East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data
[Guest post by DRJ]
The UK Telegraph reports the East Anglia scientists have done a U-turn on releasing their data:
“Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.
The U-turn by the university follows a week of controversy after the emergence of hundreds of leaked emails, “stolen” by hackers and published online, triggered claims that the academics had massaged statistics.
In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.”
Is this a story worth covering now, American media?
— DRJ
I’m not sure how important that grudging decision is, given the following:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
The whole thing smells.
Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 11/29/2009 @ 2:54 pmI read somewhere that they threw away the original data (old magnetic tapes, you know) and all that they have now is “value added” data.
BeachBumBill (6eefb0) — 11/29/2009 @ 2:54 pmDidn’t they throw out their raw data? What’s the point of releasing data that’s already been manipulated? Who is going to search their files to be sure they released everything? Does anyone actually trust them to release everything?
Vivian Louise (643333) — 11/29/2009 @ 2:59 pmWhy bother: they have thrown away the last shreds of their credibility too.
sherlock (e1e91e) — 11/29/2009 @ 3:01 pmOnly if we can blame it on Bush.
American Media (166f79) — 11/29/2009 @ 3:06 pmDonald Douglas likes the term “Climaquiddick“:
From Transterrestrial Musings, “Nomenclature“:
Climaquiddick seems about right to me!
The English-speaking Dana (474dfc) — 11/29/2009 @ 3:08 pmI still want to look at what they’ve got, if for no other reason than it keeps them from claiming later on that “You haven’t seen our data.” Plus, it’s even better if they’ve thrown out most of their data. Garbage in, garbage out.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 3:21 pmOK, but what if the data they provide is tainted by design? Will independent verification methods be able to discern that problem?
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/29/2009 @ 3:25 pmWell, is it data or is it the results of scientific computations? I assume knowledgeable climate change scientists can tell the difference. The former should be capable of verification, and the latter should have data to back it up. Good luck trying to pass off results as data.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 3:29 pmThere is no reason to trust any data that they release. The AGW advocates have already been caught manipulating data, see the Yamal tree core issue, before even the CRU email scandal.
They’ve been refusing to publish data and code for many years – including Mann himself refusing to release in testimony in front of college.
This is a long running scandal that is only getting some excitement because the emails are so brazen. But it is not anything “new” in this crowd.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/29/2009 @ 3:33 pmWell, watch how Charles Johnson acts about all this. After all, “no data was destroyed,” according to him.
Except it was.
But he has trouble with his own narrative.
And this will be used to fuel a “nothing to see here, move along” point of view.
The fact is, these climate scientists were doing politically motivated science, and were skewing their results to fit their politics. I don’t know how else to interpret it.
And as usual, it is ironic beyond words that these characters rave on about conspiracies and denialists. There goes that word “projection,” again.
Sigh.
Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 11/29/2009 @ 3:34 pmOf course the caveat is that they will release it, “as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.”
That caveat makes me wonder if their announcement is nothing more than a ploy designed to try to cool things down in the hopes that by stalling long enough the outrage will dissipate.
I would like to see those agreements that prohibit the release of the data immediately so that I can be assured that they actually exist because as it now stands I would believe nothing they say without proof.
In short, they have destroyed their own credibility and now have to prove everything they say. If they can prove enough of what they say their credibility will be restored. However, that will mean responding to all critics and showing how the data was manipulated and why it was. I fully understand that much of the raw data would need corrections to make it usable, but each correction needs to be documented and justified and done so in a transparent manner so that all can see and debate the necessity of it and the wisdom of the solution proposed.
Fritz J. (3a96f4) — 11/29/2009 @ 4:34 pmthese ones are lame…
When you say that even if our data is crap they must not be crap cause the dirty socialist Americans have the same numbers, it’s not science.
happyfeet (0003d3) — 11/29/2009 @ 4:35 pmIf there is no original data, there is no data. If the original data was gathered by corrupted methodology, the scientific value is zero.
twolaneflash (931ca0) — 11/29/2009 @ 4:42 pmDidn’t they allegedly delete the original computer data?
I believe the computer data came from hard copy forms, so it can likely be reproduced.
bill-tb (365bd9) — 11/29/2009 @ 4:42 pmStall and delay works sometimes but I don’t think they will here. Plus, it’s my recollection that James Hansen has ties to East Anglia and was also responsible for NASA’s questionable temperature data, so NASA’s and East Anglia’s results may be two peas in a pod.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 4:48 pmDRJ, the majority of the scientific community seems to think that Hansen is boss cool. It’s all Teh Narrative: Western Civilization is terrible and we are killing the Earth and we mustn’t do any development of anything and we need to exert more control because they know best. Sigh.
It’s the genesis of BANANA: build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.
Yet the people making the decisions fly jets around and get feted by the MSM.
You don’t believe me? Watch for an article in Scientific American defending these cretins. Watch the “science correspondents” go on a full court press.
I don’t have an answer. But I do know that the game playing and lying and data destruction is just starting. It’s like ACORN. You just can’t shut these kinds of people down.
Teh Narrative uber alles.
Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 11/29/2009 @ 4:55 pmBaby steps, Eric. You can’t do anything without taking that first step.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 4:57 pmWill zany NPR propaganda whore get past the filter? I’m game to try. Let’s check in on notably zany NPR propaganda whore David Welna as he asserts that with Jim Inhofe going to the United Nations Climate Change Conference on Climate Change, there’s worry that the pro climate change side might not be heard.
happyfeet (0003d3) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:07 pmThese are the kind of people who piss on your leg, and have the temerity to tell you it is raining.
JD (61e494) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:12 pmHere is a Google cache of the CRU page detailing its data situation. You may wish to download this page for reference, or make screen captures. (The original is not available, undoubtedly due to the hack).
The page makes it clear that even the CRU, in some cases, doesn’t know who has rights to the data. (And in any event, the raw data has gone into the bit bucket).
Since the early 1980s, some NMSs, other organizations and individual scientists have given or sold us (see Hulme, 1994, for a summary of European data collection efforts) additional data for inclusion in the gridded datasets, often on the understanding that the data are only used for academic purposes with the full permission of the NMSs, organizations and scientists and the original station data are not passed onto third parties. Below we list the agreements that we still hold. We know that there were others, but cannot locate them, possibly as we’ve moved offices several times during the 1980s. Some date back at least 20 years. Additional agreements are unwritten and relate to partnerships we’ve made with scientists around the world and visitors to the CRU over this period. In some of the examples given, it can be clearly seen that our requests for data from NMSs have always stated that we would not make the data available to third parties. We included such statements as standard from the 1980s, as that is what many NMSs requested.
Boldface was mind. If CRU doesn’t know who it has a confidentiality agreement with, how can it negotiate an exception?
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:27 pmOK, but what if the data they provide is tainted by design? Will independent verification methods be able to discern that problem?
Dmac, possibly.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:36 pmThere are some tricks, if I may use the term, to detect manipulated data. One involves looking for non-random occurrences of numbers that should be random, such as the least-significant digit of a number.
How can/will the scientific community as a whole deal with the issue and the fallout?
Will they throw Hansen and a few others “under the bus” and go back and forth a few times, making the revised history be that a few irresponsible “scientists” (“if they can be called that”) perpetrated a hoax on an unsuspecting public and scientific community? That would be a way to try to isolate the damage. It seems unthinkable that any clear voices would come out and say that 100,000’s or more scientists let their politics get in the way of their scientific objectivity, especially when they are scientists of the Left, the kind that are supposed to “put science back in its rightful place” (“oh, how can I be arrogant and condescending, let me count the ways…”).
And to the degree the word gets out that it is all so much hooey, the “take home lesson” for many will be “you can’t trust scientists any more than politicians, maybe we didn’t land on the moon after all”.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:36 pmComment by The English-speaking Dana — 11/29/2009 @ 3:08 pm
I vote Aye!, both here and at Brother Bradley’s.
Climaquiddick!
AD - RtR/OS! (814f72) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:37 pmIn some of the examples given, it can be clearly seen that our requests for data from NMSs have always stated that we would not make the data available to third parties. We included such statements as standard from the 1980s, as that is what many NMSs requested
So they are saying now that for the last 20+ years the science has been done in a way that interferes with the scientific process? Sounds good if you’re talking about proprietary information about a product, but not as basic science.
If that’s the song and dance, why didn’t they tell that to McIntyre years ago?
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:44 pmIf the raw data was File-13’d due to “storage issues”, and all that there is to work with is the massaged data, they would have to release the code that they derived the massaged data from; but, at this point how can anyone believe that anything that comes out of CRU has any basis in fact at all?
AD - RtR/OS! (814f72) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:49 pmThey’ve been “pantsed” and I don’t see how they can get their reps back without going before the World and confessing, and even then…
Perhaps if one or two or more actually owned up to what has been going on, and set out on a completely transparent and above-board effort to develope accurate data re AGW/CC/???
Only then, after an appropriate amount of time and effort (5-10 years), and exhaustively peer-reviewed findings, could these (alleged) charletons perhaps resurrect their reputations and veracity.
Sorry, but Climaquiddick is not apropos, because no one was killed in Climategate. Watergate, hoary as it is, invokes dishonesty, dirty tricks and a coverup, which fits in nicely with what happened.
Chappaquiddick was more tragic in a personal sense, but it was caused by one person. Climategate involved many people, reaching to the very top level.
But point taken about the media trying to minimize the climate scandal, whatever you call it. reporters who cover climate issues are mostly on board with AGW theory anyway, and they value access to the scientists. Covering the scandal seriously could jeopardize this. Also, pumping up global warming gives some a sense of importance, that in their own way, they are saving the planet.
In a word, the journos are too invested in man-caused global warming being true to critically cover this scandal the way they would, for example, cover allegations that Sarah Palin went on a shopping spree after being nominated. Now that’s true journalism.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:50 pmThe CRU “data” is noise, at best. At worst, it has negative value.
Data is processed into results. It is not processed into data. Results can be further processed into more results. Those more results can be further processed … ad fin item. Once you’ve tossed the data, or lost it, you may be able to recover it if you know the processing (or an approximation to it; the processing is rarely exactly reversible.)
CRU claims to have lost the orginal data, or some of the data, and they have lost the processing proceedures, so that there’s no way back for anyone so they are just swinging in the wind, buoyed up by the prayers of the faithful, waiting for gravity to take over and pull them down.
Charles Johnson probably does not realize that the graphic he used so devestatingly is an absolutely brilliant demonstration of the scientific method of getting to a truth. Others provided the original data (the images of the faxes); he provided directions for processing. You could duplicate his work. It was the publication of how he created the graphic, that the process could be duplicated, that was important, that is what confirmed his allegations, not the beliefs of the Lizardoids. If he’d made the alternating image but not shown how it was made, it would have been a three-day wonder that probably would have been forgotten.
AGW may indeed be true; I’ve claimed that the Twin Cities weather has been goofy for years. The question is why is it goofy, and CRU doesn’t help matters by confounding passion and science.
htom (412a17) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:15 pmCertainly Climaquiddick is appropriate. If it hasn’t all been caused by one person, one person, our esteemed former Vice President and Nobel Laureate, is trying hardest to make himself number one in this shady area. And if no one has been physically killed — yet — the Honorable Mr Gore is certainly out to slay our wallets!
And it’s just so catchy! 🙂
The argumentative Dana (474dfc) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:17 pmSure they’ll publish what they have, but they will not – can< not – make available the original data…
Considering that their program to generate the graph included – I shit you not – something called a “fudge factor”, I see little value in their “value added” data.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:28 pmScott,
It’s even funnier than that. The CRU page (in Google cache) is filled with excuses why data can’t legally be made available, including lost or unwritten (!) agreements with scientists.
Below we list the agreements that we still hold. We know that there were others, but cannot locate them, possibly as we’ve moved offices several times during the 1980s. Some date back at least 20 years. Additional agreements are unwritten and relate to partnerships we’ve made with scientists around the world and visitors to the CRU over this period.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:42 pmSorry to repeat that quote from earlier in this thread. I still can’t get over it.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:44 pmThese days, there’s really not much cheaper than computer memory and data storage. Are we really expected to believe that the good scientists at EAU never backed up their data to a secure storage device?
The computer-savvy Dana (sort of) (474dfc) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:51 pmPlus, it’s my recollection that James Hansen has ties to East Anglia and was also responsible for NASA’s questionable temperature data,
Your recollection is correct – and my recollection is that “Dr.” Hansen had to restate the data by one degree lower for each year that he had previously presented as fact, and then had to admit that no global warming has occurred over the past 10 years, if not farther back. He is a certifiable scientist/hack, and why NASA has kept him on after that outrage is truly disgraceful.
The thing that bothers me the most about this scandal is the reality that we’ve wasted all this time and money over a problem that may or may not exist, while there are many verifiable problems that we could already be well on the road to solving. Problems like the waste dump that our oceans have become, the moratorium on new nuke plant construction, and the lack of new drilling off our shores for oil.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:56 pmBradley, that’s more than pathetic – it’s downright criminal IMHO. What kind of scientist uses a “the dog ate my homework” excuse for critical information that was gathered? Can we use that excuse the next time the IRS audits us? “Gee, we’ve moved a number of times over the years, we just can’t seem to locate our tax records.” Yeah, right – see you in jail.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:59 pmI heard that the CRU plans on publishing its data in the Journal of Irreproducible Results.
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:23 pmDmac,
Have you looked through the email archive yet? They are a treasure trove of bias and bile — amazing to see what these guys say when they’re among friends and don’t think skeptics can hear. Here’s Michael Mann to NYT reporter Andrew Revkin. Dig the last sentence:
if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our ’98 article in Nature), his comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won’t submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism “published” it will be in the discredited contrarian home journal “Energy and Environment”. I’m sure you are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections with the energy industry, and who hasn’t submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer review.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:26 pmFortunately, the prestige press doesn’t fall for this sort of stuff, right?
I heard that the CRU plans on publishing its data in the Journal of Irreproducible Results.
ROTFLMOA!!!!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:27 pmDid you catch this business today?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/11/29/buchanan-gore-s-moment-passed-no-proof-manmade-global-warming-clift-s-res
Ignore Pat Buchanan. Pay attention to what Eleanor Clift says, at the very end.
That’s why the Left is so invested in this subject.
Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:29 pmBradley – McIntyre debunked the first hockey stick much to the chagrin of the alarmists. I’ve been a fan of his work for a long time although I do not visit his blog that often. Congress was actually on to Mann and his cronies in 2006 for their shoddy work and commissioned a report which was predictably ignored by the MSM.
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:41 pmMore denialist anti-science claptrap from you creationist new earth godfreaks.
Mother Gaia weeps.
JD (9cfd42) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:44 pmComment by The computer-savvy Dana (sort of) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:51 pm
The data dump occurred back in the stone ages, when all computer data was on tape (unless they were still using punch-cards, ugh!), and those tape reels were massive (15-18″ dia. IIRC, and 1″ wide). Plus, they had to be stored in a climate-controlled environment to minimize physical degradation.
AD - RtR/OS! (814f72) — 11/29/2009 @ 8:00 pmMother Gaia weeps.
Comment by JD — 11/29/2009 @ 7:44 pm
She’ll get over it, she always does.
AD - RtR/OS! (814f72) — 11/29/2009 @ 8:01 pmbut pele might throw a fit
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/29/2009 @ 8:03 pmHe better not use his hands.
AD - RtR/OS! (814f72) — 11/29/2009 @ 8:15 pmBradley – McIntyre debunked the first hockey stick much to the chagrin of the alarmists.
I’ve read the counter-claim that the corrected chart still showed a hockey stick. Any truth to that?
Of course, the last decade doesn’t fit the hockey stick anyway. Warming is supposed to be accelerating, not stalling. But the AGW proponents say a decade of no warming, or even two, if it lasts until 2020 as some say, doesn’t disprove the theory. I wish they could understand how questionable that looks to someone not invested in the theory.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/29/2009 @ 8:48 pmBradley – Wasn’t McIntyre the one who reverse engineered Mann’s model to show that any inputs would result in a warming trend? He had to reverse engineer it because of course Mann would not share his data or model.
I’m not aware of the counterclaim to which you refer, but if your model is constructed with a one way bias, I would say it is fundamentally flawed.
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/29/2009 @ 9:00 pmdaleyrocks,
I’d really like to see a comprehensive look at this particular controversy, fully explaining all points of view and the evidence. I’m not aware of one.
On what looks like another Mann-made debacle,Climate Audit and Wattsupwiththat are claiming that Mann has published some charts upside down
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/29/2009 @ 9:16 pmMankind, in a general sense, has always had a over-inflated estimation of it’s worth.
Sure, we can pollute rivers and the air. We can enslave our fellow humans. We can exterminate species. We can annihilate each other with nuclear weapons.
We can protest the imbeciles who lead our nations with giant papier-mache heads and eat organically while deploring the conditions in parts of the world where people treat others as chattel.
We can do all these things as a small rock, something less than a smote in God’s eye, speeds its way for a collision with oblivion.
And there’s not a damn thing we can do about it.
Just as there’s not a damn thing we can do about the weather.
Ag80 (3d1543) — 11/29/2009 @ 9:30 pmThe hockey stick was hard-coded into the program, says Eric S. Raymond, open source software guru.
Climategate isn’t a smoking gun or a mushroom cloud. It’s more like an explosion at an ammo dump. I think will be plenty more bombshells as all the once-hidden data gets examined by experts who have no personal interest in proving AGW.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/29/2009 @ 10:01 pm“I’d really like to see a comprehensive look at this particular controversy, fully explaining all points of view and the evidence. I’m not aware of one.”
Bradley – Me too, with some transparency and real peer review this time.
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/29/2009 @ 10:07 pmAD, wrong Pele.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/29/2009 @ 10:07 pmAdd this link to your list (with 90min video or 9 10-min videos). The upside-down chart shows up, among many other charts.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/29/2009 @ 10:12 pmIt’s a shame that Michael Crichton did not live to see this. I still recommend “State of Fear.” It’s a bit polemical but still a good read; better now that Crichton has been proven so right.
In my view, our approach to global warming exemplifies everything that is wrong with our approach to the environment. We are basing our decisions on speculation, not evidence. Proponents are pressing their views with more PR than scientific data. Indeed, we have allowed the whole issue to be politicized — red vs blue, Republican vs Democrat. This is in my view absurd. Data aren’t political. Data are data. Politics leads you in the direction of a belief. Data, if you follow them, lead you to truth.
Read the rest and remember it was written in 2005. It is an amazing example of his brilliance and science savvy. Everything we are discussing today, he wrote about four years ago.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/29/2009 @ 10:20 pmOK, I must admit it. Crichton was right.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/29/2009 @ 10:26 pmNow listen up, Paul Krugman said this morning on ABC that the leaked emails mean nothing. So why do you all keep talking about them when Prof. Krugman has spoken? The debate is ovah!
elissa (5f95c4) — 11/29/2009 @ 10:31 pmBradley, one thing that I most admire about you is your willingness to admit it when you are wrong about something. That isn’t common today.
You previously had a judgement on Crichton based on what you thought was the scientific “consensus” and some of the wacky things the man had written. Many people cautioned you about your dismissal of his warning, but you trusted those scientists to be objective, honest, and honorable.
Now you see how they acted (and you know the damage they have done, and are doing, to the public perception of science), and you are re-evaluating your prior position. If only more politicians could do that!
Crichton had many flaws (and thank you, Dr. K., for posting that thought provoking and prophetic essay of the late author). But he could smell a rat from a mile away. I suspect he learned that in Hollywood.
Again, Bradley, I am impressed by your objectivity, and lack of ego-involvement in punditry. Your post at “abriefhistory” was very, very good, as well.
Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 11/29/2009 @ 10:37 pmFox news is claiming that the CRU cannot produce the original data. They literally threw it away. That is not science. That is agenda. One NEVER destroys the original data.
{+_+}
JD (847e52) — 11/30/2009 @ 12:56 amI enjoyed Instapundit’s comparison of the CRU data to the “flood” in Bellesiles’ office destroying the nonexistant probate records for his fraudulent book.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/30/2009 @ 6:20 amdaleyrocks- thanks for the link at #40. I believe this is viewed as reliable verification of McIntyre’s work showing the “hockey stick” is an artificial result of how the data is manipulated.
Part of the background story, as I understand it, is that Mann makes a big point of saying McIntyre’s work can be ignored because he never had it published in a major journal, while Nature turned down publication because they “didn’t think it was important”. Supposedly not only the submitted paper but comments from the referees are available somewhere.
I wonder what comments Nature and Scientific American had on the conclusions of the congressional report, as well as Gore, Obama, Hansen, Mann, etc.
But I don’t have time to look that up, I’m still going through Appendix A of the report. 😉
Add: It was interesting to me that one of their conclusions actually is supportive of the raw data no longer being available, that the published peer-reviewed article is generally considered the defining body of knowledge stored on the subject. I know I still have the raw data (somewhere) of my 1980 undergrad thesis on some organic chemistry synthesis and enzymology studies).
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 11/30/2009 @ 6:20 amAnyone catch the weasl words at the end–so long as they are released from their non-publication obligatons. i say a 50-50 chances that they use this as the latest way to “hide the decline.”
Btw, non-publication agreements? should be out of the question in science.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/30/2009 @ 6:39 amYou would think that Nature had learned a lesson after the whole Schön debacle…
Scott Jacobs (445f98) — 11/30/2009 @ 6:48 amPart of the background story, as I understand it, is that Mann makes a big point of saying McIntyre’s work can be ignored because he never had it published in a major journal, while Nature turned down publication because they “didn’t think it was important”.
Mark Steyn explains how it works:
Mann peer-reviewed Jones, and Jones peer-reviewed Mann, and anyone who questioned their theories got exiled to the unwarmed wastes of Siberia.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/30/2009 @ 6:59 amWho controls the past controls the future.
Who controls the present controls the past.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 11/30/2009 @ 7:17 amAnd don’t forget, Fikes, that the AGW crowd also threatened to attack the standing of journals that did publish.
Meanwhile, we find that every criticism by McIntyre has not only been correct, but conservatively so. The data is fraudulently manipulated horsemanure.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/30/2009 @ 7:20 amSPQR, I hope you’re not one of those damned skeptics!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/30/2009 @ 7:22 amI’m starting to wonder if my respect for Alan Colmes is misplaced…
Scott Jacobs (445f98) — 11/30/2009 @ 7:44 amThe climate data went down the memory hole.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 11/30/2009 @ 7:44 amThe Finn’s were doing tree rings long before anyone else. Here’s a video clip, for laymen, that touches on the Mann hockey stick, MWP,problems w/ Briffa’s tree rings, the inverted data, lake sediment, etc. 28 minutes, but well worth it.
http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2
MDr (fd1f4b) — 11/30/2009 @ 7:55 amHorse feathers! The same guys who initially hid the data so their deceptive conclusions couldn’t be checked are still doing the very same thing. These so-called “scientists” tried every dodge they could think of and finally when they couldn’t conceal the base data any longer they come up with a “limited hangout.” The dog ate my homework. Pathetic lying charlatans.
They didn’t “lose” anything, they’re just continuing the deception by pretending the data (which would prove the extent of their fraud) is unavailable for sure this time, according to the lying liars who lied about it so many times before. and are still lying their lying asses off for the same reason they lied in the first place.
That’s their story and they’re stickin’ to it.
ropelight (9da1c7) — 11/30/2009 @ 8:34 amYa wanna get to the bottom of this? Waterboard ’em!
ropelight (9da1c7) — 11/30/2009 @ 8:41 am[…] settled… and Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’ Patterico’s Pontifications: East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data Gateway Pundit: “Hockey Stick” Graph Creator Mann to Be Investigated by Penn State and […]
ClimateGate’s Lies and Deception to Hide the Decline: The Heat’s On, Dump the Data! « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 11/30/2009 @ 1:31 pmBradley, alas, I am. And I’ve been following and debating the issue in great detail for more than a decade, starting with the great work of the late John Daly.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/30/2009 @ 2:22 pmNo worries, Scott. As Myron would tell you on the other thread, Krugman has no expertise at all in climatology. And he certainly has never done analytical science.
So why should we believe him?
And I still think that Combs looks like a muppet from a Genesis video.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/30/2009 @ 2:26 pm[…] settled… and Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’ Patterico’s Pontifications: East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data Times Online: Climate change data dumped Mark Steyn, NRO: The Dog Ate My Tree Rings Pundit & […]
ClimateGate Fraud Phil Jones Slinks Away in Disgrace from CRU… Should Be Tossed into Jail for His Global Warming Hoax « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 12/1/2009 @ 7:13 pm[…] By Penn State Patterico’s Pontifications: East Anglia CRU Chief Steps Down (For Now) and East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data Times Online: Climate change data dumped Mark Steyn, NRO: The Dog Ate My Tree Rings Gateway Pundit: […]
Shaky House of Cards… Australia Parliament Has Voted “NO” on Global Warming/Cap and Trade Bill « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 12/2/2009 @ 7:30 am[…] By Penn State Patterico’s Pontifications: East Anglia CRU Chief Steps Down (For Now) and East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data Climate Realists: The Realists Take on Climate Change Nice Deb: Amazing Coincidence!: “Obama […]
ClimateGate Humor: Best “Global Warming Hoax” Cartoon of the Week « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 12/2/2009 @ 10:30 am[…] By Penn State Patterico’s Pontifications: East Anglia CRU Chief Steps Down (For Now) and East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data Climate Realists: The Realists Take on Climate Change Nice Deb: Amazing Coincidence!: “Obama […]
Uh, Oh… Jon Stewart Mocks Al Gore and ClimateGate Liars (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 12/2/2009 @ 11:43 am[…] By Penn State Patterico’s Pontifications: East Anglia CRU Chief Steps Down (For Now) and East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data Nice Deb: Global Warming Alarmists Doubling Down On Stupid and Amazing Coincidence!: “Obama Years […]
“It’s My Nation’s Carbon Footprint, and I’ll Enlarge It if I Want To…” Copenhagen Attendees Ignore ClimateGate Scandal, Will Negatively Impact World’s Environment & Don’t Care « Frugal Café Blog Z (a66042) — 12/3/2009 @ 2:11 pm[…] By Penn State Patterico’s Pontifications: East Anglia CRU Chief Steps Down (For Now) and East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data Nice Deb: Global Warming Alarmists Doubling Down On Stupid and Amazing Coincidence!: “Obama Years […]
The ClimateGate Show… Starring Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 12/4/2009 @ 6:36 am[…] Inhofe On Deck Patterico’s Pontifications: East Anglia CRU Chief Steps Down (For Now) and East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data Nice Deb: Global Warming Alarmists Doubling Down On Stupid and Amazing Coincidence!: “Obama Years […]
ClimateGate Scandal Grows: Hollywood Academy Members Want Al Gore’s Oscar Rescinded « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:55 am[…] Inhofe On Deck Patterico’s Pontifications: East Anglia CRU Chief Steps Down (For Now) and East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data Nice Deb: Global Warming Alarmists Doubling Down On Stupid and Amazing Coincidence!: “Obama Years […]
Revolution at Hand: Man Crashes TV News Shot with Sign for Media to Report ClimateGate, Inhofe on CNBC (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 12/4/2009 @ 2:33 pm[…] Inhofe On Deck Patterico’s Pontifications: East Anglia CRU Chief Steps Down (For Now) and East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data Nice Deb: Global Warming Alarmists Doubling Down On Stupid and Amazing Coincidence!: “Obama Years […]
Mother Nature Mocks Global Warming Again… Record Early Snowfall in Houston & ClimateGate/Global Warming Info from Dr. Tim Ball and Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D. (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 12/6/2009 @ 10:11 am[…] and Overheated Debate . . . You Asshole and East Anglia CRU Chief Steps Down (For Now) and East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters: ClimateGate’s Michael Mann Being Investigated By Penn State […]
Fringe Media Starting to Report the Manipulated Data Exposed by ClimateGate (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 12/7/2009 @ 8:42 am[…] and Overheated Debate . . . You Asshole and East Anglia CRU Chief Steps Down (For Now) and East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters: ClimateGate’s Michael Mann Being Investigated By Penn State […]
Saudi Arabia Not Amused by ClimateGate: Confidence Shaken in Global Warming Claims, Saudi Leaders Call for Investigation « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 12/7/2009 @ 10:29 am[…] and Overheated Debate . . . You Asshole and East Anglia CRU Chief Steps Down (For Now) and East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data DoomDaily: 12 Days, 3 Networks and No Mention of ClimateGate Scandal Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters: […]
Day 1 Tribute to Copenhagen’s ‘Taxation to Oblivion” Summit: “Green Fakers” & Other Global Warming Spoofs « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 12/7/2009 @ 2:25 pm[…] and Overheated Debate . . . You Asshole and East Anglia CRU Chief Steps Down (For Now) and East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data DoomDaily: 12 Days, 3 Networks and No Mention of ClimateGate Scandal Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters: […]
Day 1 Tribute to Copenhagen’s ‘Taxation to Oblivion” Summit: “Green Fakers” & Other Global Warming Spoofs « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 12/7/2009 @ 2:25 pm[…] and Overheated Debate . . . You Asshole and East Anglia CRU Chief Steps Down (For Now) and East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data DoomDaily: 12 Days, 3 Networks and No Mention of ClimateGate Scandal Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters: […]
Day 1 Tribute to Copenhagen’s ‘Taxation to Oblivion” Summit: “Green Fakers” & Other Global Warming Spoofs « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 12/7/2009 @ 2:25 pm[…] and Overheated Debate . . . You Asshole and East Anglia CRU Chief Steps Down (For Now) and East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters: ClimateGate’s Michael Mann Being Investigated By Penn State […]
Reality Check: Denmark’s Global Warming Hypocrisy Amidst the Copenhagen Enviro Summit & The “Ice Age” of the 1970s « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 12/7/2009 @ 3:54 pm[…] and Overheated Debate . . . You Asshole and East Anglia CRU Chief Steps Down (For Now) and East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters: ClimateGate’s Michael Mann Being Investigated By Penn State […]
More Power-Grabbing: EPA Rules Air Is a Danger, Now Is the Wolf Guarding the Chicken Coop « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 12/8/2009 @ 7:03 am[…] settled… and Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’ Patterico’s Pontifications: East Anglia Scientists Agree to Publish Data The Freedom Post: THE SCIENTISTS INVOLVED IN DELIBERATELY DECEIVING THE WORLD ON CLIMATE Andrew […]
More Audacious Obama Waste: Economic Recession, Record Unemployment… So, Why NOT Give a Cool Half Million of Stimulus Tax Dollars to ClimateGate Scientist Who’s Under Investigation? « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 1/14/2010 @ 12:00 pm