Sign in / up

back to article ICO orders release of (mostly useless) weather station data

The Information Commissioner's Office has ordered the University of East Anglia to release a portion of a weather dataset. The University's Climatic Research Unit had shared the data with Georgia Tech but refused to release it more widely. A leading Oxford physicist, Professor Jonathan Jones, made the successful request, which …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    When things don't make sense

    Start by following the money. Our money.

    In fact, it would be far cheaper to pay the CRU 'scientists' to take an extended vacation, rather than to believe all their results and throw mind-boggling sums at solving the climate change 'problem'.

    And after all, if some low-lying islands are going to become uninhabitable, the islanders should migrate over to Siberia, which apparently will soon be quite pleasant. Remember, it's 'change', not the end of the World, and not all change is bad.

    I guess they would be more credible if they could agree whether Britain is going to get warmer or colder.

    15 4
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Mushroom

      Re: When things don't make sense

      "Start by following the money. Our money."

      You'd be surprised, not merely that it doesn't get shovelled by the tonne into scientific research (which most people doing research would already be able to tell you, but to whom you don't want to listen), but about where it actually goes.

      "And after all, if some low-lying islands are going to become uninhabitable, the islanders should migrate over to Siberia, which apparently will soon be quite pleasant."

      Do you know anything at all about Siberia? It's not frozen wasteland all year that could do with a bit of warming; in summer it gets unbearably hot in places. The bits that aren't pleasant now will only become unpleasant in various other ways.

      Sure, the way science is done could be improved by applying proven engineering principles. That should be the real story here, if people muster the stamina to actually read and digest even the messages reproduced in the article, rather than tittering at the naughty words and basking in the gossip and peripheral sensationalism.

      2 4
  2. James Micallef Silver badge
    Pint

    I'm not sure I understood this correctly...

    ... but is this apparently quite buggy data set the basis (or one of the basis data sets) on which a lot of climate science (and the IPCC reults) rests?

    Good thing the data has been released, at least now we can see whether the model results were replicable or not. Let's wait and see what other external scientists make of the dataset.

    (Not much hope that the people on the forum here will wait and see, I'm expecting total nuclear forum warfare to break out)

    <ducks, runs for cover, grabs a beer from a safe distance>

    6 0
    1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      Stop

      This is not the data you're looking for

      No, this data set is not used as the basis for any GW predictions. I have that on the authority of the (in) famous Harry himself, in fact.

      1 0
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    Now you have done it..

    .. mentioned the work 'newcleer' in a Reg forum post.

    The end of the world is nigh

    1 0
  4. Neil Milner-Harris

    The main issue

    That most of us that get categorised as 'Deniers' have is that the dataset and methodology wasn't released to allow the other scientists to validate the results.

    This when further compounded by quotes such as "When I asked Oxburgh if [Keith] Briffa [CRU academic] could reproduce his own results, he said in lots of cases he couldn't," for me means that this is most definitely not science up to this point.

    If however the results become repeatable and are validated by external scientists then it'll be science, until then it's just playing with numbers.

    My personal gripe is that this 'science' is being used to govern serious and far reaching policy decisions as is it was incontrovertible fact.

    Just to be clear before I get flamed to hell, I don't adamantly deny that humans are having any impact on our climate, nor do I ascribe to the hypothesis that we are solely or largely responsible for the change in the world climate, or even that the climate is changing in the manner we are told. I would just like some actual proper transparent science to be done by non political organisations to attempt to understand what actually is happening and what may actually be causing it.

    Is that too much to ask?

    18 0
    1. Martin
      Reply Icon
      Unhappy

      It's not at all too much to ask...

      ....it's just that, on the "denier" side, the vast majority is in the business of spreading FUD, and not in the business of actual science.

      It's a lot like the way the tobacco companies attempted to hide or discredit the facts about the health issues of cigarettes (and still do, come to that), or the way the Christian Right is trying to "teach the controversy" about Intelligent Design.

      There are very many scientists trying to do actual proper transparent science. The vast majority of them have been convinced - by the science - that we really are likely to have a problem in the fairly near future. They can't ALL be deliberately misleading us. On the other hand, there are a lot of non-scientists (and a few scientists, to be fair) who do not believe the science is convincing. And there are a large number of corporations who have a vested interest in persuading people that it's not really happening. And the science is hard, and not by any means exact.

      Hence, it's very easy to spread FUD, and El Reg ought, frankly, to be ashamed of the help that it gives the deniers.

      0 10
  5. NomNomNom

    On nitpicking

    When I run stress tests I get slightly different numbers each time. According to this article this means what I am doing is just not science. Even though the stress test results are pretty much consistant. It's machine and network "weather" creating noise that make the results slightly different each time.

    I can imagine a kind of (admittedly unfunny) dilbert cartoon where the Boss demands the test results are replicated. Completed in 203.1 seconds? Reproduce that result! You can't?? Incompetence!

    1 13
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      But

      > When I run stress tests I get slightly different numbers each time.

      If you were asked "On 2nd March your report showed that this part was faulty." Would you be able to go back to your measurements from the 2nd March (not take new measurements) and feed them all through your equations again and come up with the same result?

      This is what Briffa is unable to do. To use your stress test anology, in some cases he does not know where the stress test measurements are or what version of the measurements he used and in others he doesn't know what calculations he used to get the final result.

      9 1
  6. Trollslayer
    Mushroom

    Embarassing

    That is the only polite word I can use - especially for others who must have been aware of this shambles but still exploited it.

    Shut them down or set them to work doing something useful like clearing sewers. On minimum wage of course.

    11 1
  7. Michael 31

    Land Surface Temperatures

    http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/

    An initiative, largely unfunded at present, has begun with its aim to improve the state of the instrumental land surface temperature record. The new data base will be completely open, and all data traceable to its source. The 'climate community' have gone out of their way to invite temperature metrologists from NIST and NPL (Me) and statisticians to look closely at their work, how the 'data products' are compiled and how they are tested. What more do you expect people to do?

    Andrew, Cynicism is an easy stance but actually doesn't reflect the reality that I have experienced in the 9 months I have been working in this area. The possibility of climate change is very real and worth investigating. And yes, people need to do a better job. And they are trying really hard to do just that:

    http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/

    Dr. Michael de Podesta

    1 2
    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Reply Icon
      Meh

      @Michael 31

      "An initiative, largely unfunded at present, has begun with its aim to improve the state of the instrumental land surface temperature record. "

      The cynicism comes from the fact that what you describe seems so admirable it should be funded as a matter of course, if for no other reason than a general house clearing of what seems to be *highly* suspect data.

      Except it isn't.

      And the issues of data management seem so bad they should have been picked up and resolved *decades* ago.

      Except they weren't.

      I *fully* support this proposal. But boy has it taken them a while to get round to it.

      3 0
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Megaphone

      I think you missed, and keep missing, the point.

      '...reflect the reality that I have experienced in the 9 months I have...' Does not refect on the use of mangled, dataless datasets going back years, decades or centuries. The reason for all of the mistrust is that you (or at least your colleagues) published results and hid the data and methods used to generate those results. If you/they had published the results, the data and the methods, NO ONE WOULD HAVE CARED how wildly in/accurate your results were because they would have been able to paste it all into Excel and click print...and come to a conclusion, perhaps the same as yours, for themselves. That was not what happened, was it? What you did was (I was about to say immoral, but scientists aren't supposed to be moral) dishonest.

      I'm not sure about the statement about not getting the same results twice in a row. If you feed a database full of numbers through a non-RNG based program twice in a row and get different results, how can you trust anything written by those programmers ever again? Or those people (I almost said scientists) who publish said numbers?

      In all likelyhood, there were several scientists behind the scenes working feverishly to come up with an equation (or set thereof) to match the existing data that could then be used to predict future trends. If, however, in removing outliers and other 'oddities,' the dataset that was supposed to be raw data turned into one that contained 'data that proves our model' then that dataset became worse than suspect, it became a useless, and the model a lie.

      7 0
      1. NomNomNom
        Reply Icon

        t

        "In all likelyhood, there were several scientists behind the scenes working feverishly to come up with an equation (or set thereof) to match the existing data that could then be used to predict future trends"

        That isn't remotely how it's done. The datasets are not input into models. The models are not merely extrapolating datasets.

        0 2
        1. peter_dtm
          Reply Icon
          Mushroom

          err

          the datasets are used to validate the HINDCASTING capability of the models

          the models which are attempting to model a chaotic system with a large number of unknown variables interacting in a complex and chaotic way; which is not understood (and therefore can not be modeled). The same models which are used as *proof* of AGW (read the IPCC papers to see how many times the proof is the output of a model). The same models which assume CO2 is a primary driver of climate change.

          They run the models against historic readings and see if the resulting 'climate' agrees with the historic record. They 'tune' the input parameters (none of which they have empirical proof for; which they therefore don't understand; apart from CO2 MUST be one of the important ones) until the hindcast agrees with history. They then run the model forwards in time; using parameters designed to get from a to b in a chaotic system; and pronounce the outcome as valid. ITS A CHAOTIC SYSTEM. That means the hind cast matters as much as the last spin of the roulette wheel matters when placing your £1000000000000000000000000 bet on the next spin.

          The models are a busted flush. And judging by Harry's readme - there were several scientists behind the scenes working feverishly to come up with an equation (or set thereof) to match the existing data that could then be used to predict future trends.

          4 0
        2. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          n

          Then what do the models do? And why do they do it?

          0 0
  8. Steve Crook

    UEA - A Missed opportunity?

    The whole point of this isn't anything to do with climate change being real or not, it's the idiotic steps taken by UEA (apparently with the collusion of senior staff members) to avoid sending to perfectly innocuous data to people who were entitled to see it.

    The fact is that their behaviour has cost them a lot of our money and done nothing except generate more sceptics and conspiracy theories.

    I thought the 'inquiries' into climategate said that all the data was publicly available. This judgement appears to contradict that assertion...

    The worst part of all of this is that it's distracted effort from trying to work out the important stuff, like how much the planet has actually warmed and why. Also, where Trenberths missing heat has gone (unless you accept it really was Mt Pinatubo what done it)...

    9 0
  9. copsewood
    WTF?

    Why let lack of evidence get in the way of a conspiracy theory ?

    The emails quoted out of context are likely to seem pretty banal to anyone who works in a messy research environment. Part of the process has always to involve critically reviewing the validity of your data and methodology - and that's what we see some evidence of here. Wish I could say the same for the approach taken by many journalists.

    As someone who has observed how long it can take once a corporation decides to open source a significant in-house developed program involving code provided by multiple contributing parties, I can also well imagine why copyright can block public domain release of any substantial data collection coming from very many independent sources. This is very likely to be the case even if any one of the external contributors may be thought unlikely to object to repurposing the data or code provided (i.e. having the data made available to a third party for a purpose not covered in the original agreement) but one or more of very many data providers might, and the cost of obtaining permission from all sources attested sufficiently to convince corporate lawyers that the exercise is litigation risk free is substantial. So what benefit to UEA in this expensive exercise ?

    It also seems pretty rich that a journalist who expends so many words arguing against any sensible reform of the outdated copyright system is willing to argue conspiratorial and fraudulent intent behind these logical consequences of the very system he supports. I'm sure UEA are fine about having the data released into the public domain once it's going to be the ICO which risks being sued. Now that the ICO has ordered the release, UEA can wash their hands of the potential risk and tell any copyright objector amongst the data originators to go sue the ICO.

    0 9
    1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)
      Reply Icon

      Re: Why let lack of evidence get in the way of a conspiracy theory ?

      A man confused by an "abuse" of copyright, and in quite a quandry because the "good" guys invoked it.

      Much poorly-informed speculation of motives follows.

      Your taxes at work.

      8 2
      1. copsewood
        Reply Icon
        Holmes

        Hypocrisy and abuse of Copyright

        Hunting with the hounds when it's about creators getting paid. Running with the fox when he can get away with liberally quoting private emails illegally put into the public domain following an offence under the Computer Misuse Act. Clearly Mr Orlowski wants to have his own cake and eat other people's.

        0 7
        1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)
          Reply Icon

          Re: Hypocrisy and abuse of Copyright

          Your time would be better spent reading the ICO ruling, rather than speculation, red herrings and repetitive ad hominems on the author.

          copsewood: "private emails illegally put into the public domain following an offence under the Computer Misuse Act."

          So much for "Open data" :-)

          8 1
        2. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          FAIL

          Re: Hypocrisy and abuse of Copyright

          > Hunting with the hounds when it's about creators getting paid.

          From the actual decision:

          " Given all of the above, it is not clear to the Commissioner how UEA might have planned to commercially exploit the specific information requested and how disclosure might have impacted on any plans that it might have developed or been in the process of developing. He is consequently not satisfied that it is more probable than not that disclosure would adversely affect its intellectual property rights. He has therefore determined that regulation 12(s)(c) is not engaged."

          In other words, the "creators" were not even attempting to commercially exploit the requested data.

          > he can get away with liberally quoting private emails illegally put into the public domain following an offence under the Computer Misuse Act.

          1. The emails where not private. They where sent and received using UEA equipment and had UEA email addresses on them. As such they belonged to the UEA. None of the senders or recipients of the emails therefore has any expectation of privacy with the emails.

          2. The UEA is a public authority as defined within the FOIA. As such all documents, including email, held by the UEA are subject to FOI requests. The UEA therefore can not have any expectation of privacy with any email. This is irrespective of whether a FOI request is granted or refused.

          3. Norfolk police have yet to determine if a criminal, civil or even if any offence occurred.

          4. If the emails were released by an UEA employee then the release is covered under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The UEA would not even be able to terminate the whistleblowers employment, let alone prosecute.

          10 1
          1. copsewood
            Reply Icon
            Holmes

            @ac 29th June 2011 08:53 GMT

            'In other words, the "creators" were not even attempting to commercially exploit the requested data.'

            This is unlikely to have been the blocking issue. It is more likely that the data was provided by very many originators and aggregators, and copyright had been granted to UEA for specific purposes and uses, as opposed to for any use or onwards distribution. Prior to the overriding instruction by the ICO transferring potential liability for this to the government, it seems unlikely that the UEA could have provided data to other parties, assuming that they wanted to, without risking breaching copyright based on the agreements under which they have received this data, because it wasn't theirs to give. So how much student fee and research grant money do you think UEA should have spent in attempting to trace and contact thousands of data providers, paying their legal advice costs in attesting consent to the data transfer suggested to enable further peer review, when peer review had already occurred ?

            "1. The emails where not private. They where sent and received using UEA equipment and had UEA email addresses on them. As such they belonged to the UEA. None of the senders or recipients of the emails therefore has any expectation of privacy with the emails."

            You assume that Universities are like other empoyers in this respect. They are not. Many of my emails concern student assessment or involve counselling students about matters very personal to them, where they have reasonable expectation of privacy as well as constitutional rights guaranteeing this. The same issues cover research supervision especially where that supervision covers research degree activity. In many cases someone who is at the start of a research career is both a customer and an employee of the University in the sense they pay student fees and collect a reseach assistant salary. Universities consequently do not have the right to intrude into or publish staff or student emails without permission.

            Many University staff contracts include free speech clauses, where part of the job involves developing independent views. As a consequence, private correspondence is also expected to stay private, because while a lecturer is accountable for what is said in public or published through normal peer review and critical channels, for private conversations to be able to result in the independent formation of views these have to carry an expectation of privacy.

            0 6
            1. Anonymous Coward
              Reply Icon
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: copsewood

              > many originators and aggregators, and copyright had been granted to UEA

              You are talking complete bollocks. Please point me a single instance of where one of the "originators and aggregators" had granted any form of copyright to the UEA. All agreements have been FOIA'ed so if they exist you should be able to find one.

              > it seems unlikely that the UEA could have provided data to other parties, assuming that they wanted to, without risking breaching copyright based on the agreements..

              Yet that is exactly what they did. They provided the information (free of restriction) to third parties that the UEA approved of and refused those they disapproved of.

              > So how much student fee and research grant money do you think UEA should have spent in attempting to trace and contact thousands of data providers

              You exaggerate. It was not thousands of data providers. There should have been no need to trace anybody since if there were agreements in place, they would have copies of these agreements and know exactly who to contact.

              > You assume that Universities are like other empoyers in this respect. They are not. Many of my emails concern student assessment or involve counselling students about matters very personal to them, where they have reasonable expectation of privacy as well as constitutional rights guaranteeing this.

              Universities are exactly like other employers in this respect. The University does not have to seek legal remedy to read your email. If, for example, an allegation is made against you then the University can read your email. You have no expectation of privacy.

              > Many University staff contracts include free speech clauses, where part of the job involves developing independent views.

              Irrelevant.

              > As a consequence, private correspondence is also expected to stay private,

              Then use a private means of communication such as your own personal email account.

              BTW. I have worked for a University. I have signed employment contracts with them. I have also agreed to the terms and conditions on using their computer facilities. I have never seen a "free speech" clause or a clause restricting free speech. I have never seen a clause stating that emails I send and receive using their resources are private and the University has no right of access.

              5 2
              1. Anonymous Coward
                Reply Icon
                Anonymous Coward

                @corpsewood

                "BTW. I have worked for a University. "

                I am not surprised to find one useless end of academia defending another useless end of academia.

                Try RTFA: the material requested by Professor Jonathan Jones was not email, it was not source code, it was station data.

                The scientific method requires work to be replicated. Spending hours defending attempts to prevent this is is disgraceful. Were you thrown out of your University for incompetence, corpsewood, or did you have a non-academic job?

                6 1
  10. Gannon (J.) Dick
    IT Angle

    Please get me as far away ...

    ... from these fools as possible.

    http://www.rustprivacy.org/2011/phase/climate-time.pdf

    0 0
  11. EWI
    Mushroom

    Pass the fainting salts, please

    ""OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.""

    I'm failing to see how this doesn't reflect what most of us have said at one or point or another. Perhaps St. Orlowski can show us the contents of his own email account?

    1 5
    1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)
      Reply Icon

      Re: Pass the fainting salts, please

      "Data integrity - who needs it?"

      6 1
  12. Adrian Midgley 1

    DO you have a better data set?

    If so it may be worth disclosing.

    If each set of people who set up a data collecting weather station backl in the 17/18/19/20th century had knwon what form the data should be kept in so that it would all be handled easily now they might well have done so, but I suspect they did not.

    Alas.

    I also suspect there is a large element of the historian and archeologist in the approach to the data sets, which is irritating enough when it is the sort of old records I sometimes have to try t interpret, and must be more so with this.

    However, if someone has a gold standard set of readings to compare the data against, lets see them.

    1 0
    1. Steve Crook
      Reply Icon

      Actually there were only two files

      From the judgement it's quite clear that almost all the data used in CRUTEM3 was already publicly available elsewhere. The FOIA request related to a relatively small quantity of data that wasn't.

      All UEA had to do was hand over two files. Nothing else. It would have been no more than days work for one person. Instead, they chose to make a stand, as a point of principle, to fight off the 'barbarians'.

      Originally, there were (I think) 2 FOIA request for the data. When UEA refused on (among other grounds) breach of confidentiality agreements, it generated a flurry of new FOIA requests to see those agreements because the requesters thought they were bogus. In fact most of the requests the UEA received were actually to see those confidentiality agreements, and not for data or anything else...

      UEA have no excuse. It's a massive FAIL on their part and was probably the trigger for whoever helped themselves to the content of the UEA email server.

      6 1
    2. Tom 13
      Reply Icon

      Just because there isn't a better data set

      doesn't give them the right to bollux it up and then proclaim it is "good". Moreover, if it IS the definitive data set, all the more reason access to it should be given to all and not restricted to the high preisthood of the Cult of AGW.

      7 0
  13. Martin
    Meh

    I wonder why El Reg hasn't covered this story?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon

    So, there are loads of climate change scientists who have a vested interest in saying it's happening, to justify their claims (according to the "skeptics").

    But how about this leading skeptic who definitely has a vested interest in saying it's all rubbish?

    1 5
    1. Yamal Dodgy Data
      Reply Icon
      FAIL

      oh FFS Martin

      "..according to a GREENPEACE investigation"

      ( ... the evil capitalist running dogs .. yada.. yada... reactionary pigs .. yada yada.. oppressing progressive greenpeace freedom fighters and syrian lesbian bloggers .. yada yada ..evil daily fail climate holocaust deniers .. yada yada )

      Martin, do grow up or at least drink the kool-aid that's bottled in Jonestown, Guyana.

      Here's a clue:

      Labour (not nazi denier) MP, the only one with a science degree (not an oxbridge PPE plonker),

      says CRU is peddling bollocks.

      7 1
      1. Martin
        Reply Icon
        FAIL

        Oh, come on....

        ...just because it's Greenpeace, doesn't mean it's wrong by definition.

        Greenpeace, without doubt, have an agenda.

        But that doesn't detract from the fact that one of the leading scientists on the denier side is being paid by the coal and oil industry.

        And it also indicates that El Reg is being their usual selective self by ignoring the stories that don't appeal to THEIR agenda.

        And with a response like that - you're telling ME to grow up?

        1 6
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Oh, come on....

          Tell me you can see the hypocrisy in your own comment...

          1 0
        2. Steve Crook
          Reply Icon
          Stop

          Denier side?

          You more or less lost my interest when you used that word. You acknowledge that Greenpeace have a political agenda. Is it not possible that this makes them ignore evidence that conflicts with their interest, and emphasize evidence that does?

          Many scientists that work for the IPCC as lead or co-authors are also employed by Greenpeace, WWF, other multinationals green NGOs and organizations promoting the development of 'green' energy. Look at the recent WG3 renewables report.

          It would be much better if attacks on Willie Soon were confined to science and not guilt by association.

          None of this does any of us any service.

          4 0
        3. peter_dtm
          Reply Icon
          Mushroom

          oh for heavan's sake

          I suggest you do a tiny little research and find out how much shell; bp; exon etc are making out of 'alternative energy' - I'd also have a quick look at who helps fund CRU. (hint they are better known as an Oil major)

          but that doesn't detract that most in the AGW movement are funded by Greenpeace; WWF; TERI and governments - non of whom are exactly un-biased.

          2 0
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      well really.

      Do you expect Greenpeace to keep him on retainer to make these types of claims?

      Of course, that's unfair, as everyone knows that Big Oil uses exactly the same tactics and the Sierra Club and Geenpeace.

      0 0
  14. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Happy

    Lot's of AC's today

    So much modesty in sharing your identities, but not your views.

    BTW I note the AGW supporters entries seem to be longer than the oppoing views.

    You would not be trying to bury people in verbiage, would you?

    Brevity is the soul of expression.

    2 0
    1. Yamal Dodgy Data
      Reply Icon
      Big Brother

      why the flood of anonymous eco-trolls you ask ?

      If you hadn't figured it out yet,

      Whenever Andrew Orlowski writes an article and enables comments.

      Grauniad readers and other assorted carbon cultists hear about it and descend en masse.

      (why else would social studies teachers or community outreach facilitators be pasting their URLs to the graun on a tech site like the Reg ?)

      The eco-loons have got organised trolling refined to a fine art:

      if you don't believe it -> http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384

      Anyway, so while all the visiting thermogeddonists are now here on the Reg,

      Let me point them to the reg article that put Orlowski on the eco-loons hitlist.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

      PS: I've personally seen a watermelon explode after reading that ;-)

      6 1
  15. NomNomNom

    t

    I notice in the new article says:

    "A large number of station records outside the United States were removed between 1988 and 1992, resulting in more interpolation. Critics say this cooled the 20th Century temperature record."

    No mention that the claim was already shown to be false last year*. No mention that the critics are completely illogical to conclude a station dropout would cause a cooling effect rather than a warming.

    One thing about these articles, they don't point out that the temperature data IS available to verify.

    1 2
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Headmaster

      @NonNomNom: WRONG

      That's factually correct. The number of stations was cut, and this made modern temperatures warmer relative to the 1930s.

      None of that is contested - the debate is over the UHI adjustment. It's funny though how modern times keep getting warmer with each new statistical trick.

      3 0
      1. NomNomNom
        Reply Icon

        t

        It IS contested. By those who know what they are talking about.

        The skeptics ballsed up on it. They claimed (and some still ignorantly do) that the station dropout in GHCN had a cooling effect because some of the stations that dropped out were from cold high latitudes.

        It really shows they haven't a clue that they thought removal of cold stations would produce a warming effect. Might sound intuitive but if you understand how the temperature records are compiled it's clear that's bogus. Yet some of the biggest and "brightest" skeptics spread that claim anyway.

        0 2
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          say what?

          you said:

          "They claimed (and some still ignorantly do) that the station dropout in GHCN had a cooling effect because some of the stations that dropped out were from cold high latitudes."

          but then you also said:

          "...they thought removal of cold stations would produce a warming effect."

          Make up your mind. They can't be wrong for claiming cooling while at the same time be wrong for claiming warming.

          To be honest, I'm not sure if you're saying that they're wrong or that they're wrong; for opposite reasons.

          0 0
  16. david 63

    I suggest all skeptics...

    ...get on the mailing list.

    Two can play at that game...

    0 0
    1. peter_dtm
      Reply Icon
      Flame

      but

      most skeptics work for a living.........

      2 0
  17. NikFromNYC

    Why do I need a title?

    The LA Times featured cold fusion in '89 before its debunking. Environmentalists were aghast!

    “It’s like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” – Paul Ehrlich (mentor of John Cook of the SkepticalScience blog, author of "Climate Change Denial")

    “Clean-burning, non-polluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could knock down trees or build housing developments on farmland.” – Paul Ciotti (LA Times)

    “It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy.” – Jeremy Rifkin (NY Times)

    “Many people assume that cheaper, more abundant energy will mean that mankind is better off, but there is no evidence for that.” – Laura Nader (sister of Ralph)

    CLIMATEGATE 101: "For your eyes only...Don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone....Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that." - Phil "Hide The Decline" Jones to Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann

    Here I present A Global Warming Digest:

    Denial: http://i.min.us/ibyADs.jpg

    Oceans: http://k.min.us/idAw6Y.gif

    NASA: http://k.min.us/idFxzI.jpg

    Thermometers: http://i.min.us/idAOoE.gif

    Earth: http://k.min.us/ibtB8G.gif

    Ice: http://k.min.us/ibtZec.jpg

    Authority: http://k.min.us/iby6xe.gif

    Prophecy: http://i.min.us/idEHdo.jpg

    Psychopathy: http://i.min.us/ibubmk.jpg

    Icon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmPzLzj-3XY

    Thinker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92YenWfz0Y

    -=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. in Carbon Chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

    3 0
    1. NomNomNom
      Reply Icon

      t

      has roy spencer released the UAH source code yet?

      No

      How is the skeptic campaign going on that? Smeared him by implying he's hidden his source code yet? Have any FOIA requests in progress on that to force him to release it?

      No I am sure you don't. Crickets. Double standards. As expected.

      0 2
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Roy who? let me Google him.

        Ok, Found him, found the data, and from what I can understand this is the raw data collected. If not, then yes, he needs to publish the transform that was applied to it. If he won't, then I'd assume that the UEA would FOI it because if it makes them looks like morons, and it wrong, they deserve vindication.

        I don't know what the results of that would be, but I know the line about Glass Houses. So as long as UEA is fighting FOI requests, they aren't likely to be issuing any because that would make them seem petty.

        By the way, have you used the FOI process to obtain his documents for the UEA? I haven't.

        1 1
This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like