Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[convert]

Which only goes to show the effectiveness of the deniers smear campaign and demonstrates why there is no global conspiracy to hide the truth, when you have people within IPCC saying these things based on the misrepresentations in the blogosphere.

 

I also note he says:

 

Or, perhaps Zorita (A contributing author to the IPCC AR4 report) is tired of the way in which science is being disregarded in favour of a policitacl agenda of control and taxes.

 

I don't know the reasoning behind his comments re Mann and Jones, and neither do you.

 

The fact that he is trying to distance himself from them, and their 'scientific' work speaks volumes. That he does so, despite it being a potential death blow to his career, shows (IMHO) that he is a man of integrity.

[Wildcat]

Wildcat, I'd be interested where you get your 2% from please, do you have a link?

 

The 2nd FOI request response:

 

In regards the “gridded network” stations, I have been informed that the Climate Research Unit’s (CRU) monthly mean surface temperature dataset has been constructed principally from data available on the two websites identified in my letter of 12 March 2007. Our estimate is that more than 98% of the CRU data are on these sites.

 

The remaining 2% of data that is not in the websites consists of data CRU has collected from National Met Services (NMSs) in many countries of the world. In gaining access to these NMS data, we have signed agreements with many NMSs not to pass on the raw station data, but the NMSs concerned are happy for us to use the data in our gridding, and these station data are included in our gridded products, which are available from the CRU web site. These NMS-supplied data may only form a very small percentage of the database, but we have to respect their wishes and therefore this information would be exempt from disclosure under FOIA pursuant to s.41. The World Meteorological Organization has a list of all NMSs.

 

http://www.climateaudit.org/correspondence/cru.correspondence.pdf

[Wildcat]

Or, perhaps Zorita (A contributing author to the IPCC AR4 report) is tired of the way in which science is being disregarded in favour of a policitacl agenda of control and taxes.

 

I don't know the reasoning behind his comments re Mann and Jones, and neither do you.

 

The fact that he is trying to distance himself from them, and their 'scientific' work speaks volumes. That he does so, despite it being a potential death blow to his career, shows (IMHO) that he is a man of integrity.

 

"I don't know the reasoning behind his comments" but you then go on to put a lot of words in his mouth?

 

What is clear from his response is that he believes in man's involvement in recent climate change and the fact he has made these comments shows that whatever pressure is put on scientists to conform to the orthodoxy it doesn't prevent him from saying what he likes.

 

I disagree with him on where he seems to be saying the pressure on Scientists primarily comes from because from what I have read around the subject, the negative and politicising influence on the debate has primarily come from those backed by the fossil fuel lobby. Where Mann was discussing suppression of a paper, the publication of that paper resulted in the resignation of half the Editorial board on the magazine resigning in disgust at the failure of its peer review process.

 

Indeed this is what one of those that resigned said about the incident:

http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm

Edited November 29, 2009 by Wildcat

[convert]

The 2nd FOI request response:

 

 

 

http://www.climateaudit.org/correspondence/cru.correspondence.pdf

 

 

Wildcat, Thanks for the link, however the figure given by CRU is only an estimate, and it only applies to a subset of the data used by the CRU and hence the IPCC.

 

I'd agree with you that Zorita believes in the possibility that man may be affecting the climate, however it seems to me that he is at least questioning the 'science is settled' brigade of Mann and Jones.

 

That's all we can really ask for isn't it. More scientists like Zorita who will actually put the science ahead of any other considerations.

[Wildcat]

Wildcat, Thanks for the link, however the figure given by CRU is only an estimate, and it only applies to a subset of the data used by the CRU and hence the IPCC.

 

How do you work out it only applies to a subset? I can't say I have read the whole pdf but it is presented as such. Along with in the third response an explanation of the impossibility of obtaining the data requested:

 

We cannot produce a simple list with this format and with the information you described in your note of 14 April. Firstly, we do not have a list consisting solely of the sites we currently use. Our list is larger, as it includes data not used due to incomplete reference periods, for example. Additionally, even if we were able to create such a list we would not be able to link the sites with sources of data. The station database has evolved over time and the Climate Research Unit was not able to keep multiple versions of it as stations were added, amended and deleted. This was a consequence of a lack of data storage in the 1980s and early 1990s compared to what we have at our disposal currently.

It is also likely that quite a few stations consist of a mixture of sources.

I have also been informed that, as the GHCN and NCAR are merely databases, the ultimate source of all data is the respective NMS in the country where the station is located. Even GHCN and NCAR can't say with precision where they got their data from as the data comes not only from each NMS, but also comes from scientists in each reporting country.

In short, we simply don’t have what you are requesting. The only true source would be the NMS for each reporting country. We can, however, send a list of all stations used, but without sources. This would include locations, names and

 

Now whilst this may well be an undesirable response it does seem perfectly reasonable that keeping track of large numbers of sources over a period time would simply be impossible in the circumstances of the databases being used. Anyone doing reseach using these databases would have been aware of these issues and explains why the FOI requests are responded to in spirit.

 

It seems clear to me that the requests for them are not about a matter of scientific interest but requests made for propoganda purposes. They are intentionally requesting the impossible.

 

I'd agree with you that Zorita believes in the possibility that man may be affecting the climate, however it seems to me that he is at least questioning the 'science is settled' brigade of Mann and Jones.

 

That's all we can really ask for isn't it. More scientists like Zorita who will actually put the science ahead of any other considerations.

 

I agree with your sentiments, but have found no reason to doubt that Mann or Jones would also say the science is unsettled.

[mj.scuba]

Even if it was all a con, it makes sense to be more efficient with our fossil fuel resources, no scientist denies fossil fuels are a finite resource. Being more efficient with it will make it last longer and give us more time to find suitable alternatives for when it does run out.

[convert]

How do you work out it only applies to a subset? I can't say I have read the whole pdf but it is presented as such. Along with in the third response an explanation of the impossibility of obtaining the data requested:

 

 

 

Now whilst this may well be an undesirable response it does seem perfectly reasonable that keeping track of large numbers of sources over a period time would simply be impossible in the circumstances of the databases being used. Anyone doing reseach using these databases would have been aware of these issues and explains why the FOI requests are responded to in spirit.

 

It seems clear to me that the requests for them are not about a matter of scientific interest but requests made for propoganda purposes. They are intentionally requesting the impossible.

 

 

 

I agree with your sentiments, but have found no reason to doubt that Mann or Jones would also say the science is unsettled.

 

 

I'd say that it was only a subset as CRU also used data from other sources, not just the gridded network stations. A lot of the raw data was deleted around about (I may be a few years out here) 1980; before Phil Jones was head of CRU.

 

It would appear that CRU have deliberately avoided FOI requests, which is actually illegal and not just undesirable.

 

They appear to have been unwilling to share their core data with anyone who, if unable to replicate their findings, might challenge their view on man made(up) global warming.

 

When respected, fellow colleagues start to call for their (Mann, Jones, et al) exclusion from IPCC work, or even their resignation in the case of Jones, then the accuracy of their previous work (including the contributions to AR4) has to be called into question.

 

I just don't like being told the science is settled re AGW, especially when it appears the main body of research (CRU) in the UK has possibly been playing 'fast and loose' with the scientific method.

 

 

Now I'm all in favour of conserving our natural resources, using them wisely, reucing our dependancy on imported oil / coal / gas.

 

I'm just not in favour of what seems to be more a politically motivated, tax the electorate to the hilt policy to redistribute wealth. (We have to cut our CO2 output so the developing nations can raise theirs bullplop).

 

 

You may see the requests as being made just to annoy the CRU, I see them as being made by a group of people who want more information; people who would like to see ALL the data used by the CRU, along with the code for it's climate prediction models (Don't even get me started on the FORTRAN and read me comments!) in the public domainl so that the results can be replicated.

 

 

Your last point re Mann and Jones and the science being settled. Aren't they 2 of the supposed 2500 'scientists' who we have been told subscribe to that theory?

[convert]

Even if it was all a con, it makes sense to be more efficient with our fossil fuel resources, no scientist denies fossil fuels are a finite resource. Being more efficient with it will make it last longer and give us more time to find suitable alternatives for when it does run out.

 

I couldn't agree more. We need to conserve our natural resources, and reduce our need for fossil fuels.

 

I think we already have some alternatives, nuclear power is the big one that springs to mind.

 

Why should we pay taxes based on CO2 output though?

[Wildcat]

I'd say that it was only a subset as CRU also used data from other sources, not just the gridded network stations. A lot of the raw data was deleted around about (I may be a few years out here) 1980; before Phil Jones was head of CRU.

 

It would appear that CRU have deliberately avoided FOI requests, which is actually illegal and not just undesirable.

 

They appear to have been unwilling to share their core data with anyone who, if unable to replicate their findings, might challenge their view on man made(up) global warming.

 

The evidence of the emails is that they have answered the FOI requests as fully as they are able.

 

If stuff was deleted in the 1980s before Phil Jones was head of CRU, it doesn't amount to a conspiracy although I have not read anything about anything other than emails being deleted and data being converted in to different formats and locations moved around in databases and on websites making precise tracking of it practically impossible.

 

National Meteorological Services (NMSs) have different rules on data exchange. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) organizes the exchange of “basic data”, i.e. data that are needed for weather forecasts. For details on these see WMO resolution number 40 (see http://bit.ly/8jOjX1).

 

This document acknowledges that WMO member states can place restrictions on the dissemination of data to third parties “for reasons such as national laws or costs of production”. These restrictions are only supposed to apply to commercial use, the research and education community is supposed to have free access to all the data.

 

Now, for researchers this sounds open and fine. In practice it hasn’t proved to be so.

 

Most NMSs also can distribute all sorts of data that are classified as “additional data and products”. Restrictions can be placed on these. These special data and products (which can range from regular weather data from a specific station to maps of rain intensity based on satellite and radar data). Many nations do place restrictions on such data (see link for additional data on above WMO-40 webpage for details).

 

The reasons for restricting access is often commercial, NMSs are often required by law to have substantial income from commercial sources, in other cases it can be for national security reasons, but in many cases (in my experience) the reasons simply seem to be “because we can”.

 

What has this got to do with CRU? The data that CRU needs for their data base comes from entities that restrict access to much of their data. And even better, since the UK has submitted an exception for additional data, some nations that otherwise would provide data without question will not provide data to the UK. I know this from experience, since my nation (Iceland) did send in such conditions and for years I had problem getting certain data from the US.

 

The ideal, that all data should be free and open is unfortunately not adhered to by a large portion of the meteorological community. Probably only a small portion of the CRU data is “locked” but the end effect is that all their data becomes closed. It is not their fault, and I am sure that they dislike them as much as any other researcher who has tried to get access to all data from stations in region X in country Y.

 

These restrictions end up by wasting resources and hurting everyone. The research community (CRU included) and the public are the victims. If you don’t like it, write to you NMSs and urge them to open all their data.

 

Far from being unwilling to share core data with anyone, they have shared the data that they can. The issue as I see it is a fabricated one for propoganda purposes and not a scientific one.

 

Indeed you can see the full extent of the data avilable here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

 

And any climate scientist blogger or interested party can do their analysis on the vast bulk of data available that is unrestricted by National Meteorological Societies, like France does.

 

When respected, fellow colleagues start to call for their (Mann, Jones, et al) exclusion from IPCC work, or even their resignation in the case of Jones, then the accuracy of their previous work (including the contributions to AR4) has to be called into question.

 

We have one isolated IPCC member that has called for a few people to be barred. I can't see what use scapegoating these researchers will have when there is nothing in the correspondence that is of concern apart from the decision to deal with the the fraud that was revealed by a detailed scientific rebuttal rather than holding a press conference to publicise the fraud:

 

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/smoking-guns-in-the-clr-stolen-e-mails-a-real-tale-of-real-ethics-in-science/

 

I just don't like being told the science is settled re AGW, especially when it appears the main body of research (CRU) in the UK has possibly been playing 'fast and loose' with the scientific method.

 

Now I'm all in favour of conserving our natural resources, using them wisely, reucing our dependancy on imported oil / coal / gas.

 

I'm just not in favour of what seems to be more a politically motivated, tax the electorate to the hilt policy to redistribute wealth. (We have to cut our CO2 output so the developing nations can raise theirs bullplop).

 

You may see the requests as being made just to annoy the CRU, I see them as being made by a group of people who want more information; people who would like to see ALL the data used by the CRU, along with the code for it's climate prediction models (Don't even get me started on the FORTRAN and read me comments!) in the public domainl so that the results can be replicated.

 

Your last point re Mann and Jones and the science being settled. Aren't they 2 of the supposed 2500 'scientists' who we have been told subscribe to that theory?

 

Whether you like it or not the science on the big picture is settled and we have to look at the way we live, consume and what we put in the atmosphere or we will be leaving future generations a destabilised planet because our short term exploitation and refusal to look beyond our own self interest.

 

The subject is highly politicised and the main fault that can be directed to the people at CRU and Climate Change Scientists is not their integrity as scientists but their difficulty in translating and communicating their scientific findings to the public at large when there are a well funded denialists backed by the likes of ExxonMobil who like the Tobacco lobbiests earlier have learnt how to influence public opinion on scientific matters regardless of the consensus scientific view.

 

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/11/venn-diagrams-bunny-hears-that-some.html

 

http://climatedenial.org/2009/11/22/swiftboating-the-climate-scientists/

[convert]

The evidence of the emails is that they have answered the FOI requests as fully as they are able.

 

If stuff was deleted in the 1980s before Phil Jones was head of CRU, it doesn't amount to a conspiracy although I have not read anything about anything other than emails being deleted and data being converted in to different formats and locations moved around in databases and on websites making precise tracking of it practically impossible.

 

 

 

Far from being unwilling to share core data with anyone, they have shared the data that they can. The issue as I see it is a fabricated one for propoganda purposes and not a scientific one.

 

Indeed you can see the full extent of the data avilable here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

 

And any climate scientist blogger or interested party can do their analysis on the vast bulk of data available that is unrestricted by National Meteorological Societies, like France does.

 

 

 

We have one isolated IPCC member that has called for a few people to be barred. I can't see what use scapegoating these researchers will have when there is nothing in the correspondence that is of concern apart from the decision to deal with the the fraud that was revealed by a detailed scientific rebuttal rather than holding a press conference to publicise the fraud:

 

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/smoking-guns-in-the-clr-stolen-e-mails-a-real-tale-of-real-ethics-in-science/

 

 

 

Whether you like it or not the science on the big picture is settled and we have to look at the way we live, consume and what we put in the atmosphere or we will be leaving future generations a destabilised planet because our short term exploitation and refusal to look beyond our own self interest.

 

The subject is highly politicised and the main fault that can be directed to the people at CRU and Climate Change Scientists is not their integrity as scientists but their difficulty in translating and communicating their scientific findings to the public at large when there are a well funded denialists backed by the likes of ExxonMobil who like the Tobacco lobbiests earlier have learnt how to influence public opinion on scientific matters regardless of the consensus scientific view.

 

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/11/venn-diagrams-bunny-hears-that-some.html

 

http://climatedenial.org/2009/11/22/swiftboating-the-climate-scientists/

 

Many scientists, and not just bloggers have analysed the data that is available, and have come to different conclusions.

 

How you can say the science is settled is beyond me, when even within the IPCC, there is dissent about AR4. I'd suggest you look at AR4SOR_BatchAB_Ch06-KRB-1stAug.doc; a very long, protracted, technical and critical peer review of chapter 6 of said report. The science is far from settled even within the IPCC.

 

I remember seeing a petition in the US, which, even back in 1997 had over 9029 Phd's who didn't think the science was settled.

 

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

 

 

 

I agree CRU are now saying that they will make some of their previous data available. How original that data will be now, is of course open to speculation.

 

I'd like to know who exactly is funded by big oil (other than F Singer of course, who I believe is said to have recieved $20K). I'd like to compare the amount of funding that 'big oil' is said to have provided against the bilions given to the likes of CRU, NASA and GISS by their respective governments and other 'benefactors.

 

 

As I've said before, I'm all for conserving resources, yada, yada, yada...

 

However before I'll accept that climate change is the fault of man, and in particualr his CO2 output, the results that the IPCC have based policy on have to be repeated, by an independant group, whose funding isn't dependant upon the findings.