Data? What Data?
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. the times of london
Those of us following along in the blogosphere – un peer “reviewed” and proud of it – have known about the CRU data dump for months. But now, in the wake of WarmerGate (trust Mark Steyn to come up with the winning nickname) MSM is catching on.
But it is going to make this:
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. telegraph
a bit difficult.
One of the basic rules which WarmerGate underscores is that data and code used in a “peer reviewed” paper should be made publicly accessible upon the publication of the paper. With the advent of the Internet there is simply no excuse for papers to be published without such basic accessibility.
(And, note, if data is subject to a confidentiality or commercial agreement or some other restriction it should simply be left out of the “peer reviewed” paper as, clearly, that data cannot be “peer reviewed”.)
November 29th, 2009 at 5:56 am
The raw data isn’t gone, Jay. It’s still available on other sites.
November 29th, 2009 at 8:46 am
He added: “Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.”
Yeah, I wonder why… When they all feed off the same data set, and they all share the same rigid beliefs, the results are a forgone conclusion. If they showed long term cooling, would they actually publish it and kick their careers, funding, and prestige right in the nards?
November 29th, 2009 at 9:19 am
The missing data? I’m guessing it was ‘pier’ reviewed…
(ie, deep sixed!)
November 29th, 2009 at 11:16 am
“We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” CRU
Robert, are you and claiming that the raw, unadjusted, unfiltered data is available?
November 29th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Yes it is, Jay. All your quote shows is that the CRU no longer has it. It’s still available from the original sources however.
November 29th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
That’s wonderful news then; the folks at The University of East Anglia will have no trouble restoring the data they hid..oops, make that misplaced. On their OWN dime! Now.
November 29th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
the folks at The University of East Anglia will have no trouble restoring the data
They’d also have no trouble simply releasing a list of the people who own the data and telling the charlatans who want it to go badger them for it.
November 29th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Well let’s sum it all up,
Can’t replicate their own results,
Can’t find their own original data,
Can’t explain their adjustments to the data because it’s no longer there,
Robert thinks that the data exists sowmwhere else….
So I tell you what Robert, you can pay me 0.7% of your GDP or $5,000/year and I will invest it in carbon neutral whatever. Pay up Robert, I want your money….now! It may just save one life.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Ed Begley Jr makes the case for cooler heads to prevail in his discussion with Stuart Varney on Fox News.
November 29th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Robert McClelland said:
They’d also have no trouble simply releasing a list of the people who own the data and telling the charlatans who want it to go badger them for it.
How do you suppose we’re going to know which of the multiple datasets the various national meteorological agencies sometimes keep were the ones CRU used? Was it just simple raw thermometer data? Raw data corrected for any movement in local reporting locations? Adjusted data to take the urban heat island phenomenon into effect? Adjusted data to make global warming look worse than it was in the particular country?
CRU doesn’t know. How are we supposed to know what they used if they don’t?
And what’s the purpose of Freedom of Information laws if the agency served with a FOI request says we’re not going to give it to you. Go badger the people we supposedy got it from – but even we don’t know exactly what we received, so good luck with that?
November 30th, 2009 at 1:29 am
Heh…I’d love to see Robert try running that past Can. Rev. ” I don’t have my past records; go badger my employer, bank, ex-wife…”
Hell, I’d pay to watch!
November 30th, 2009 at 9:29 am
“Shocker – CRU’s Jones: GISS is inferior
29 11 2009
I was working on another project related to the CRU emails and came across this email from Dr.Phil Jones. I was stunned, not only because he was dissing another dataset, but mostly because that dissing hit many of the points about problems with the NASA GISS products we’ve covered here on WUWT and at Climate Audit.”
Shocker – CRU’s Jones: GISS is inferior « Watts Up With That? (30 November 2009)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/shocker-crus-jones-giss-is-inferior/#comments
http://snipurl.com/thnia
“In the past couple of years we’ve seen two significant errors with NASA GISS that had to be corrected after they were discovered through the work done here at at WUWT and Climate audit. Public errors have not been found in CRU products during that time, because the data an code have been withheld.”
Shocker – CRU’s Jones: GISS is inferior « Watts Up With That? (30 November 2009)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/shocker-crus-jones-giss-is-inferior/#comments
http://snipurl.com/thnia
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:47 am
They’d also have no trouble simply releasing a list of the people who own the data and telling the charlatans who want it to go badger them for it.
Except that on one of their denials of an FOI request, they claimed that they couldn’t identify which its of data came from where, but that since some of it was (by which they meant “might”) be subject to NDAs (although they couldn’t say with whom, nor provide copies of any of the purported NDAs) they couldn’t release any of it. Just to try and peel off another layer of stupid, Robbo, the whole claim of Global Warming rather rests on the HadCRUT (adjusted) dataset, and the burden of proof is on those who seek to rely on “AGW” to support policy decisions to show that it exists, not those of us affected by the decisions. If that dataset disappears or is shown to be invalid, that proof just became more difficult, no? It isn’t my job to prove that an extraordinary claim is false; it is up to Gore, Pachauri, Briffa et al to show that it is true.