape interfaces were SCSI, but that's because serial wasn't up to speed yet. Oh, and since most of the code seems to be FORTRAN, most modern compilers can handle it, GCC comes to mind....

But in general, thanks for the info and background on your work. I get it, but that's because I'm a big-ol-geek who worked with paper tape as a kid (much lower density, but a longer lifespan), and actually understand large scale data warehousing. For longer-term, my biggest project went magneto-optical glass discs in the 90's to replace our tapes, just because it had an expected 30-40 year lifespan, but to cover all bases, we started recording to multiple media types in case assumptions about lifespan were wrong (turns out that plastic CD-RW media only lasts 5-10 years).

Anyways, thanks for your work, and the memories.

Getting back on topic, though, it's entirely possible to recover much of the source data from tape, it's just very expensive, and takes time. The boys over at census and NSA know all about it, basically, you don't use the production tape readers, you read the tape with much greater sensitivity readers. If there are "backups", you can cross-correlate, bit by bit, to counter degradation.

[lapfog_1]

204. Can you point me to a link that has their research that is now in "question"

at least by you.

From their citations and bibliography, I can state for certain (given my recollection of events now 10 to 15 years old) whether or not they have copies of original data from NASA or other US government sources.

Or whether their data is of an historical nature (again, NASA PROBABLY has a copy of that, however, anyone could go out and interrogate the universities of the world for access to the historical record). The data that was "lost" (actually discarded) was on magnetic tape, and it was listed as "raw" data, and the conclusion of the scientists was that it was lost some time ago, meaning that they don't use it anymore. From that I concluded that it was sensor data, probably gathered in 1970s and 1980s, and that it was uncalibrated or raw product, because no one is using it anymore. If that is true (and it's a reasonable assumption) then even if they synthesized a raw data set from multiple sources, NASA (which was and is the primary source of all remote sensing data, and has had data sharing arrangements with other governments that fly remote sensing platforms in space) has a copy of it. Not of the exact tapes, but of the exact DATA. It might take a bit to reconstruct the exact tapes, but since the data is useless in it's uncalibrated (raw) form, why bother? How would you calibrate it DIFFERENTLY now than then? And on what basis would you do so? And why would that data be "better" than the older calibration (which they still have and use)?

[jefflrrp]

161. Yes, because your going to be able to tell billions of people . . .

to stop whatever is their way of life in order to "combat" a worldwide phenonmenon like global warming. Everyone in the world would have to go back to almost pre-industrial levels of life in order to stop the climate change. Are we really all going to suck it up and do that?? Whatever we do now, whatever marginal, tiny decrease in emissions we decide to do, after like 20 more years of debate, aint going to do a damn thing for the climate. Suck it up friends, people don't want to give up their present way of life even a little bit. Any sort of slightly beneficial reduction aint going to do much. Youve lost the fight. The Earth is going to continue to warm, little polar bears are going to die, ice is going to melt yadda yadda yadda. Get over it, and start adapting.

This post was not sarcasm. Although I believe climate change is real, im going to openly admit that Im short-sighted and not willing to compromise my (my familys and my communitys) way of life because whatever we do aint going to help.

My 0.02 cents. Its worth what you paid for it.

[defendandprotect]

229. Nice post . . . !

Of course, we can ignore 50 years of ExxonMobil/oil industry propaganda which cost billions --

we can ignore every sign of damage we've done to the air, oceans, water, drinking water,

our own immune systems, animal-life - ozone layer -- smog alerts - filth coming out of the

gasoline driven automobile and its engines -- but not the fact that raw data was thrown away!

We're averaging temperatures here in NJ at least 25 degrees above normal --

We've created changes in weather patterns from El Nino and La Nina -- which are now Global Warming --

and which formerly occurred once every 1,000/2,000 years -- and changed wind patterns in California

which are fueling their forest fires --

Droughts and floods -- but certainly nothing pointing to Global Warming because the raw data

is gone!!!

:eyes:

Title of this OP should be "How to fool yourself and try to fool DU" --

[lapfog_1]

19. Sorry, this is a bullshit story.

I was in charge of storing much of the "raw climate data" for NASA for many, many years.

It's a lot more data than some weather station temperature data. A *LOT* more. Even the historical data.

I worked with some people from NASA's DAO (Data Acquisition Office), which, in turn, worked for a program called EOSDIS (Earth Observation System, Distributed Information System, part of MTPE or Mission to Planet Earth). That program not only collected and stored all of the "raw data" plus many "data products" (that is, remote sensing data has to be corrected for instrument variation and other factors). Also, complex products (data combined from different instruments combined together to form a single data product... like ocean temperature at a particular time and location) were stored. Most climate modelers do not want the raw uncorrected data, they want the most accurate data, which would be one of the complex products.

EOSDIS had multiple repository sites at Universities around the nation, researchers could get their own copies from any given site.

EOSDIS has been renamed since I left NASA 10 years ago... here is their new homepage:

http://esdis.eosdis.nasa.gov/

I believe anyone can go get copies of any of the data products, you only need a REALLY good internet connection (45 Mbits/sec would be a minimum) and a few hundred GBs of empty disk space.

But to claim that only 1 university has the "raw data" (uncorrected for instrument calibration) and they "lost" it is simply bogus.

[time_has_come]

25. watch out, you'll be called part of a "religious cult" with "core beliefs" that don't

...allow you to recognize global warming is all propaganda!

Yep, we're the crazy ones. We've been duped by all these scientists, and now it's become my core belief and I can't look at any dissenting information.
ALL THE DATAS ARE LOST!!! GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T REAL!!!
:sarcasm:

[Ichingcarpenter]

29. Thank you....... you saved me a post on debunking this crap

I expect a lot of astro turfing right before the conference.

[Ghost Dog]

39. Yes, thanks for that.

I consider it very likely that Dr. Jeff Masters has put his finger on what is going on here:

The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389 (hat-tip, PatrynXX).

[JonQ]

69. Better tell these researchers that

and make them come up with another excuse for not presenting the raw data.

[lapfog_1]

76. Bite me.

Go online and make an application for access yourself. Tell them you want to inspect all raw products.

Here is an overview of the application process:

"ECHO works with pre-approved Data Partners to establish an Operations Agreement (OA) using an ESDIS ECHO template and to perform the necessary setup procedures. To apply for approval, applicants must submit a 1-page application addressing how the candidate data could be used for Earth Science research or in conjunction with NASA EOS data. ECHO will present this request to ESDIS, who in turn will present it to the appropriate Data Center, if necessary. The cognizant data center will review each application and coordinate with HQ Program Managers for approval to include data in ECHO."

Here is the web site:

http://www.echo.nasa.gov/

I bet you get approved. When I was testing the storage system I designed for them, I went through this and was approved (and they didn't even know why I wanted access).

Then find a place that has about 45 Mbit/sec internet access and have a few hundred GBs of empty storage (the former is expensive but doable, the latter is now CHEAP).

Download away.

Be sure to ask for P0 (Product 0) data. That's the raw stuff. And you will need to know what instrument collected it and the baseline test of that instrument (to apply your own calibration correction). After that, you have some data that might be of interest to a climate modeler.

[JonQ]

77. See here's the issue

THEY ARE THE ONES SAYING THE DATA HAS BEEN LOST!

Does this not concern you? That the researchers in charge of said data are the ones saying it has been lost? They're either lying or incompetent, neither fills me with confidence in them.

[lapfog_1]

81. They "lost" the raw data (uninteresting, mostly unused)

of their COPY. Bet they still have the reformed product (after calibration).

And it's only their copy. And they aren't the only (or main repository).

[JonQ]

82. You are speculating

I am going on their own statements.

They have lost (destroyed) their data. Other places did not throw away their data, great. But for this research station the models they have can no longer be trusted because the original data is no longer there to test it against. You may or may not be aware but in science reproducibility is kind of a big deal.

[Ghost Dog]

26. Not surprising to see this Murdoch rag jumping on the bandwagon.

The Times's Mr. Leake (no pun intended) provides no link to his source for this article, other than referring to the CRU's website. It perhaps refers to the following CRU press release, although I fail to find the phrase "We do not hold the original raw data" quoted by Mr. Leake in this release, nor, as far as I can see, has google been able to find this phrase anywhere at the University of East Anglia, nor indeed on any site that does not appear to be referring to this very same Times article??? Perhaps we could find the source by hacking Mr. Leake's email account at the Murdoch Times.

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.

The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements. Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.

The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).

“We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data,” continued Professor Davies.

The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations.

“CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS),” concluded Professor Davies.

/continues... http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

[WriteDown]

31. Very interesting...

The final fallout from all this will be interesting too.

[niceypoo]

43. So, all climate data on earth is housed at the 'University of East Anglia'?

That is laughable on its face.

[lapfog_1]

53. And, since *I* stored it (from about 1993 to 1999)

for NASA, I *know* that this isn't true.

[Warren Stupidity]

50. If you post bullshit like this OP you really should edit your profile.

"I'm very simple to figure out: I despise liars, cheats, frauds, and thieves - whether they call themselves bankers, politicians, scientists, or anything else.

If you want to argue with me, bring your "A" game and be aware that I will cross reference everything you post against the catalogue of dishonest argumentation techniques.

You want me to take you seriously, you discuss the validity of data and conclusions. Otherwise you're going to quickly find you've bitten off more than you can chew."

[lapfog_1]

52. I note that you haven't responded to a single post that I've made

in this thread.

I'm guessing that you didn't expect someone at DU to have worked with many of the climate scientists you claim are defrauding the public (still no coherent motive)... and I also STORED THEIR DATA with a fairly complex storage system, one of my design and implemented by myself and the team of top notch people that I led.

Yup, if anyone was in a position to "lose the raw data"... it was ME.

When I was hired by NASA to be the "storage guru", the one charge that was put on my shoulders, the one "law" that I had to adhere to was this: Thou shall NOT lose any data. Ever.

You wouldn't believe the extraordinary lengths we went to in software, hardware, and human practices, to ensure that we never lost any data.

I am personally insulted by your thread and your many snide implications.

All the climate scientists that I met and worked with over my years with NASA were good and honest scientists. The very best in their field.

[Ichingcarpenter]

54. Because he doesn't use FACT or Science and his arguments lack substance

He's a scaredy Cat whose arguments are made of clay

[WriteDown]

63. Do you have a copy?

Please post for review.

[lapfog_1]

78. Copy of what, the raw data?

Actually, I used to. I had a few hundred GBs of products (selected at random from the entire set of products). I would then test these to ensure data reliability and accuracy (just of the storage system mind you).

But when I left NASA I didn't take the data with me.

You can get your own copy if you wish. Here is the website to make an application for access:

http://www.echo.nasa.gov/

This isn't some closely held "secret". It's your tax dollars at work.

[WriteDown]

84. And this will give me a copy of the raw data from the UEA’s Climatic Research Unit?

I will make a request.

[lapfog_1]

89. You'll get a copy of the raw data.

The same data that the UEA's CRU got.

Or do you think that they were in charge of flying the satellites and accumulating data from NOAA and NCAR and NASA for the last 40+ years?

[WriteDown]

91. Why didn't the The UEA’s CRU just make the request then..

and replace their lost data. And why don't the revised #'s make direct reference to the original #'s. Not sure what's going on here, but one thing is certain, it does not LOOK(bad PR) good.

[lapfog_1]

98. Scientist are bad at the PR game

Climate change deniers are good at it.

They reported the "facts". They had the raw data. Now they don't.

They don't use the raw data for anything. That's a fact. Ask any climate scientist. It's uncalibrated.

[WriteDown]

100. "Game" may be the operative word

"The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data. "

[lapfog_1]

103. Oh please.

So one scientist (or even 4 or 5) don't like what's being done to them by the climate change denier lobby and their paid pseudo science shills... and they email each other about it.

So what.

[JonQ]

119. Discrading data, silencing critics, manipulating or falsifying data points

these are the actions of good scientists?

[JonQ]

118. "They don't use the raw data for anything"

Aahahahaha. Good one.

Actually the raw data is "corrected" through a variety of means to get the adjusted value. But you have to have that raw data to get to the adjusted value, you can't skip that step.

So yeah, raw data is important. What did you think they were working with?

[lapfog_1]

130. Right, after the data is calibrated, they don't use it for anything.

Hence, there really isn't a need to keep it.

You can't go back, examine the raw data and recalibrate it ( as any current calibration is just as likely to be as wrong as the first one ).

You might have done some science in a laboratory at some point in your life...

Did you calibrate the beaker or the test tube to MAKE SURE that when you put 100ml of acid in the tube, it was REALLY 100ml? Did you? You trusted the markers on the test tube? Did you write down the height of the tube that was filled with acid? or did you write down the number of ml it SAID was in the test tube.

That's what you are basing your entire claim that their numbers can't be trusted now. Because they HAD a computer tape that measured the absolute height, not the number of ml. Of course, they also have a computer tape (probably on disk, probably dozens of copies) that has the recorded ml of acid or water or whatever. And they threw out the computer tape that had the absolute height in the test tube.

So what.

[JonQ]

137. There isn't a need to keep it eh?

So there's no need to be able to go over the existing data to verify the results?

You do realize that repeatability is a big part of the whole process.

The raw data was adjusted right, is it possible that the way it was adjusted is incorrect or misleading? Wouldn't it be nice to verify that it was adjusted correctly?

[bemildred]

141. But wouldn't you have to check the re-adjustment too? What if that was just as wrong?

How would you know? How could you be sure the second adjustment was better than the first? Wouldn't it be better to do a complete new set of observations, and adjust those, and then compare them statistically with the old adjusted ones?

[JonQ]

143. This is how the scientific method works:

1) hypothesis
2) testing/collecting data
3) report the findings as either supporting or not supporting your initial hypothesis
4) present all your data and methods in explicit detail for review by other researchers who will check or even repeat your work to test it's veracity and your conclusions.

If you cut out step 4 you do not have scientific review. Their results cannot be checked because they destroyed their raw data, either intentionally or through incompetence. Doesn't matter either way, because whatever the reason they can now no longer be tested.

"How could you be sure the second adjustment was better than the first? Wouldn't it be better to do a complete new set of observations, and adjust those, and then compare them statistically with the old adjusted ones?"

Except that the data set in question, and the model in question refers to decades of collected data. Can't repeat that now.

The one thing that every scientist should agree with is transparency in research. Apparently these guys don't think it applies to them.

[bemildred]

173. So like, they either didn't publish, or the data was published? nt

[JonQ]

180. The raw data was not published

and apparently is gone. That's the issue here, don't play dumb.

[bemildred]

185. So then, all their peers rejected their findings?

Because they didn't publish their data. or what?

[JonQ]

188. Likely they published only their adjusted data

and a subset of that, with a mailing address (this was before internet) for anyone to request the raw original data.

That is extremely common (although now it's a link) in journal papers because it is not practical to post huge sums of data in one publication. Millions of data points are not fun to read, nor all that telling unless you're willing to put in the work to interpret them.

The data is not always published in it's entirety, but it's always there to be requested by other researchers.

[bemildred]

195. So this is all old stuff? Nobody requested a copy?

Why the fuss about it now? Isn't their some new climate data that we could disparage or request a copy of?

[JonQ]

198. It's "old stuff" being used to construct current policy

That's why we have a "fuss now".

And as they say it was from the "1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue". Likely it didn't recieve much attention, either to support or deny it.

"Isn't their some new climate data that we could disparage or request a copy of?"

They whole point of this model is to predict future trends based on past occurrences. For that "old" research is required. You can't start over from now unless we're willing to wait a 100 years to finally have an answer.

[bemildred]

200. So you are saying that we are using this old 1980s model now?

And nobody in this whole peer review process all this time has seen anything wrong?
Boy. It almost makes you want to lose faith in this whole science thing, go back to Jesus or something.

[JonQ]

201. No, we are using data from the 1980s

now. There was no model in the 1980s equivalent to what we have now. Unless you suggest we build this model around everything up until 1979, then start up again in 1991.

"And nobody in this whole peer review process all this time has seen anything wrong?"

Prior to now it was merely collected data. Now they are presenting a theory based on that. You can't shoot down a theory before it is made can you?

Also, this was not a big issue at the time. Now that trillions of dollars are riding on their conclusions it's getting a second look. Seems logical to me.

For instance you are probably more likely to seek out a second opinion on a life shattering diagnosis than you are on tomorrows weather, right?

[bemildred]

202. So human-caused global warming is a "new theory" based on this old data?

These guys are newcomers to the global warming business?
How could they have been "collecting data" they threw out in the 1980s all this time anyway?

[JonQ]

216. The push for

linking global warming to human activities is definitely new. I'm sure the idea has been around for a while but you can't deny that in the last decade or so it has really become a major issue.

"These guys are newcomers to the global warming business?"

The model they are pushing is rather new, yes.

"How could they have been "collecting data" they threw out in the 1980s all this time anyway?"

Come on, don't play dumb. They collected the data in the past, adjusted it, kept the adjustments, discarded the originals. They still have the adjusted numbers which they have been working with, trying to fit in to their model, but not the originals. Which is concerning because given their sloppy record keeping there is no way of knowing exactly how those data points were "adjusted". And not having a base reference to go back to makes it all that easier to "adjust" them in whatever direction you want.

[Abq_Sarah]

291. You're kidding right?

There is no need to keep the raw data because we should just trust that it was adjusted without bias?

Oh, please. That is the most absurd claim I've seen yet.

[sudopod]

156. The same reason that Buzz Aldrin doesn't field questions

from Moon Landing Deniers. It's insulting and degrading.

Plus, how would you like it if someone stole your personal correspondence, spread it to the world, then asked for more?

That doesn't mean that getting pissed and telling the requester to go fuck themselves is the best option, but it is understandable.

[JonQ]

190. Scientists shouldn't have to field questions from people who don't agree with them!

It's degrading.

What next, require them to present their data in full so it can be evaluated by a group of their peers rather than just asking them to pinky-swear that they're telling the truth?

How insulting.

[sudopod]

203. I never said that they shouldn't have to field questions

from people who don't agree with them. If that were the case, most of them wouldn't make it out of undergrad classes. :p

(Thinks of a particularly fighty Russian professor and shivers)

I'm just saying that their response is understandable in a human way. If, out of the blue, someone outside of my field questioned my professional ethics and skill, then continued on to make demands of me, any demands, well, I'd have to say it'd rightly put my back up, whether they were entitled to what they were asking for or not. Multiply that anger by five if their compatriots stole and published my personal correspondence after making the request.

Like we discussed above, the great thing about the scientific process is that we don't have to take anyone's word for anything. Right now, fairly or unfairly, the burden of proof is on them. However, it is also too early to say there was a cover-up, because as we agreed, there is a very clear path they can take to clear the matter up.

If they can prove that they didn't destroy the originals by reproducing their papers' results with the stored NASA data, then they are only guilty of being touchy assholes and poor record keepers. That's not a crime, though maybe it ought to be.

[JonQ]

217. Their response may be understandable but it is not very professional

And given the numerous, let's say snafus, that we have seen I think a review of their methods is in order. This would be a great time to "clean house".

Here's another instance of a climate scientist not behaving appropriately and seeming to not be willing to be questioned on his methods: http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html


"Like we discussed above, the great thing about the scientific process is that we don't have to take anyone's word for anything. Right now, fairly or unfairly, the burden of proof is on them. However, it is also too early to say there was a cover-up, because as we agreed, there is a very clear path they can take to clear the matter up. "

No arguments here. Although I would say whether it was a cover up or not their methods and response has been at best unprofessional and they've demonstrated how not to handle criticism and conduct research.

"If they can prove that they didn't destroy the originals by reproducing their papers' results with the stored NASA data, then they are only guilty of being touchy assholes and poor record keepers. That's not a crime, though maybe it ought to be."

I'm curious though how that will be proven. Seems we have their word to go on and not much else.

[jpak]

131. Bush falsified and fabricated and altered climate data for years to cover up "the truth"

and this was OK with you

:puke:

[JonQ]

138. Gibberish

utter gibberish.

[jpak]

163. Bush DID falsify scientific reports, suppressed them and muzzled climate scientists

that is reality

sorry yur Bush guy didn't get a 3rd term

:evilgrin:

[JonQ]

168. The gibberish wasn't in reference to the first part

but rather the second.

Bush falsified and fabricated and altered climate data for years to cover up "the truth"

"and this was OK with you "

Could you find where I referenced bush at all on this and more specifically where I said it was a good thing for him to alter data?

Like I said, gibberish. But not surprising, hitler spent years rounding up and murdering ethnic minorities, and that was ok with you. :puke:

[tabatha]

68. You should go to Copenhagen

--- or write an article for the NYT.

[lapfog_1]

79. I can't testify to anything that's happened in the last 10 years.

If they followed my recommendations, which were presented to Al Gore (when he was VP), they wouldn't even HAVE the system I built for them anymore, it would have been changed at least twice... to keep up with technology changes.

But they WOULD have the data, both at Goddard and Ames, and likely at 7 or 8 different universities.

[tabatha]

135. Can't you write a letter stating what you have on this forum?

Just to indicate that they destroyed COPIES and the originals are safe.

[lapfog_1]

142. I believe them to have copies.

There isn't enough information included in the articles to be absolutely certain. However, NASA has climate data for decades, and through inter-agency cooperation, copies of data from NOAA, NCAR, and the National weather service, and lots of "historical accounts" from universities and so on that have collected that data for something like 2 centuries (human observational data).

NASA was the repository of first resort for almost all of the climate data. I believe that to still be the case but I don't know for certain since I've been out of the thick of things for a decade now.

So again, all I could "testify to" is what was, as of 10 years ago. There has to be a custodial chain of records, just like for evidence in a criminal trial. My part of that ended in 1999. The records (if the system that was in place when I left is still in place) should be able to establish what data was copied where and who each recipient of the data was and their university or corporate affiliation (if any). They don't need personal testimony to that fact.

[JonQ]

70. That doesn't explain why

the researchers themselves are claiming this. No one is saying it on their behalf, they are stating it clearly. So either A) they're lying to cover up something (which makes their results questionable) or B) they are extremely incompetent (which makes their results questionable).

No one is putting words in their mouths, so you will need to explain why they are making this up if you claim it is impossible.

[lapfog_1]

87. Good god.

They lost some old tapes. Tapes with raw data on them which ISN'T USED. They are university scientists on (likely) a very limited budget. They do NOT HAVE SOMEONE LIKE ME working there to maintain their data sets. Why? Because they only ever had COPIES! They are not the authoritative distributor of climate change data. NASA IS. And we distributed the data everywhere. For a reason.

I had a staff of 15 to 20 people, and a annual budget of $10 Million just for hardware acquisition. Just to STORE DATA. Your average university doesn't have that, nor should they be expected to.

The raw data is not used in climate science. There wouldn't be a point in using it. It is used by instrument scientists that calibrate the data. That data, combined with data from other instrument and sources (weather stations, ships at sea, etc) is used to form a product which might be called "Historical record of surface temperatures from both land and ocean for the last X years". That product is interesting to climate modelers and researchers.

The raw data they might have gotten a copy of, and are now telling everyone that they don't have their copy anymore, but that doesn't make them "incompetent".

[JonQ]

104. You really don't see any problem with tossing out original data

but still using the conclusions from that data? Really?

I guess you don't have the background but in my line of work (research) that is what we call a "no no".

[tabatha]

133. It is COPIES. repeat COPIES, repeat COPIES of

original data. The ORIGINAL raw data is SAFE.

[JonQ]

139. That is your, repeat your opinion

not the stated fact.

You shouldn't mistake your beliefs for verifiable facts.

[notesdev]

90. I'm only one person, and get so much love from the warmers

Hard to respond to every logical fallacy that gets thrown my way, especially when they're repeats of questions I answered to the same individuals before. I listed what, 15-20 different possible motives that could apply and you addressed none of them. Now you demand I answer your rabid warmist posts on your schedule?

I really hit a nerve, didn't I? Your conscience probably insisting to you that your case is unfounded, and your ego at war with it.

[katkat]

57. not a flat earther

and I certainly am sure climate change is occurring, but if they actually destroyed original data they violated one of the most basic principles of scientific inquiry. It's hard to believe how they could be that stupid.

[lapfog_1]

71. They didn't destroy the original data.

Read my posts. At best they may have "lost" a COPY of the original data.

How can they lose it?

Well, it was most likely stored on computer tape. Tape is not a long term stable media. It's iron oxide on a mylar backing. The oxide (rust) falls off the tape after a while (7 years or so), especially if you don't physically store the tape somewhere clean and dry. Dust can accumulate on the tape. Passing the tape over read/write heads can scape small amounts of oxide off the tape. To be safe, you need at least 3 copies of the data stored in 3 different geographic locations (one not in the same fault zone), all 3 need to be "clean room" environments and the tapes should be hung, not stacked. And, after all that, the tapes need to be read and copied to new tape (or a different media) after 5 years. They should also be tensioned (wound and rewound) at least once a year.

Ideally, all 3 sets of tapes should be read once a year and compared, and, once every 5 years, new copies of all 3 should be made to new media.

Most universities do not have such practices in place (it would cost a great deal of money).

The raw data (un-calibrated instrument readings) is NOT USED. Processed data is the more interesting data, and therefore is more likely to have warranted the attention of the people in charge of storing and maintaining their copies of those products.

Another reason that copies need to be made (and how data can be lost) is that technology changes over time. When I got to NASA in 1989, I was handed some boxes of 7-track 800 BPI tapes that contained the "raw data" from many of NASA's early unmanned missions to Mars and Venus. The oxide was falling off and the tapes were in terrible shape. Not only that, but we didn't even HAVE a working 7-track tape drive to read the things. The data cost billions to acquire. So I had a team of people come in with iron filings and magnifying glasses... roll the tape out, spread some iron dust, and read the bits. Fortunately, JPL had copies so we only had to read a few sections of a few tapes that way (hunting down a 7-track tape drive from a GAO auction was the first thing... finding something to adapt it to the 1989 era IBM block/mux channel was the next thing).

If they threw out the tapes of their raw data, it could have been for many reasons.

But, I remind everyone, some small university in GB is not the "only repository" of Global Climate data, not by a long shot.

[JonQ]

73. Then why did they say that they did?

Why would they lie to make themselves look incompetent or deceitful?

[WriteDown]

93. From the article....

The information was destroyed purposefully to "make room."

"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."

ALSO

"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."

Apparently, something is amiss if is now "impossible."

[JonQ]

108. But they have the data stored elsewhere, they just destroyed their copy

It's all at . . . um . .. Teds house, go get him!

:rofl:

[JonQ]

72. For it to be science it must be reproducible

that's one of the most basic rules in research.

And if the original data has been destroyed then their results are no longer reproducible, no longer science.

[jpak]

60. Deniers suck

yup!

[JonQ]

62. Well you see it's standard practice among researchers

to throw away old data that is no longer in style. Common practice, no reason to be concerned. Science is afterall based on trust.

[lapfog_1]

92. Your snark aside.

That's not what they did. They threw away old tapes. Tapes that probably can't be read anymore anyway.

I had researchers ask me for "the tapes". We would accommodate their wishes. Not only would we send them the tape, but we would send them many different versions of software to read the tape, plus a list of recommended hardware. I doubt any of them ever read a single tape. Why? Because the internet was better at it, because the raw data is just not interesting to climate scientists. Yeah, they got the tapes. And then they lost them. So what?

But the "story" is much better if you imply that they are

1) the ONLY repository of climate change data

2) they are either incompetent or nefarious. In either case, they can't be trusted.

3) And if THEY are incompetent and nefarious, why then ALL climate scientists and their predictions are bunk.

Right?

[WriteDown]

96. It does seem NEFARIOUS when you add this....

"The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data."

[lapfog_1]

102. Yes, he is one evil bastard alright.

imagine wanting to keep data from people who's sole purpose is to discredit him as a scientist. People who will twist any fact and distort any statement into something that implies that he is a liar.

People like YOU.

So he didn't want to cooperate with some climate deniers.

And that's makes him (and by extension ALL climate scientists) suspect.

You know, if you come along and question my integrity and my honesty, I might not want to cooperate with YOU either.

[JonQ]

107. Scientists don't get to withhold data to keep people from criticizing them

as you seem to think.

"So he didn't want to cooperate with some climate deniers. "

Again, apply this to any other field. I don't have to cooperate with you flat earth deniers, I have my evidence and you just have to accept it so there.

"You know, if you come along and question my integrity and my honesty, I might not want to cooperate with YOU either."

If you are subject to freedom of information rules you would be expected to, and to not shred evidence.

[notesdev]

112. Heh yeah, try that with a tax auditor

and you get out in what, 5-10 years?

I love how these Warmers expose just how twisted their perception of science is, they make my argument for me.

"Data? We don't need no steenkin' data!"

You have to admire the guys who stuck with it, looking for the truth, in the face of years worth of this hysterical nonsense.

[JonQ]

114. Just trust us, we're right

if you say otherwise you are an idiot.

Science!

[notesdev]

126. And it's so familiar

"Trust us, we need control of the economy or we're all doomed!"

Now where have I heard that before?

[CreekDog]

160. for someone so upset about "propaganda" you sure are spewing it

:eyes:

[Kingofalldems]

109. Thank you for your responses-

The deniers went ballistic---'cite your sources' was a giveaway. I trust scientists a lot more than a guy (OP) who claimed 1.5 million teabaggers showed up in DC last September.

[JonQ]

106. Trust me on this, in science you do not casually discard old data

you can remove data points from consideration for a variety of legit reasons. But you NEVER discard the entire data set, never. That is absolutely wrong. And seeing as how this comes after a massive expose' on their activities, well if it were anyone else involved you'd be screaming your head off about "conspiracy" and whatnot.

"1) the ONLY repository of climate change data"

They seem to be the only repository of their climate data.

"2) they are either incompetent or nefarious. In either case, they can't be trusted."

You're right, honest and competent scientists destroy data all the time following revelations of past misconduct.

"3) And if THEY are incompetent and nefarious, why then ALL climate scientists and their predictions are bunk."

Not all, but you do realize these guys are the leaders in this area, the biggest research organization dedicated to studying mans role in climate change?

Ask yourself, if this were any other subject and the scientists behaved this way, would you tolerate it? Frankly I would expect much more professional behavior from a graduate student than these guys are showing.

[quakerboy]

225. Really?

That's where you are going with this?

"You're right, honest and competent scientists destroy data all the time following revelations of past misconduct."

Umm... From the article, they tossed the old originals back in the 80's. That would be... 20-30 years ago. Hardly a matter of "got caught, covering things up now".

I tossed all my old data some time ago. I got rid of all of my cassette tapes. And my 5 and a quarter inch floppies. And my 3.5 inch floppies. It won't be too terribly long before I make the swap to DVD and destroy my album of backup CD's. It has been several years since I transferred what I thought was important out of my old lab books and into PDF, and recycled all the old paper copies.

I will grant you my father has all of his disks, even the ones that he doesn't have a computer with the capability to read anymore. He also has hard copy of every thing he ever wrote, and a good portion of what he has read. But not everyone rolls that way.

[JonQ]

65. Could you imagine if some other group of researchers

followed this same tact? Like say people researching the effects of smoking on cancer.

We know smoking does not cause cancer, that's the consensus anyone who says otherwise is an idiot and we can prove with our findings. The original data set was unfortunately destroyed via a tragic paper shredding accident, but we have our altered version, that was kept quite secure I assure you. And I don't know why you ask but yes, our continued funding does depend on proving there is no correlation between cancer and tobacco. But we're scientists dammit not humans, we wouldn't get involved in some bizarre conspiracy to fudge data to prove a point.

[NickB79]

120. I noticed that all the deniers on this thread are conspicously absent from this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4163664

What a shock! :rofl:

[JonQ]

122. That post had nothng to do with the issue at hand

namely mans role in this.

True/false, it is possible for something to occur that is not directly caused by humanity. Take your time on this one, it can be tricky for some.

[NickB79]

123. Sure it doesn't. It's just a coincidence that the ice is melting at a time of high CO2 levels

And at a time when human activity is adding 30 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere per year. And when the pH of the world's oceans are measurably falling due to increases in CO2 absorption.

All just a coincidence. :rofl:

[JonQ]

124. If CO2 were the leading cause

then you would expect temperatures to rise with C02 levels along a fairly parallel line. They don't. And you are confusing correlation with causation, ever since we gave women the right to vote temperatures have been going up, that is correlation, it is not causation.

And how do you explain the current decline in temperature despite rising C02 levels?

I don't know what it is about this theory that makes it so much different than other theories in that it does not need to be proven and anyone who has questions is deemed evil.

[NickB79]

127. A current decline in temperature?

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0818-ocean.html

"The world's ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for July, breaking the previous record set in 1998, reports NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. At 62.56°F (16.99°C), ocean temperatures were 1.06°F (0.59°C) above the 20th century average.

The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2009 (61.43°F - 16.37°C) ranked as the fifth-warmest since recordkeeping began in 1880."

Look at that temperature drop! :rofl:

[JonQ]

148. Incorrect

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74019.html

Here, they sum up the current data (although we're finding all this data may be suspect) pretty well.

[NickB79]

152. If you feel all data regarding global climate is suspect, how can you claim I'm incorrect?

You've created and fallen into a trap of your own making: you can't post ANY climate-related data, showing either warming OR cooling, because you feel it could ALL be suspect.

And, from your own link:

"However, scientists say the skeptics' argument is misleading.

"It's entirely possible to have a period as long as a decade or two of cooling superimposed on the long-term warming trend," said David Easterling, chief of scientific services at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

"These short term fluctuations are statistically insignificant (and) entirely due to natural internal variability," Easterling said in an essay published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in April. "It's easy to 'cherry pick' a period to reinforce a point of view."

Climate experts say the 1998 record was partly caused by El Nino, a periodic warming of tropical Pacific Ocean waters that affects the climate worldwide.

"The temperature peak in 1998 to a large extent can be attributed to the very strong El Nino event of 1997-98," Bond said. "Temperatures for the globe as a whole tend to be higher during El Nino, and particularly events as intense as that one.""

[JonQ]

167. So according to data you place stock in

we've had a "decade or two" of cooling. How can you argue that?

[tabatha]

134. Try this:

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/re-visiting-cff/

[Gormy Cuss]

155. Dumping the raw data was at the very least amateurish

and foolish because no one can replicate their analysis. Then there's the little problem of that decision leaving the UAE open to speculation that they cooked the data in some way, which is a possibility. However, all it does is remove the UAE work from serious consideration in the global warming debate.

[tabatha]

159. They had COPIES of the data.

The original raw data is at NASA.

[Gormy Cuss]

170. Their COPIES of the data should have been preserved.

That subset of data formed the inputs to the analysis. The raw data and any interim data sets normally are preserved as data documentation.

[JonQ]

177. You are making that assumption

that statement was never made by the researchers involved.

[karynnj]

207. You posted the email that showed exactly how they could recreate that raw data

Have you ever done any data analysis? The fact is that the first thing that has to be done is to "clean" the data, get it as complete as possible and often pull in additional information.

Now, it would have been better had all pieces of "raw data" been retained, but you are speaking of something created decades ago. I assume that decades later, they assumed that the original tapes would never be reprocessed.

You have posted this RW garbage every where. In addition, you have posted the RW talking points on the economy. I have yet to find a single post where you say anything positive about a Democrat. My guess - TROLL TROLL TROLL.

The fact is the predictions done on the data have stood the test of time. Hansen made predictions for 1997 through 2007 out back in 1997 and they have been pretty accurate - unlike your post on August 17, 2009 that the market would fall 30% in three months. It actually had a pretty good rise.

[defendandprotect]

230. Most conditions are worse than expected -- and there's a 50 year delay

in Global Warming which means we are only feeling the effects of human activity up to

1959 --

Our assault on the planet compounded after that period -- and so will Global Warming --

it's impossible to say how bad this can get and how fast.

But obviously worse than most scientists have been willing to predict --

This is all compounding --

[karynnj]

232. All true - what is already up there has a very long half life

I completely agree with all you said.

[defendandprotect]

231. Let's see . . . e-mails didn't work . . . so let's try this line?

ahem . . .

[WriteDown]

235. I would definitely shy away from emails for a while

"The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data. "

[defendandprotect]

237. I would think you would . . . obviously didn't work . . . maybe you need O'Keefe back ...

on the job --

Meanwhile, Royal Academy of Scientists called out ExxonMobil and oil industry for decades

of highly financed campaigns against the reality of Global Warming.

Billions were spent on that campaign --

As the "Warning to Humanity" was ignored so is most other information about Global Warming.



Nationalize the oil industry -- we don't need private interests controlling our natural

resources --

We need to stop burning fossil fuels -- for the sake of humanity and the planet.


America's problem is with "Manifest Destiny" - "Man's Dominion Over Nature" --

and capitalism which is suicidal!

[WriteDown]

238. Please start a new topic in General Discussion if you wish

to discuss this.

[defendandprotect]

239. The topic is gasoline polluting automobiles and the oil industry . . .

[WriteDown]

240. Please reread OP. nt

[defendandprotect]

242. I've read it . . . it's an attempt to deny Global Warming --

'caused by corporatism, capitalism and greed --

A problem we could have responded to in the 1950's . . .

1960 Democratic Platform called for nationalizing oil industry --

Should have been done then -- and should be done now.

Corporatism/Capitalism are suicidal system --

[WriteDown]

243. The destruction of the original data is an attempt to deny

global warming? Interesting.

[defendandprotect]

244. Global Warming is self-evident . . . as is capitalism's role in it --

The OP is basically an attempt to deny Global Warming . . .

but, of course, you know that --

So -- it looks like you're headed for "Ignore" or are we going to see some

attempt at being less disingenuous?

[WriteDown]

245. Must be why no data is needed.

Kind of like how fire lives in wood and we can do things to bring the fire out of wood.

[defendandprotect]

247. Ah, I see less ingenuous is the answer . . .

You're on ignore --

[WriteDown]

248. I heard they invented Cold Fusion a few years back......nt

[whosinpower]

241. You don't need raw data to see with your own eyes

That the polar Ice cap is melting....that the ice that was supposed to be permanent is rotten.
That the bears are moving south because there is no place for them.
That the glaciers in Greenland, Antartica and around the world are melting.
That cyanobacteria, algae, are thriving and threatening current ecosystems.
That coral reefs are dying.
That fish are dissappearing.

None of that matters though - because the raw data is gone.
None of that matters because mankind could never be so destructive that his actions could possibly affect climate on Earth.
Apparently, we, as fellow human beings, should just close our eyes, sing a happy song, and pretend that the world in which we live will be just as healthy, clean, robust because the earth, nature, will always clean up our messes - wait, we don't make messes. Or, we should not take responsibility for our messes because that might cost dollars. It might force us to change our ways of living.

That is the crux of it all. Do we change the way we are living in order to help the earth, or do we blindly go about our way, oblivious of how our surroundings are changing? And do we arrogently think that whatever we do, whatever we put into the sea, and into the atmosphere has no consequence. That is what the deniers are saying. That is the crux.

I'll tell you what I think even though I am not a scientist. I think we have a responsibility to the future. I would like to think that my grandchildren and great grandchildren will be able to breath the clean air, drink safe water and enjoy nature and all that it can show. I know, for a fact, that we, as a species are not as hardy as cockroaches. Cockroaches do not care if the air is clean or dirty. It matters not to them. They can survive and have survived long before we came into being, and will probably survive long after we are gone. But, my children's children are not cockroaches and the deniers grandchildren are not cockroaches either. I would not have them live as such. Would you?

[defendandprotect]

246. Well said . . . .

We might also add the ozone hole into that ---

And acid rain --

Unfortunately, I'm having trouble with internet searches right now --

so from memory, I'll just add that in addition to the actual ozone hole, we have

to recognize that substantially more of the ozone is damaged.

[WriteDown]

249. The polar ice caps are relatively new....

Let's not forget that the Earth was a lot warmer when the dinosaurs roamed. Will be interesting to see if that is where we are going.

[whosinpower]

251. Do you have the raw data for that?

Because if you don't - then you know it must just be propeganda spouted off by those radical socialist dinosaurs who were worried that the earth was cooling and wanted all the other dinosaurs to fart more.

Actually, it is interesting that you bring up dinosaurs. You do know, they are extinct. Killed off by some epic climactic change that they could not adapt to. They could not adapt to a changing world; one theory being that a meteor strike caused rapid changes in the environment. Some animals survived....cockroaches being one.

[WriteDown]

252. I guess the question is...

Do you have data that they did exist before 15 million years ago? Mind you that the Earth is estimated to be 4 Billion years old. I have a feeling that we would also die if a meteor as large as the one you are referring to were to hit Earth.

[whosinpower]

253. That is not the question

The question is - this is the real question by the way;

Can an estimated 5 billion human beings affect or change climate on the earth?
That is the question.

It is a simple question - yes or no.

The answer does not lay blame on corporate interests. Can we, or can we not? Does the earth and its environment function completely devoid of our activities, or does what we do, have consequences?

[WriteDown]

257. That is true.....

We'll know in 100 years. I better start working out if I hope to see it. :)

[JonQ]

258. I don't need unbiased data to prove anything

I have faith, and that sustains me.

[reprobate]

250. Homo Sapiens-the only species to intentionally commit suicide,thanks to corporate politics.

[ItNerd4life]

259. The hiding of data, I wonder if they learned this tactic from Bush?

Bush dumps data - Democrats say it's bad, Republicans say it doesn't matter.
Climatlogists dump data - Democrats say it doesn't matter, Republicans say it's bad.

[Nihil]

261. Pretty damn clever of them if that were the case ...

... considering that the data "went missing" before the *elder* Bush
became president ...

:eyes:

Besides which, the argument isn't between "Democrats" & "Republicans",
it's between scientists & trolls (and you've just revealed which side
you are on - late to the discussion yet repeating the same crap talking
points).

[JonQ]

264. Sadly the scientists we are supposed to trust on this

have not been acting like scientists, but rather opportunists and politicians.

[Nihil]

266. Nicely dodged (again)

ItNerd4life:
.259> The hiding of data, I wonder if they learned this tactic from Bush?

Me:
.261> Pretty damn clever of them if that were the case ...
.261> ... considering that the data "went missing" before the *elder* Bush
.261> became president ...

Quick reminder:
.0> ... when the data were thrown away in the 1980s

Perhaps you don't recall how data tapes were reused in cycles back then?

Perhaps you don't recall how budget constraints would have impacted the
retension of redundant data (remembering the storage & maintenance costs)?

Perhaps you are seeing a conspiracy where none exists?

Perhaps you are doing so because you are relying on "arguments" provided
by the fossil-fuel lobby to fill in the gaps in your knowledge?

:shrug:

[JonQ]

271. My god you're right!

It is perfectly acceptable to discard data for "budget reasons" and this would be tolerated from any scientist, even if they used no longer existing data to argue against global warming (well no, actually then it would be a sign they were lying).

Quick, to the private jet! We must fly to copenhagen, bali, and every other 5-star resort necessary to spread the word (I assume a limo will be waiting at the airport, and I will be expecting the finest food flown in fresh from every corner of the earth).

[Nihil]

275. So your answer is "No, I don't have any evidence to support my accusations".

Fair enough.

At least we now know you are lying in your so-called "attacks".

:thumbsup:

[JonQ]

278. My accusations

that the data was thrown out, you mean the OP that you are viciously opposing? Wow. So no, other than the evidence right in front of your face I have no evidence. :rofl:

And where is your evidence that a backup copy of this data has been stored elsewhere? You know, that little factoid you keep throwing around without a bit of evidence?

[Nihil]

280. Technically, ItNerd4life's accusations on whose behalf that you have been arguing here.

I'll let someone else comment on the possible relationship implied here
but you can refer back to .266 for the detail of the original "accusations"
that I referred to.


> And where is your evidence that a backup copy of this data has been
> stored elsewhere?

I didn't state that the CRU had "a backup copy" anywhere.
Stick to the truth rather than introducing a strawman.

I said that the CRU had no need to retain redundant data.

I stated that the original tape data was *redundant* (and hence had no
requirement to be retained under expensive conditions) thanks to the
fact that the CRU received their data from other sources (NOAA, NASA,
the UK Met Office, other academic institutions) - remember, they were
analysing, correlating, modelling but not originating the raw data
themselves.

Sorry to keep dragging you back to the subject as I realise it must
be pretty embarrassing for you by now.

[JonQ]

283. So are you denying well, all of the revelations of the past few weeks?

Because that takes an impressive amount of denial, or perhaps just faith?

"I stated that the original tape data was *redundant* (and hence had no
requirement to be retained under expensive conditions) thanks to the
fact that the CRU received their data from other sources (NOAA, NASA,
the UK Met Office, other academic institutions) - remember, they were
analysing, correlating, modelling but not originating the raw data
themselves."

A claim you keep making, but the CRU does not.

[Viking12]

288. Back up data here

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/

thanks for playing

[JonQ]

263. +1

That about sums up the response to both instances. Except in this case I would say it goes a little farther than "doesn't matter" to "you're evil and hate the earth and want everyone to die" for pointing it out.

Which is unfortunate, science should be above politics. I'm not naive, obviously it isn't and anything where people are involved will be subject to political/personal bias. But that is definitely what we should strive for.

[Nihil]

267. -1

> Which is unfortunate, science should be above politics.

Shame that the people who criticise scientists aren't.

> I'm not naive, obviously it isn't and anything where people
> are involved will be subject to political/personal bias.

Delicate phrasing for this stage in the witch-hunt that has been
blown up to divert attention from current events ...

[JonQ]

270. "Shame that the people who criticise scientists aren't."

Actually they don't need to be, they only have to point out legit flaws in the scientists research, which has been done.

"Delicate phrasing for this stage in the witch-hunt that has been
blown up to divert attention from current events ..."

A massive scandal involving falsified and fraudulent data is not worthy of attention. I guess not if the "science is settled". :rofl:

[Nihil]

274. Oh, I seem to have missed this bit ... or maybe you're dreaming again?

> A massive scandal involving falsified and fraudulent data

Care to provide any links?

(Note: I want links to proven "falsified and fraudulent data" not
just circle-jerk blog entries from your similarly dim friends.)

[Nihil]

281. *cough*

> A massive scandal involving falsified and fraudulent data

Anything yet in the way of links to proven "falsified and fraudulent data"?

Or are you just stuck with the usual crap from your CEI "sources"?

[Raine]

260. OUTRAGEOUS!

:mad: :grr:

[beyond cynical]

265. Uh oh...

[superconnected]

268. I suggest everyone who doesn't believe in global warming go out and get a suntan

Those rays aren't what they used to be with the ozone gone. Neither is the arctic ice shelf, ask the polar bears.

With the thousands of scientist who have figured out we have a big problem, I'm surprised that there are people hung up on a few who manipulated data. Do you think the scientist for the oil companies - their opposition - aren't manipulating data?

I don't agree with what these scientists did but I also don't think I'm ready to throw out global warming because of it.

And btw if you think what these few did was bad, then the oil company scientists should be in jail, as well as both sides of congress in the health care debate, drug companies with their very biased testing where they toss data, and pretty much every other big giant issue that has millions spent on both sides to fight each other and come out with each sides desired results.

The last thing I'm going to do is start listening to the anti-climate change scientists brought to you by good old payolla, now.

[tabatha]

282. Yep, it is funny how the biggest cheaters

are the first to point fingers at others even with trumped up charges.

[JonQ]

290. Yeah, everyone else is on some payroll

lying to make money.

But not the CRU folks, even though they saw their budgets rise by tens of millions of dollars since manmade global warming became the biggest threat to life ever, they have nothing but pure motives, and don't care about the money they've been receiving.

[xlc120097]

294. Or go to Houston and play in the snow

If you think "Global Warming" is true, then you are closed minded. Most people, including me, are all for reducing emissions, conservation, more efficiency, alternative energies (including nuclear), etc. But I don't want the government mandating all of it and ruining our economy while places like China and India will continue to pump out pollutants. What the hacked emails show, at the very least, is that there is no concensus on "Global Warming" and some that want to believe it are actually willing to cook the evidence to prove their theories.

[superconnected]

269. Oh yeah, John Edwards cheated on his wife. Now dump the whole dem caucas because of it.

Same reasoning.

[JonQ]

286. Exact same

if the dem. caucus were a scientific theory, and john edwards was the chief scientist involved in pushing said theory, and instead of cheating on his wife it was fabricating data.

[Spider Jerusalem]

292. I'm sorry, but you have to be a complete and utter moron to think that.

The data on climate change have multiple sources; the research has been done by scientists all over the world, and the data support the consensus of anthropogenic climate change. It's really rather fatuous to presume that it's possible to disrupt the normal carbon cycle by releasing billions of tonnes of CO2 (which is, you know, a greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere from combusting coal and oil, and reducing carbon uptake through massive deforestation, WITHOUT it having an observable effect.

[boppers]

293. "john edwards was the chief scientist involved in pushing said theory"

Since this isn't coming from just one "chief scientist", but from every major scientific organization on the planet, your analogy doesn't work.