Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Getting it right

The abuse of Freedom of Information originated in the "sounds like science" efforts of the tobacco lobby have been woven into scientific denialism by the McIntyres, Horners and Schnares of the world. The object, is of course, to chew up time. The Idiot Tracker answers the question of who is doing what to whom:

There has long been a huge amount of climate data freely available to the public. Some of it is not, for reasons that should be evident to any "libertarian": those that own the data (mostly national weather agencies) chose not to make it available to all. The data sets in question cost money to create. Their creators make money by selling licenses (limited licenses) to use the data -- licenses that have no market value if their property is forcible redistributed by the government as soon as a FOI request is made.

Steve McIntyre is what libertarians call a rent-seeker. He uses the coercive power of the state to force other people to give him, gratis, the fruits of their labor. He does not produce himself -- he uses the data of others, repackaged and sensationalized, to fuel the hit count of his blog.
which is why Eli is fond of UVa's tactic of charging for the cost of providing the information. Cleans out the rent seekers

89 comments:

Anonymous said...

It should be pointed out that over 4 months ago, the CRU made all of the raw data that the deniers had been FOI'ing for freely available to all on its web-site. (Well, except for Poland's -- the Poles wouldn't play ball -- will McIntyre pester them?).

The entire raw temperature data-set has been sitting on the CRU's public web-site (Google is the Post-hole Digger's friend here) for *months* now, just begging to be downloaded and crunched.

And have any of the individuals out there who had been hassling the CRU for the raw data done anything with it yet? Do I hear crickets chirping?

--caerbannog the anonybunny, who crunched the CRU and GHCN raw land-temperature data with his own very amateurish program and was still able to replicate the NASA/GISS results very closely with both data sets.

Anonymous said...

Let's see.... it's been well over 4 months since the CRU released the raw station data that the deniers had issuing FOI demands for. So, deniers, how's your data analysis going? Got any results to show us yet?

Hmmm... all I hear is the chirping of crickets.

caerbannog the anonybunny -- who crunched the CRU and GHCN raw temperature data with his own amateurish gridding/averaging program several months ago and managed to reproduce the NASA/GISS global land-temperature results very closely with both data-sets.

PS: This poor bunny can't understand why at least one talented skeptic out there hasn't been able to do anything with the CRU data yet... I mean, didn't some 31,000+ talented scientists and engineers sign that OISM petition? Why hasn't at least one of them jumped all over the CRU data yet?

b5230294-91bd-11e0-a606-000bcdcb5194 said...

I think McIntyre just wanted to know which data was used to create the hockey stick since he couldn't recreate it.

Hardy Cross

Anonymous said...

McIntyre seems like more of a "rant seeker" than "rent seeker".


~@:>

Anonymous said...

Anonymous #1:
I've been analysing the hell out of it to get a clearer picture of why the HADCRUT trend is lower than the others. The results are very interesting - well worth taking a look.
Oh, sorry, I'm not a denier. Ignore me.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

oh ho ho ho ho! Looky what the good doctor found!

http://firsthandweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/greenhouse.png

the human co2 contribution is a massive 3%. So much for your stupid unprecedented rate of change.

@caerbannog

don't worry, you will soon see a graph showing temperatures plummeting, from 1970-present. It will be a sort of scythe stick, caerbannog.

Anonymous said...

Jay Cadbury Post-hole Digger apparently doesn't know the difference between gross and net. That's yet another reason why he was demoted from Pizza home Delivery to Post-hole Digger. You see, the pizza place he worked for made a 3-percent profit margin on every pizza it sold, and Cadbury couldn't figure out why giving everyone 10-percent discounts meant that his employer was losing money on every pizza he delivered.

Angliss said...

Jay, try the following simple calculation. Use a simple compounding interest equation

(click for image)

and solve for n. Then use 285 ppm as CO2_past, 390 ppm as CO2 present, and r as 3% (0.03). If you do this, you'll find that at a mere 3% compounding, it takes a little less than 11 years to go from 285 ppm to 390 ppm. At a linear increase of 3%, it's about 9 years. In reality, however, it's taken about 260 years to rise from 285 ppm to 390 ppm, so 3% of all CO2 emissions in 2004 is massive.

Don't believe me? Then solve the equation above for r and then make n 261 years (pre-industrial CO2 concentrations are defined as 1750). When you do that, you find the compounding rate, assuming it was constant over the entire period, is about 0.12% per year, or 25x smaller than that 3% number you're so excited about. 0.12% of 390 ppm is .468 ppm per year. According to ESRL (data here), the average increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 10 years is about 2 ppm.

Might I recommend that you sanity-check your pronouncements with some basic math next time, Jay?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

@Angliss

"If you do this, you'll find that at a mere 3% compounding, it takes a little less than 11 years to go from 285 ppm to 390 ppm. At a linear increase of 3%, it's about 9 years. In reality, however, it's taken about 260 years to rise from 285 ppm to 390 ppm, so 3% of all CO2 emissions in 2004 is massive."

The above statement makes no sense, you need to do a much better job of explaining this. Yes it takes 11 years to go from 285 to 390, IF you assume none of the co2 is escaping into outerspace. Then you say in reality it has taken 260 years to go from 285-390 so 3% in 2004 is massive? That makes no sense.

Frankly, this just looks like more bogus nuancing to me. The human contribution is nothing compared to the natural. It's 770,000 vs. 23,100!

Maybe your distorting yourself by trying to complicate a simple fact.

Anonymous said...

Folks,

Jay is arguing a strawman with his off topic ramblings. He is also trying to distract people from rant, sorry rent seekers, like Steve McIntyre.

I say each time Jay tries that, we note one more inconvenient truth about McIntyre.

winnebagomouse said...

Stocks and Flows, Jay. Look it up.

Angliss said...

Wow, Jay. What's your PhD in? Please, don't tell me it's anything to do with mathematics, because if you can't do something as simple as compounding interest or understand that 3% is 25x larger (25x is "massive" IMO, but perhaps you disagree) than 0.12%, you need to return it. And please, don't tell me it's anything to do with astrophysics or gravity, because if you're telling me that CO2 is somehow being preferentially lost to space over other gases, then you also need to return it.

I think the Anon above who said you're trying to distract people has a very good point, so I'll leave it at this.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

@Angliss

No, I'll be honest with you I can't solve that equation, I'm terrible at math. But I think what we have here is a teachable moment. Angliss, instead of accepting my numbers, you attempt to nuance the issue and claim that 3% of a 100 is really huge and the 97% doesn't matter. This is why you have lost the faith of the public.

Anonymous said...

Wow, 'Dr' Jay is actually stupid, and can't do simple maths. Who would've though it?

Nathan

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
Wow, 'Dr' Jay is actually stupid, and can't do simple maths. Who would've though it?


On second thought, maybe I should take away Jay's Post-hole Digger -- he might hurt himself (or someone else) with it...

Steve Metzler said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. said:

"Frankly, this just looks like more bogus nuancing to me. The human contribution is nothing compared to the natural. It's 770,000 vs. 23,100!"

Yes, but prior to the industrial revolution, whatever CO2 nature put into the atmosphere, nature also took out. So there was no net increase or decrease in atmospheric CO2 from year to year (well, not over a period of mere decades anyway). But now mankind has upset a delicate natural balance, and nature can only remove less than half of the CO2 we pour into the atmosphere (what it does remove from the atmosphere mostly goes into the oceans. This is not a good thing either).

So that 'mere' 3% contribution of ours is building up a CO2 surplus of about 2ppm/year at the moment, something that nature can't even come close to doing even when we emerge from a glaciation period, where it takes about *5000 years* for CO2 to rise by about 100ppm. We have forced a similar increase in only 250 years!

Poor Dr. Jay can't do maths, or understand basic physics. But that's understandable if the only place you get your 'science' from is anti-science sites like WTFUWT. Confirmation bias much, Dr. Jay?

tonylearns said...

Ok,

You guys didn't even get the KEY point DOCTOR Cadbury was pointing out. The CO2 ESCAPES into SPACE. Obviously that excess leaking CO2 is warming up the solar system, which is WHY all the other planets are heating up.
and which planets are the HOTTEST? Mercury and Venus. And Venus is full of CO2 which must be partly from the escaping human CO2. that means almost ALL the warming those crazy scientists have projected in their models is ACTUALLY taking place on Venus and we have NOTHING to worry about.
and PROOF that Global warming is a scam is that I just googled it and can find NOT ONE STUDY of this important effect. Proving that you can only get grant money for research supporting global warming. I bet they refuse to post my comment on Real Climate too!

CB

David B. Benson said...

Post holing too hard for him. Find something less tasking.

Anonymous said...


Post holing too hard for him. Find something less tasking.


OK, Cadbury has been demoted from Pizza home Delivery to Post hole Digger....

But Cadbury's latest (ahem) "performance", here suggests that the honorable profession of Post-hole Digger may indeed be too demanding for him (post-hole depth measuring does require some minimal math skills, after all).

So another demotion may be in order here -- perhaps something like "Pathetic high-school Dropout"?

Russell said...

3% of Cadbury's per capita share of the CO2 in the air is ten tons.

Considering what ten tons did to Roger Rabbit, Doctor Jay should be very afraid.

Anonymous said...

"...IF you assume none of the CO2 is escaping into outerspace..."????

Should I ask for details of why gas planets have not disappeared (or even shrivelled into tiny remnants of their former glory) as their gaseous components 'escape' into outer space?

Perhaps not.

MinniesMum

andrew adams said...

I liked the point Idiot Tracker also made about the contradiction between libertarians' attitudes to FoI and property rights. But having said that, and while I find it hard to have much sympathy with the "auditors" and would question their understanding of how FoI here in the UK actually works, I've been a strong supporter of the UK's FoI laws and think FoI is an important principle in general. Therefore we shouldn't let our sympathies in this particular case cloud our judgement on the wider principle of FoI and I would take issue slightly with a couple of the above points.

Firstly, UK FoI states that a body which received a FoI request must not take into account the identity of the person making the request, and I think this is absolutely right, so however much we might distrust the motives of McIntyre, David Holland etc., they were entitled to have their requests handled without prejudice and if (which is a separate question) the information they requested was subject to FoI they should have been given it. Ultimately the same applies to FoI as to any other kind of freedom - if you believe in it you have to be prepared to defend it for people you don't like.
The law still allows for vexatious requests to be refused but I think that the criteria for such should be very tight because there is bound to be a natural tendency for some bodies to see perfectly legitimate requests as hostile.

Secondly, I'm not in favour of bodies being able to charge for handling FoI requests. Handling such requests should be seen as an essential part of an organisation's duties, not an "extra", and individuals should not be deterred from accessing information which they are entitled to because they can't afford a fee.

If people consider that scientists' emails and data should not be subject to FoI requests then the answer is for them to be exempted under FoI legislation, not for institutions to be able to put up barriers to deter such requests. After all, if they can do this then they can also deter requests which we might consider properly justified. Personally I don't think that scientists' emails should be fair game for FoI except in exceptional circumstances, and the ICO didn't actually rule that the CRU emails should be released (although we can't say what their final ruling would have been if Holland had continued to pursue his request). As far as the data is concerned, I think intellectual property considerations should be given proper weight (and indeed they are) but have to be balanced against the wider public interest arguments. This is the what the ICO did in the case of the station data and it decided that the public interest argument was stronger and I think that on balance it was the correct decision.

John said...

Noam Chomsky describes the US marching off the cliff.

Noam Chomsky summarizes the growing climate crisis. If the world does nothing, by 2017 it will be too late to keep the temperature rise under 2 degrees C. Nearly the entire world is taking at least halting measures, but the US is doing nothing. US business lobbies (including fossil fuel interests) launched a propaganda campaign denying that there's a problem. The mainstream media gives equal exposure to the vast majority of climate scientists and the handful of rejectionists. See this
link to a column Chomsky wrote for the New York Times.

Jeffrey Davis said...

andrew adams, not being able to charge for the information would let an individual drain off the available resources for any government agency that they disagreed with. Imagine you didn't like roads. The Government Road Agency has a budget of 1,000,000 dinars. To fulfill a single FOI request demands 1 dinar. You make 1,000,000 FOI requests. Hey presto! The Government Road Agency builds no roads.

Anonymous said...

I think Cadbury's ineptness was not shown clearly enough.

Jay, you make $100 per week from your post holing job. Also every week, you spend $98.

A new tax is imposed on you, its $3 per week. 10 weeks from now, you're in debt $10.

What is the contribution of the tax to your debt? The tax is only 3% right, it's so small! But you're dividing by the wrong number... It's actually responsible for 150% of your debt. Without it you would be $20 richer.

Back to the carbon cycle - humans emit only 5% of the carbon (so small right!) But just like your tax it is responsible for more than 200% of the increase.

Don't need a PhD for that one (probably not even a GED.)

-First comment bunny

Anonymous said...

well we can always depend on obama to set things straight. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/

after all, he's doing the best he can!!

Anonymous said...

The reason for McIntyre's contribution to the Global Warming debate is no more or less than what he says he is. This is all just about him, his ego, and him. But mainly him. He can't believe Realclimate actually said he was wrong about something. That's all.

Anon (1)

Anonymous said...


This is the what the ICO did in the case of the station data and it decided that the public interest argument was stronger and I think that on balance it was the correct decision.


The delayed release of the raw CRU data may have been all for the best. In response to the CRU's supposed "stonewalling", deniers went way out on a limb screaming and yelling for the immediate release of the data, accusing the CRU of hiding the data to prevent the deniers from discovering how the CRU "manipulated" the data to get the results it wanted, etc. When the CRU raw data-set was finally released, it didn't take competent individuals very much time to crunch the data themselves and verify that the CRU's results were good all along -- essentially sawing off the deniers' limb.

Any time a denier brings up the CRU data FOI issue, the standard reply should be along the lines of:
"You guys were demanding the data for a couple of years, but you haven't done anything it in the XXX months since it was released. And BTW, independent amateur analysts were able to produce their own temperature results from the CRU data in a matter of days -- sample link here: . http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2210/mycrumyghcnnasaghcn.jpg. What's taking you guys so long???"

--caerbannog the anonybunny

Anonymous said...


Anonymous #1:
I've been analysing the hell out of it to get a clearer picture of why the HADCRUT trend is lower than the others. The results are very interesting - well worth taking a look.


The above comment raises an interesting point:

It turns out that the lower HADCRUT trend is a result of the processing method, not the data. Take the GHCN raw data and the CRU raw data, run both data-sets through the same algorithm, and you'll get nearly identical results -- see the linky in my previous comment.

--caerbannog the anonybunny

Anonymous said...

@andrew adams : I may accept the majority of points you raise, but about the issue of "universities should not charge for FOI requests", from my (french and german I admit) experience it is not practically possible.

For my own research institute, Research and Industry departments do not provide all the money needed to employ everyone. We have to sweat to get grants, either national or European ones. And in the current crisis context we cannot expect to get more funds. From what I can guess from the budgets I already tried to mount, a lawyer or the engineer needed to fulfill the FOI request (examining what can be released or not, preparing the data and finding a way to send them) should cost around 500€/day (guesstimate from engineer cost with 50% off); multiply that sum by the number of days needed (depending on the FOI request).
It appears therefore that some FOI requests done should have ranged in the dozen of thousand euros , when you have to look at each piece to see if you are allowed/obliged to deliver it. This cost is extra work, and you can bet research agencies do not get a dime for that new task.

Same goes for French universities (and German research institutes) : the scarce money is mainly put into science, and they do not have the funds necessary to employ the lawyer team needed for FOI requests. Hell, some universities do not even have a correct lawyer team ...

I do not know about the situation of british/american research agencies, but I bet from some examples I heard (the absurd problems raised by the ultracompetivity on NIH grants for instance) that they are more or less in the same situation.
So, if the FOI requests have to be done free of charge, some huge FOI requests will hamper the capacity of research institutes to handle more reasonable FOI requests, or even their capacity to get grants at all (lawyers are needed to check the grant contracts signed). It is therefore needed to put a price on a FOI request. This price can be completed with a special government fund, so that it is not too expensive, and simple FOI requests (some specific data/mail) can be handed with reasonable fees - for instance, to take an example in my field, if I was asked for a FOI request to hand seismic datas for a specific time and seismometers, it would cost at most the price of the DVD.

But the bottom line is : it is practically impossible in my opinion to make FOI requests free of charge. At most it can be supported by government subventions.

Bratisla

J Bowers said...

Andrew Adams -- "Secondly, I'm not in favour of bodies being able to charge for handling FoI requests."

We pay for our TV licenses and passports. It's just about covering costs.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

@Andrews Adams

Sorry to say Andrew but you will find honesty and courage in short supply here.

"@andrew adams : I may accept the majority of points you raise, but about the issue of "universities should not charge for FOI requests", from my (french and german I admit) experience it is not practically possible."

-pfffft! I don't think it is practically possible that you could be any more wrong. Colleges in the United States enjoy massive funding endowments and tuition rates are massive.

Oh no, the poor poor colleges simply can't afford it. More like schools are the liberal bastions of society and are defended violently by leftists. It's really ashame too because there are good scientists like Kerry Emmanuel and Isaac Held but you dolts instead choose to defend Michael Mann. 50 bucks says Michael Mann has a fake handle on this website he uses.

David B. Benson said...

First comment bunny --- Too hard for the likes of that one.

Anonymous said...

'Dr' Cadbury

You haven't addressed the maths problem you suffered! You need to learn some maths before anyone will do anything but laugh in your face here.

Anonymous said...

Dr Cadbury is a homeless troll,
Kicked from Lucia's with no place to go,
Pay him no mind
As he tries to find
A welcome embrace at the bevy's hole.

David B. Benson said...

Bevy? Quail don't live in holes.

Anonymous said...

@Cadbury


............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,

There are some programs for adult illiterates you know. They can even get over your rudeness and offer candies.

And sure, biology labs forced to close activities because of lack of NIH funding are swimming in money.

Bratisla

andrew adams said...

Bratisla,

Thanks for your interesting response.

In an ideal world it would be recognised by the authorities that FoI places certain additional obligations on institutions such as yours and they would ensure you were properly equipped to deal with them. But of course I appreciate that this is not an ideal world and I do have sympathy for your position.

Although I still think that in principle FoI requests should be free of charge I would accept the case of an administration fee to cover basic costs, but I strongly believe that such fees should not be high enough to be a deterrent to legitimate FoI requests. Having said that, I would certainly not want the core work of institutions like yours to suffer because of the time and expense needed to process complex FoI claims, so I think there is a dilemma to which I don't know the answer. In the UK institutions are allowed to refuse a request of the cost is above a certain level - do you have a similar rule?

I can see an argument that FoI rules should perhaps have different levels for different kind of bodies, with government bodies at the top and educational establishments further down - I feel less inclined to know what my local university isup to than our national government. I don't know how realistic that is.

J Bowers said...

Andrew Adams -- "I can see an argument that FoI rules should perhaps have different levels for different kind of bodies, with government bodies at the top and educational establishments further down"

Didn't our government recently decide that's what's gonna happen?

Anonymous said...

Let me ask skeptics yet again (at the risk of sounding like a broken record...). You guys got the data dump you were FOI'ing for over 4 months ago. What have you done with it so far? Don't you have any preliminary analysis results you can share with us yet?

A credible analysis (one that has survived intense scrutiny by the scientific community) that proves that the CRU folks really did fudge their global temperature results might come in handy for you guys should the "swifthack" investigation actually snare one of you. Getting your results published so that they can be scrutinized makes it much more likely that your work will survive cross-examination in court should the investigation get to that point. So it really is to your benefit to get your own CRU data analysis results out and published ASAP.


--caerbannog the anonybunny

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

@Caerbannog the bunny

I don't really think the issue of CRU blocking the release of their data is very important. I will list what I think are the top problems.

There were 6,000 temperatures stations in the U.S and now there are 3,000.

The earth is below the global average temperature and below average atmospheric co2 levels, so you must prove why the .8 increase in temperature is not natural, because it has risen much higher, naturally.

Michael Mann's fake graph and James Hansens testimony in 1988, in which the windows were opened and the air conditioning in the hearing room was turned off.

Caerbannog, I fully expect the temperature to go up and down. I am not worried as long as we are within the historic averages. Actually, I am a little concerned that being below GAT might indicate the onset of another ice age. I understand that you believe the averages are extreme values but I simply do not.

Anonymous said...


There were 6,000 temperatures stations in the U.S and now there are 3,000.


A competent individual can easily show that it doesn't matter whether you use all the stations or just the ones still reporting data. You will get almost exactly the same results either way. I know this for a fact because I've done it myself.

--caerbannog the anonybunny

Anonymous said...

McIntyre requested that the same data that was provided to Webster.
FOI was used only because CRU lied.
CRU lied when they replied to McIntyre and claimed that the data was
only releasable to academic requestors.
We know that because we had 4 professors at universities request the same data. Their requests were denied.

On appeal, McIntyre narrowed his request to only data that could be released. CRU lied and said that they could not separate the confidential from the non confidential data. We know this is a lie because after climategate they posted the non confidential data.


As for the NWS. CRU guidelines for entering into confidential agreements with NWS require CRU to inform the NWS that their
data may be released under FOI. If CRU neglected to do this that is CRU's fault. Very simply, CRU guidelines instruct them to avoid entering into confidential agreements. They can only enter into these if the agreements are "necessary" to CRU's Mission. And they must inform the 3rd party that FOI may trump the agreement. Since one gets the same answer with or without confidential data its clear that CRU did not determine that the data was necessary to their mission. My FOI request for documentation on this came up empty.

Perhaps, you now understand one of the reasons for asking for the agreements. You say we have to pay? fine, which NWS are asserting commercial rights?. Further, these agreements generally have exceptions for non commercial uses. How do I know? I've had to sign them asserting that I will not use data for commercial purposes.

We were also willing and prepared to enter into the same agreements that CRU had entered into. That is, a right to use the data for non commercial purposes with no redistribution rights.


Finally, there were some of us who were more than happy to pay for the data. Our question was simple: Which NWS were preventing the release of their data? The method for finding that out ( after asking nicely ) was to do an FOI of the agreements.

So, Mcintyre requested data from Jones that he knew Jones had released to Webster. Since Jones had released it to Webster, McIntyre
has a good faith belief that the data is releaseable. To think otherwise would require that McIntyre believe that Jones had illegally shared the data. (That seems to be what Robert is arguing. He is arguing that Webster and Rutherford were rent seekers and that Jones illegally shared data with them. )
The response to McIntyre from CRU was a lie. They said the data was only releasable to academic users. This lie was tested by 4 professors whose requests were also denied citing different grounds. Grounds that were also false. The suggestion was made that we should contact the NWS and pay for the data ourselves. So we asked for a list of those NWS who refused redistribution rights on their data. Our way of asking was to FOI the agreements that CRU had claimed existed. We doubted the existence of these agreements because if the agreements existed, then Jones would have broken them by sending the data to Webster. So he was either lying or he had broken the agreements.

CRU data was requested by McIntyre for one purpose and one purpose only. To ascertain whether there was any
"value added" by CRU as they had repeated and claimed. The purpose was not to create an "independent" assessment, although many of us have done that. In short we found what we expected to find: nothing, no substantive value added by their processing.

Of course some idiots expected that CRU had somehow cooked the data. This was never McIntyre's supposition. This was never my supposition. Quite the opposite. We expected that CRU was overselling they "value" that they added to the data, featherbedding if you like.

It is quite silly for people who have no command of the facts to keep trying to re litigate an issue that should never have been fought, which was fought and lost -- as I predicted.

Moshpit

andrew adams said...

JBowers,

I hadn't heard that. I did a quick search which didn't pull anything up, although I did find this piece about FoI and universities

http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-computing-network/2011/sep/26/higher-education-freedom-information-guidance?INTCMP=SRCH

which makes the following point (and these are the words of the ICO)

Section 36 of the FoI act allows for academics and researchers to exchange views internally and to formulate opinions on research away from external scrutiny.

Anonymous said...


Of course some idiots expected that CRU had somehow cooked the data. This was never McIntyre's supposition. This was never my supposition. Quite the opposite. We expected that CRU was overselling they "value" that they added to the data, featherbedding if you like.

Sounds like historical revisionism to me.

Anyway, McIntyre has had full access to the data he wanted for over 4 months. What has he done with it? Given that you guys spent so much time and effort getting the data, your complete lack of effort to actually *analyze* the data in the several months since it was released gives me the impression that you were more interested in harassing the CRU than producing anything useful yourselves.

J Bowers said...

Andrew Adams, that could have been it, thanks.

J Bowers said...

Mosher -- "We know that because we had 4 professors at universities request the same data. Their requests were denied."

As illustrated by the NERC guidelines which IIRC were part of the FOIA 2009 zip (now different), the UKMO data had to be used by academics with the aim of being used for research to be published in the peer reviewed literature.

Webster was working on a joint publication with Jones.

If your four professors had no such cause then CRU were obviously right to refuse permission.

In August 2009 Jones had already told Nature news that he was writing to all of the NMS's asking that they waive confidentiality so he could release the data, but in a systematic way.

Anonymous said...

Hilarious to hear Moshpit go around accusing others of lying when he and Steve like to do just that. Classic GOP tactic.

Steve McIntyre = bully, liar, chummer and rent-seeker. EOS.

Maybe Moshpit will write a book about the real scandal one day ;) Maybe that day is not too far off if Steve does the right thing, co-oporates and hands over his servers, email and HDDs. He has nothing to hide right? LOL.

Martin Vermeer said...

> CRU guidelines for entering into confidential agreements with NWS require
> CRU to inform the NWS that their data may be released under FOI.

Today. Do you know when CRU started this work? FOI legislation didn't even exist back then. I doubt Poland or Trinidad & Tobago were ever asked this question back then.

> We know this is a lie because after climategate they posted the
> non confidential data.

...after much hard work re-building their data base to include this info, re-requested from the data providers. (And IIRC it was the Met Office Hadley Centre doing this, not CRU.)

> Since one gets the same answer with or without confidential data its clear
> that CRU did not determine that the data was necessary to their mission.

Only if you're interested in global-mean or regional temperature curves. For many local studies you'll need local data (and it does make a difference), which is often precisely what the NWS sell for money.

Anonymous said...

@Moshpit

"McIntyre requested that the same data that was provided to Webster.
FOI was used only because CRU lied.
CRU lied when they replied to McIntyre and claimed that the data was
only releasable to academic requestors.
We know that because we had 4 professors at universities request the same data. Their requests were denied.

On appeal, McIntyre narrowed his request to only data that could be released. CRU lied and said that they could not separate the confidential from the non confidential data. We know this is a lie because after climategate they posted the non confidential data."

They just don't like McIntyre. He made it personal, they took it personally. I would have done exactly the same thing in their situation. There is no logical reason you would help someone stab you in the back.

Anon (1)

J Bowers said...

Mosher, do you get advice from someone called Joe Marshall?

Geoff Sherrington said...

It's not simple to recreate a global teperature time series from existing data, nor to compare one compilation with another.

For example, here is a Climategate 2 email re Australia, which provides a fair lump of the SH land data:
> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 18:14:17 +1100
> From: Blair Trewin
> To: David Jones , David Lister
> Subject: RE: FW: Australian temperature data [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
> I've finally had a chance to have a look at this - it turned out to be more complicated than I thought because a change which I thought had been implemented several years ago wasn't.

Up until 1994 CLIMAT mean temperatures for Australia used (Tx+Tn)/2. In 1994, apparently as part of a shift to generating CLIMAT messages
automatically from what was then the new database (previously they were calculated on-station), a change was made to calculating as the mean of all available three-hourly observations (apparently without regard to data completeness, which made for some interesting results in a couple of months when one station wasn't staffed overnight).
What was supposed to happen (once we noticed this problem in 2003 or thereabouts) was that we were going to revert to (tx+Tn)/2, for
historical consistency, and resend values from the 1994-2003 period. I have, however, discovered that the reversion never happened.

In a 2004 paper I found that using the mean of all three-hourly
observations rather than (Tx+Tn)/2 produced a bias of approximately
0.15 C in mean temperatures averaged over Australia (at individual
stations the bias is quite station-specific, being a function of the
position of stations (and local sunrise/sunset times) within their time zone.
> Blair Trewin
> National Climate Centre
> Bureau of Meteorology

Now that we know of a fairly significant error, one that affected some compilations but not others, how do those compilers stand when they say their results are in agreement?

There are many people working away at trying to make sense of the various compilations. It is slow, slogging work to do it properly. You seem to quote with approval about "caerbannog the anonybunny -- who crunched the CRU and GHCN raw temperature data". Quick crunching might be fine, but we are interested in whether it's right or wrong. Comment, caerbannog?

Martin Vermeer said...

Somehow the Moshpit, Eschenbach, McIntyre gang's approach to scientific replication brings to mind the story of the old lady who wanted to check that here life's savings were safe in the bank.

So she went to the local branch office, saying she wanted to raise the contents of her account, all of it. This being a substantial amount of cash, proved a bit of a hassle, involving a (long) phone call to head office... but eventually an armoured van pulled up.

The lady carefully counted all of the bank notes; then, with a satisfied smile, handed the pile back to the bank clerk, telling him to put it back into her account. She'd "only wanted to make sure."

Martin Vermeer said...

Sherrington,

if you're happy with +/- 0.1 degree globally it is a simple crunch job. You can even leave out all of those tricky corrections. If you want to squeeze out more, from data that was never collected for climatology use, yes then the job will absorb all the working hours you can throw at it.

BTW did you ever compute even in ball-park fashion how even an error of 0.15 C over all of Australia, changes the global, or even the SH land, mean? Can you say 'massively redundant'?

This isn't accountancy Geoff. This is science.

Anonymous said...

"The data sets in question cost money to create. Their creators make money by selling licenses (limited licenses) to use the data -- licenses that have no market value if their property is forcible redistributed by the government as soon as a FOI request is made."

Which naturally raises the following questions-
1. How much did these ceators charge bodies like the CRU at EAU for their valuable data and if not why not?
2. Knowing full well their data would be used for the typical scientific enquiry of- Hypothesis/Data/Methodology/Conclusion and that ALL such scientific steps would need to be reproducible and open to verification, how much should they charge such for such a one off release of such valuable data?(also if CRU came under FOI legislation then the same may apply)

These are tough questions for The Team, particularly as there was much initial obfuscation over releasing the raw data even before 'the dog ate the homework' re the methodology stage. Not enough storage space for all that apparently, but thankfully some kind soul relieved the CRU of the need to continually store all those illuminating but pesky emails.

observa

J Bowers said...

"1. How much did these ceators charge bodies like the CRU at EAU for their valuable data and if not why not?"

* UK Met Office: 6. Licence provisions and pricing

"2. Knowing full well their data would be used for the typical scientific enquiry of- Hypothesis/Data/Methodology/Conclusion and that ALL such scientific steps would need to be reproducible and open to verification,..."

* Scientific Replication Is Not Rote Repetition
* Replication, not repetition
* Data Sources

Martin Vermeer said...

Mosher and Sherrington need to exchange memos on the correctness of the global temperature record

Martin Vermeer said...

"observa" may want to acquire a minimal understanding of the issues involved before mouthing off. Less embarrassing that way.

Having worked with gravity data for geoid computation, let me tell you that you ain't seen data secrecy yet if all you know is climatology. And yet, it was typically no problem to get these commercially valuable data from the sister agencies of neighboring countries; for free, pricing being the seller's prerogative. The understanding being, use it for your research and publish the results -- a geoid grid for geodetic production use --, but under no circumstance release the original data. Same with tide gauge data. And never any written contracts. A gentleman's word is his honour.

ligne said...

"The understanding being, use it for your research and publish the results -- a geoid grid for geodetic production use --, but under no circumstance release the original data."

...and these same scientist-priests expect us to just believe that the earth is round! the game is up people: the public aren't buying into your lies any more.

Anonymous said...

"A gentleman's word is his honour."

And as for methodology please reference the attached email comments carefully for conditions and relevant disclaimers.

observa

J Bowers said...

"A gentleman's word is his honour."

Does Michaels swear in before giving testimony to Congress?

Anonymous said...


There are many people working away at trying to make sense of the various compilations. It is slow, slogging work to do it properly. You seem to quote with approval about "caerbannog the anonybunny -- who crunched the CRU and GHCN raw temperature data". Quick crunching might be fine, but we are interested in whether it's right or wrong. Comment, caerbannog?


If a simple "crunch job" gets you in the same ballpark as all of the officially published results, then that is a strong indication that the published results are pretty darned close to correct. More importantly, it shows that the results are very *robust*, as in variations in your processing will still produce pretty much the same answer. "Back of the envelope" sanity-checks (such as simple "crunch job" projects like mine) are incredibly valuable, as they can tell you that you have gone astray before you invest too much time/effort in a certain processing approach.

If the NASA/NOAA/CRU results depended critically on station selection, grid size, minimum baseline sample size, homogenization steps, etc., then the results would not be robust, and could not be trusted. That is, if results generated with a 10x10 degree grid size show warming, but results generated with a 20x20 grid size don't, then the results would not be considered robust. If the raw data results looked a lot different from the "adjusted" data results, then the results would not be considered robust. In that case, I would want to investigate the adjustments to see what the heck was going on. (For the record, raw and adjusted temperature data produce very similar global-average results).

In my little spare-time "hobby analysis" of the data, I have found the NASA/NOAA/etc results to be quite robust. Process the "adjusted" data instead of the "raw" data, and I get a similar result. Change the grid-size, and I get a similar result. Crunch "all stations" and "no dropped stations" (per Watts' dropped-stations claim), and I get almost identical results. Randomize the station selection, and I get similar results. I generated a whole bunch of global-temperature runs where I threw out 90 percent of the stations at random each time. Got similar warming results for every run (noisier of course, but all produced similar long-term warming trends).

My simple-minded approach is certainly not appropriate for regional temperature reconstructions (errors/biases may not "average out" sufficiently), but my global-average results have been pretty-darned on the mark. So much so, that when I first plotted my results, I double-checked to make sure that I didn't mistakenly plot my copy/pasted "NASA results" file by mistake.

Another way you can judge the strength of the NASA/NOAA/CRU results is to look at the quality of the critics/criticisms. Very few of the vocal critics have even the slightest idea of how to generate simple "crunch job" results, let alone understand the much more sophisticated procedures implemented by NASA/NOAA/etc. Most of them have no clue about the difference between a "temperature anomaly" and an "absolute temperature". Ask one of them how to compute seasonally-adjusted station baseline temperatures, and nearly every time you will get nothing more than a dumb look as a response.

I have found that "skeptics" just *love* to complain about the data, but they sure don't like to do anything with it.

A final note to all of the anonymous and named "skeptics" here: Could you, right now, off the top of your head, describe a simple "crunch job" procedure for computing global-average temperature anomalies from station data? Could you do so in enough detail that an experienced programmer could code it up? If you guys can't, then you are really in no position to participate constructively in this discussion.



--caerbannog the anonybunny

Anonymous said...

'I have found that "skeptics" just *love* to complain about the data, but they sure don't like to do anything with it.'

Point taken but the skeptics also have a point that there has been an enormous, lopsided resource effort gone into this 'new kid on the block' theory and the lack of openness with largely taxpayer funding is not a good look at all. The Climategate emails simply vindicated many of the criticisms skeptics had surmised before hand and naturally the field of CAGW has to live that down now. That means not repeating the mistakes of the past, nor making trite comments that the Steve McIntyres of the world are somehow rentseekers for seeking data and methodology funded largely by ordinary taxpayers. There are no doubt skeptics who make the same mistake/s and are ill-informed but to both sides of the ongoing debate, I'd repeat the excellent referenced advice of one commenter at WUWT on the Schmittner results post-

“It is rare that a single paper overturns decades of work, although this is a popular conception of how science works. Many controversial results end up being overturned, because controversial research, almost by definition, contradicts large existing bodies of research. Quite often, it turns out that it’s the controversial paper that is wrong, rather than the research it hopes to overturn. Science is an iterative process. Others have to check our work. We have to continue checking our work, too. Our study comes with a number of important caveats, which highlight simplifying assumptions and possible inconsistencies. These have to be tested further.

There is a great quote from an article in the Economist that sums up my[his] feelings, as a scientist, about the provisional nature of science.

“In any complex scientific picture of the world there will be gaps, misperceptions and mistakes. Whether your impression is dominated by the whole or the holes will depend on your attitude to the project at hand. You might say that some see a jigsaw where others see a house of cards. Jigsaw types have in mind an overall picture and are open to bits being taken out, moved around or abandoned should they not fit. Those who see houses of cards think that if any piece is removed, the whole lot falls down.”

Most scientists I know, including myself, are “jigsaw” types. We have to see how this result fits in with the rest of what we know, and continue testing assumptions, before we can come to a consensus about what’s really going on here.”

YUP! observa

Anonymous said...


Point taken but the skeptics also have a point that there has been an enormous, lopsided resource effort gone into this 'new kid on the block' theory and the lack of openness with largely taxpayer funding is not a good look at all.


"New kid on the block theory?" Are you f*&!ing kidding me? Have you ever heard of Joseph Fourier (mathematician/scientist employed by Napoleon), John Tyndall (contemporary of Charles Darwin), or Svante Arrhenius? These guys are the founders of the "new kid on the block" theory that's now approaching 2 centuries in age.

And "lack of openness"? Just where the f&@! have you been? Data and documentation sufficient for competent independent analysts to verify the global-average temperature results produced by NASA/NOAA/CRU have been available on-line for *years*. Hell, it took me just a few days of spare time programming/data-crunching to confirm the NASA results, using nothing more than public-domain GHCN data and documentation. And when the CRU released its raw data, I was able to generate confirmatory results from the CRU data-set the same f*&! day it was released! Just what the f*&! is wrong with you "skeptics", anyway. Can't you guys do *anything*??


The climategate episode, instead of vindicating skeptics, instead has shown you guys to be the lazy, incompetent, dishonest jerks that you are. What has happened to all you skeptics since the data that you had been screaming was released in full? If you skeptics weren't such lazy, incompetent, dishonest asses, you would have either produced results that showed that the NASA/NOAA/CRU results were problematic, or you would have produced results consistent with NASA/NOAA/CRU and would have acknowledged that the published global-average temperature results were indeed valid (as the Muller and his BEST colleagues recently did).

Listen -- you guys have had nearly *5 months* to produce something from that data that you had been demanding access to. 5 MONTHS. And to date, you guys haven't done squat.

Instead, you scribble worthless screeds full of "huffing and puffing" instead of rolling up your sleeves and working with the tremendous amount of data that climate-scientists have worked hard to make freely available to you.

You call yourself a scientist? Then start acting like one. Stop whining, get off your fat lazy ass, download the CRU data/documentation and either produce some results that demonstrate that the NASA/NOAA/CRU analyses are deficient or acknowledge that they've been getting it right all along.

IOW, either s**t or get off the pot.

You don't like my tone? Well too f&*!ing bad. If you guys weren't such lazy, useless, incompetent, dishonest whiners, then I'd be a little nicer to you...

--caerbannog the anonybunny

Martin Vermeer said...

observa: talk is cheap. With caerbannog, I challenge you to show us what you're made of.

J Bowers said...

For Observa.

Wiki: History of climate change science
"The history of the scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century when natural changes in paleoclimate were first suspected and the natural greenhouse effect first identified..."

The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart

Anonymous said...

I often wonder about the constant wails that climate science is too new, untested, not yet mature.

What do these people think of plate tectonics?

Or Einstein's work?

MinniesMystifiedMum

dhogaza said...

caerbannog ... hey, man, tell us how you feel! :) Great (and deserved) rant. You have a future on the internets!

Seriously:

"And "lack of openness"? Just where the f&@! have you been? Data and documentation sufficient for competent independent analysts to verify the global-average temperature results produced by NASA/NOAA/CRU have been available on-line for *years*."
For years you've even been able to order DVDs with scans of the ORIGINAL HANDWRITTEN OBSERVATIONS from stations 'round the world, if skeptics don't trust the digitization process and want to go to the REAL raw data ...

And that's just data ... GISS Model E source has been online for years, along with documentation and pointers to supporting papers in the literature (this doesn't stop deniers from claiming that "models don't model convection" despite the existence of a clearly named convection module in Model E, etc etc ad nauseum). The GISSTemp algorithm was documented ages ago, and when that wasn't "open enough", the code itself released (not that anyone competent actually *needed* the code given the documentation).

etc etc blah blah blah. Observa's either not observant or not telling the truth ...

Anonymous said...

First lets start with the nonsense that "skeptics" did nothing with the data.

http://stevemosher.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/cru-data-in-rghcnv3/#comments

next the nonsense that McIntyre had access to the data? wrong. CRU posted a 2003 version of the data by accident. A couple points

1. No NWS complained about their data being posted
2. there was no loss of access to the data as the result of CRUs carelessness
3. that was NOT the data he requested. he requested the version given to Webster

Jones did say that the countries forbade release to non academics.
That was a untrue. Read the inquiries and read the actual agreements.

The inquiries are pretty clear on CRUs fault in this matter. The ICO was clear.

we were right. you were wrong.

Next Martin.

Martin does not understand the simplest matter of QA.

Why do I want the CRU data? Simple

1. To see if there work is reproduceable
2. To eliminate issues that come up in replication because
of mistakes in data archiving and data transmission.

Here is a nice little video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1-nkqwmjI

you also need to understand the difference between reproducability
and replication. Victoria I believe touches on it briefly and some of the issues in here last slide. basically reproduceability is not meant to substitute for independent replication. That is not its purpose.

They are different martin. they both are important. I try to do both,
but I am far more interested in reproduceability. That is, making tools that others can use.

For example, you will find tamino's code in my packages and you will find Nick stokes code in my packages. My process with Nick is simple.
He sends me his code. we share data. I run his data through his code on my machine to see if there are any machine dependencies. I determine that I have working code and that our answers match.

I can now modify his code ( same with Tamino and RomanM) and I have a reference to check back to. I can make it faster, more robust, documented, and turn it into a tool for other to use.

Then I can do something that I find interesting. I can answer questions that the original code writer didnt ask. I will use GISSTEMP as an example. By having access to Gisstemp code and data one can for example:
1. use the same code with different data
2. change their UHI routines
3. change their UHI proxies

one can ask all thr sorts of questions that interest me. And the beautiful thing is that you are using a method that is "accepted"
There is no need to re invent the wheel. For me the approaches of Gisstemp and CRU made sense, Im basically interested in creating tools, creating them quickly, getting them into many peoples hands and being able to say with confidence that the code is the same as that used by experts. This is vastly different than independent replication, and I've never pretended that it was replication.
Having done both, I know the difference. You dont, apparently

Once I have a reproduceable method the job of replication is much
easier. Its also easy to see where things break down and why.
So there is LESS bugging of scientists. I have not had to bug Tamino once since he posted his code. It was clean. It was clear. It ran and now other people are putting it to use, doing better studies with a better approach. Same with Nick's code.

At some point Martin I will have a go at the code you posted, in due course, and try to turn that into something helpful that others can use and build on.

moshpit

Martin Vermeer said...

> Why do I want the CRU data? Simple

Yes, very simple: harrassment.

At some point it becomes easier to do both replication and reproduction with your own code, and data you can easily get from the internet (in another context I have done just that)... but no, Moshpit and the gang insisted on raising the whole bank account in cash ;-)

> At some point Martin I will have a go at the code you posted, in due course

You're welcome. Seriously.

BTW Moshpit, did you have that talk with Geoff Sherrington already? 'In due course'?

dhogaza said...

Moshpit: the problem with being a serial liar with dubious ethics is that very few people are likely to believe you, no matter how often you huff and puff and and insist:

"we were right. you were wrong"

And regarding motive, I'm with Martin. I read CA fairly often back when the FOIA attack was going on. Revisionism from a serial liar isn't likely to convince anyone.

Anonymous said...

Mosher:

"1. To see if there work is reproduceable
2. To eliminate issues that come up in replication because
of mistakes in data archiving and data transmission."

If this was really your aim, why are you trolling the internet and shouting that CRU won't give you the data? Your actions speak much louder than your words here.

If your aim was so simple you also wouldn't profit by writing books misrepresenting the very same scientists you are trying to get the data from.

You're not an impartial person here. You have an agenda and your 'simple' goals are simply a mask to hide your agenda.

Same as your insincere 'Luke Warming' rubbish.

willard said...

> The inquiries are pretty clear on CRUs fault in this matter. The ICO was clear. [W]e were right. [Y]ou were wrong.

The inquiries concluded that CRU was wrong.

They concluded that "We" were right on the only matter that pertains to CRU's being wrong.

"We" have not been found right on anything more than that, so far.

The inquiries or the ICO have not concluded that "You" was wrong.

"You" does not refer CRU.

That "We" were right does not imply that "You" were wrong, if the disagreement between "We" and "You" is not about what has been adjudicated in favor of "We".

And speaking of "We":

http://biggovernment.com/smosher/2010/09/23/let-us-euthanize-obamacare-before-it-euthanizes-us/

andrew adams said...

The ICO ruled that the public interest in the station data being made available outweighed the possible damage which might be done to CRU's relationships with NMS's. But it recognised that CRU's concerns in that respect were legitimate, did not dispute the existence of non-disclosure agreements and also recognised that CRU was attempting to obtain permission from the various NMS's to release the data.

andrew adams said...

The actual ruling can be found here

http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fer_0280033.ashx

Anonymous said...

@andrew adams : sorry for the lack of answer, I have lots on the plates these days - after all, I'm paid to do science :]
I am not sure that FOI rules should change from government to lesser entities. After all, governments (at least those not anti-science) discuss often with research institutes about budgets, counseling on scientific matters, etc. I would personnaly prefer that everyone comply to the same rules for the sake of simplicity - after all, between the contracts with private companies, the defense matters, the right to privacy, there is a lot of work already - a look at my mailbox is quite convincing for that matter, and I'm a low-level scientist without even a grant project to manage (for the moment ...)
For FOI refusals, I do not know. Here the basic rule of thumb is "project paid on public research funds, result report public ; project paid by private companies, result report private ; project asked by authorities, they fix the rules ". For the reports, we charge the people asking them, and this charge depends on the work that had to be done - you can ask us a very tricky job, we would say "ok, it will cost you (a lot)". If we transpose to FOI rules, I guess this is the logic behind UVA charge : no problem to fulfill FOI requests since it is required by law and it allows them to employ some lawyers, but these lawyers have to be paid for the work they did.
For the simple requests, research institutes offer already internet downloads. That should limit the costs for plain curious people looking for datas only. Of course, McIntyre (or another one ?) was idiot enough to swamp public data servers with robots and to complain about "censorship" thereafter, which tells a lot about his mindset ...

Another point was that raised during my absence puzzles me. Mosher ranted about Jones. Okay. But CRU is not the only climate data provider on Earth. So why not shrug, dismiss CRU as "bad data handler" and work on another dataset, especially since published CRU results match the others ?
In seismology, we are used to discard stations on global network notorious for their bad siting/horrible SNR ; there are several networks dedicated to nuclear explosion surveys that are not easy to access, and we simply ignore them to get datas from other networks. Sure we wish we could have all datas, but we have already our plates full.
This is a genuine question, I am not a climate expert : what makes the CRU data so invaluable it went so far as criminal investigation and pushing a scientist on the verge of suicide ? Particular sitings ?

Bratisla

Neven said...

"So why not shrug, dismiss CRU as "bad data handler" and work on another dataset, especially since published CRU results match the others ?"

Good question! Mosher?

Anonymous said...

Ah! That's easy, IMVHO.

They wanted to prove that Arctic temperature rise wasn't as bad as is portrayed in other data sets (which are all part of some all-encompassing scientific fraud) and that, consequently, the ongoing Arctic sea-ice loss (which doesn't actually exist anyway) is just part of some fairy-inspired regional multi-decadal oscillation. And seeing as the CRU dataset was at odds with other datasets regarding the Arctic region, this would prove that the CRU datasets were obviously a fraud, too.

Cymraeg llygoden

willard said...

> The ICO ruled that the public interest in the station data being made available outweighed the possible damage which might be done to CRU's relationships with NMS's. But it recognised that CRU's concerns in that respect were legitimate, did not dispute the existence of non-disclosure agreements and also recognised that CRU was attempting to obtain permission from the various NMS's to release the data.

Indeed, we should not conflate the fact that a judgement rules in favor of "We" that "You" were not justified in any way to act like "You" did.

***

Neven,

Here's an explanation of "shrug":

> Maybe the most appropriate way to recognize Jones’ contribution to climate studies and to send a firm message to the climate community – that the issues are far too important to indulge such conduct – would be to disband CRU, acknowledging the loss of the CRUTEM franchise and dispersing whatever staff are left.

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/362025478

Anonymous said...

"New kid on the block theory?" Are you f*&!ing kidding me?"[caerbannog the anonybunny]

Not in the slightest if you really know your modern history. Joseph Fourier (mathematician/scientist employed by Napoleon), John Tyndall (contemporary of Charles Darwin), or Svante Arrhenius were merely lost jigsaw pieces as early ago as 1975 when Newsweek, among others was reporting the chilling news from your trusted folk at NOOA-
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm You know- "A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." Not that Michael 'hockey stick' Mann would have been worried much, being in Grade 4 or 5 Primary School at the time,aged 10. Nor would he have known much about the Club of Rome publishing Limits to Growth in 1972 or Mankind at the Turning Point in 1974. If he was old enough to drive he'd have been worried about enough gas for the car after the 1973 oil shock, rather than what was coming out of the tailpipe of the gas guzzler. While the new grownups were weaving hessian bag clothes and throwing clay pots for the brave new future, the Paul Ehrlichs of the day were not exactly predicting the obesity epidemic of today. We smoked on buses trains and offices (strictly the brand the doctors smoked you understand)Can you believe those crazies at Australia post actually voted for a smoke free workplace in 1983? About the time James Hardie decided it would be a good idea for us not to build houses out of fibro asbestos. perhaps they wouldn't exactly ward off the coming Ice Age because Australian govts everywhere didn't see fit to ban the sale of asbestos brake pads until Dec 2002. Something about not being good for the kiddies when you pulled up to drop them off at kindy or school.

Ah yes 1983 when we were still pumping Fortran punch cards into the DEC10 monster modelling whole economies and wondering how to backcast stagflation. Then they rolled out the Prime minicomputers for us to scratch our heads with. Nice telly screens but not much worth watching. Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius? Were they one of the warmup group for the Stones? Facebook, Twitter and Youtube the same? In Aug 1981 the first mobile phone call via Telecom on 14kg handset costing $5000 ($17000 in todays dough). Where were you and all the nukes, we're all gunna starve, Y2k, warmist doomsayers then sonny boy?

Let me help you get your me and now hubris into some perspective. Try here for the latest buzzwords on 'climate disruption' or 'extreme weather' now you've all tired somewhat of 'global warming' and 'climate change'-
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf
Don't miss Dr Isaac Cline, Director of the Weather Station at galveston in 1900 and his description of 15 foot of water driven not by tsunami, but simply wind and tide. They were a bit more matter of fact and stoic about the trails and tribulations of 'Gaia' back then, unlike the me and now hysterics of today. Oh and use your hanky and blow your nose sonny.

observa

Anonymous said...


Newsweek, among others was reporting the chilling news from your trusted folk at NOOA-
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm


Global-warming skeptics are not only unable to get published in scientific journals, but apparently they can't even find the university libraries where those journals are archived!

Could someone here kindly take "observa" by the hand and lead him to the great big building full of books (aka the "library") on a college campus near him? You may not have time though, because you will also have to lead him by the nose to the journal stacks, look up all the articles, and read them to him. And even then, he still won't get it.


--caerbannog the anonybunny

Anonymous said...

The lies/distortions from Moshpit just keep coming. For example,

"next the nonsense that McIntyre had access to the data? wrong. CRU posted a 2003 version of the data by accident."

Yes, they accidentally left some of the data on a server, Mr. Steven McIntyre was poking around and took it without asking, ands also full knowing that the data were not his to take. AKA stealing. Thanks for being so honest Moshpit (/sarc).

Next you'll be trying to tell us that your pal Steve McIntyre didn't have certain tree-ring data for years, all the while accusing scientists of refusing to share it with him and slandering and defaming them.

As for contributing to the science, or rather failure to do so; McIntyre has still to make a fully independent paleo reconstruction of N. Hemisphere temps. Rather, he has chosen to aid the serial plagiarist known as Wegman and nit pick at a paper published way back in 1998 and engage in daily chumming for the rabid deniers and "skeptics", defaming climate scientists and bullying them, and floating all kinds of conspiracy theories.

Really Mr. Mosher, you are only fooling yourself. Someone is going to write a nice book about you and your pals like Mr. Steven McIntyre and it will not reflect favourably on you. Heck it may even end up with one of you in prison..that would be a good ending ;)

Now to be fair you have recently collaborated on some work on the (well-studied) UHI, and surprise surprise the impact on the temperature trends is pretty much meaningless. Well, that finding is nothing new.

Really, save us the tone and concern trolling, and insincere claims about "the purpose was not to create an "independent" assessment"". Thanks but scientists do not need YOUR unsolicited help-- you really do need to get that ego and D-K under control Moshpit.

And if you want to know why people are so pissed off with you, look in the mirror and reflect on all the vile/inane/duplicitous/insincere things who have written in the past. Are you capable of doing that?

Your duplicitous and insincere behaviour is unfortunate, because you could have made a positive contribution, instead that is all undermined by your ideology and ego and some of the company you keep.

Like Curry, you have nasty hobbies Moshpit-- harassing climate scientists, being a merchant of doubt and enabling people who have nasty vendettas against climate scientists.

No nonsense bunny

PS: When are you going to orchestrate your next vexatious FOI campaign? Who will you harass next? Who will be the next victim of your slander? Please do tell.. :)

dhogaza said...

"Yes, they accidentally left some of the data on a server, Mr. Steven McIntyre was poking around and took it without asking, ands also full knowing that the data were not his to take. AKA stealing. Thanks for being so honest Moshpit (/sarc)."

Indeed, in the US this can, depending on circumstances, be actionable, under the same legal reasoning that says that my leaving my front door open doesn't give you the right to enter and leave carrying my television ...

dhogaza said...

Bratisla:

"This is a genuine question, I am not a climate expert : what makes the CRU data so invaluable it went so far as criminal investigation and pushing a scientist on the verge of suicide ? Particular sitings ?"

NASA GISTemp used GHCN data only, i.e. publicly available data only. About 5% of the data crunched by CRU was considered proprietary by various governments.

This gave them something they could attack CRU over - "you're hiding data! climate science is a fraud!".


Clear?


I am deeply cynical regarding the motives of these people because, as I stated earlier, I used to read CA quite often while this crap was going on.

J Bowers said...

Is Observa Jay Cadbury's dad?

Neven said...

Observa, my friend, please go over to science historian Spencer Weart's website or read his shorter book. I did. It's excellent. The history of climate science is a fascinating story.

If you are honest and of good will, I'm sure you will check out the website/book.

ligne said...

Is Observa Jay Cadbury's dad?

from that rambling-diversion-tastic escapade, i'm fairly sure he's grampa simpson.

either that or he's a few months away from his septum collapsing.

EliRabett said...

So allow Eli to summarize. Steve Mosher believes that all software and data associated with climate records should be directly available to the public and otherwise is a scandal. Of course the investment of the authors into their research is "unimportant" Is that it?

EliRabett said...

Oh yes, Steve Mosher is a rent seeker, using FOI force others to give him their work.