From the Times Online:
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 data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
In other words: “trust us.” But without the raw data, there is NO WAY to verify the claims made by the CRU. A truly scientifically valid approach would be to dump the CRU’s conclusions as they did the raw data, and start over from scratch.
And from the American Thinker:
Due to the fact that direct temperature measures for past epochs are lacking, climatologists utilize “proxy measures,” such as tree rings, glacial moraines, and lake sediments. Tree rings have played an important part in the warming controversy as evidence backing the claim that temperatures have been consistently lower worldwide until recently. A crucial series of measurements utilized by Mann, among others, involves trees located on the Yamal peninsula in Siberia. How many trees were measured, you ask? A hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand?
<>The answer is twelve: a number perfectly adequate to trigger international panic, overthrow the capitalist system, establish Green totalitarianism, and completely turn Western culture on its head.
<>
<>But it turns out that further measurements were in fact made in the area, involving at least thirty-four other trees. And when this data is added to the original twelve, then the warming evidence disappears into the same branch of the Twilight Zone as the grip of Mann’s hockey stick. Another “oversight”, you understand.
<>
Twelve? Fricken’ twelve? The future of mankind was predicated on examining a whole dozen trees? Really?
Take a look at Climate Audit to get an idea of what happens when you pick such a small dataset…
But lest you think that the revelations of chicanery and incompetance out of the CRU might cause some of the alarmists to back off on some of their overblown rhetoric, never fear! We’re All Going To Die!
Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, believes only around 10 per cent of the planet’s population – around half a billion people – will survive if global temperatures rise by 4C.
Anderson’s warning comes just eight days before global leaders meet in Copenhagen for the most crucial talks on climate change reversal since the Rio summit in 1992. Current Met Office projections reveal that the lack of action in the intervening 17 years – in which emissions of climate changing gases such as carbon dioxide have soared – has set the world on a path towards potential 4C rises as early as 2060, and 6C rises by the end of the century.
Anderson, who advises the government on climate change, said the consequences were “terrifying”.
“For humanity it’s a matter of life or death,” he said. “We will not make all human beings extinct as a few people with the right sort of resources may put themselves in the right parts of the world and survive.
“But I think it’s extremely unlikely that we wouldn’t have mass death at 4C. If you have got a population of nine billion by 2050 and you hit 4C, 5C or 6C, you might have half a billion people surviving.”
Oh no! Surely after all the recent news, the only reason why professor Anderson would produce such dire predictions is because he has new data, right? RIGHT?!?!??
Ummmm....
Kevin is a qualified marine engineer and has 12 years industrial experience, principally in the petrochemical industry. He is currently a non-executive director of Greenstone Carbon Management – a London based company advising leading firms and public bodies on how to manage their carbon emissions and is commissioner on the Welsh Assembly Government’s ‘Climate Change Committee’.
Uhhh…. hmmm. Seems to me an alternate explanation might well have something to do with the fact that he works for/is probably invested in a company that makes it’s money off of fears about global warming… and if Copenhagen does not go the greenpisser’s way, and if the unreasonable fear of global warming abates, then somebody might be out a load of cash.
So… think of Prof Anderson as a “non executive director” in, say, a tobacco company. And just after a report hits the news that there’s a major scandal – that the Tobacco Research Unit, say, has fudged it’s cancer numbers, and outright lied and “lost” data – good prof Anderson comes out and announces that if people stop smoking cigarettes, the moon is goign to crash into the Earth. Sure, we believe you.
9 Responses to “More climate science FAIL news”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
>Kevin is a qualified marine engineer and has 12 years industrial experience, principally in the petrochemical industry
And I thought climate change was about climatology, meteorology, and stuff like that…
> And I thought climate change was about climatology, meteorology, and stuff like that…
Remember, when the “deniers” trot out scientists who have doubts, but who aren’t climatologists, we are supposed to ignore them.
>Remember, when the “deniers” trot out scientists who have doubts, but who aren’t climatologists, we are supposed to ignore them.
That’s what I was getting at, if the ‘experts’ aren’t actually experts, as in trained in the appropriate scientific disciplines, how much weight can we place on their pronouncements…
I’d like to think I’m pretty pragmatic and the world’s problems uaually come down to fairly simple equations and patterns that have been repeated all the way back when the basic molecules of life got together and started reproducing.
Each living thing needs to eat, poop,reproduce and rest. Nature hates an imbalance so once an organism has used up it’s resources to live it dies off or evolves into something sustainable until something better (or worse)comes along.
So eventually humans will come up against something that will wipe us out or we’ll evovle into a pure energy state that is infinite, but when you’re infinte you’re nothing.
The last 42 years of my reality have been fairly uneventful, where’s Mad Max? I thought we were supposed to goto war with the Russians. Does this mean in twenty years I’ll be building my models for wealthy Chinese Astro-Tourists?
What’s always been the best way to scare then control the masses? (The smart ones you hire the stupid ones are your armed protectors.) You create the fear of god by which you as king can only talk to, which worked until the Internet evolved.
Then we could see what the bad guys looked like so we could assure ourselves,,”They ain’t so bad..”, or laugh at them working there asses off building my Nike’s.
So the new thing now is to come up with ideas that are scary and possible, and disproving it isn’t something that’s easy to do.
Since we’re seemingly an out pf balance living system on the planet, Nature WILL eventually level us back to a point where we can put back into the system as much as we take out. And get to that point as soon as possible.
I think the simple question of will our technology beat the problems before our time and resources run out?
Why make people healthier and live longer if we’re going to run out of time and resources doing so? It doesn’t create jobs, it doesn’t change the intrinsic problems that create these problems and we’re getting fat and stupid.
What happened to an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? In simpler terms, every dime spent on prevention and early prenatal to preschool health would save a dollar of treatment for obesity related programs.
We were promised change and we’ll be begging for change if this continues. Yes we can 2008 will become guess we can’t 2012.
We’re in a lousy position if North Korea lobs a nuke over the West Coast and explodes it in space, the EMP’s reducing the eighth largest ecomony in the world to the worlds largest parking lot.
There’d be no food, no water, no commuications, not even a blow horn. Anything with a computer chip would stop working, and that’s just about everything.
That’s why it’d be nice if the gov spent its monet putting solar cells on every house in the US and large wind mill/water tanks that pump water using just a dumb mechanical system. If all cell phones could be EMP hardened and laptops as well, they could get signals from satelittes so people wouldn’t panic as much.
It’d be hard to require and enforce, but every person or family, even companies should be required to have a three day supply of food and water for each person. And if you thru in a .45, it probably won’t hurt.
If we don’t really start now on a renewable energy source, our economy may never recover and healthcare and global warming will be moot, just getting food will be the big problem.
It’s a shame that EMP hardened systems weren’t required for computer chips. They’re a great invention, but a huge Achilles heal no know ever considers. Nuking NK would only rain down fallout on the West Coast adding injury to insult.
Maybe I can get some Buffet Capital to start Local Power and Water
A trillion dollars just to build solar cells, wind farms and small fast breeders around the country would reach the break even point at 5 years and have a lifespan of 25 years.
If the majority of the solar cells went on home roofs, then you could hire a lot of out of work people to do a relatively simple job, over and over that they’d get good at for a living wage and work thruout their own neighborhood.
The wind farms and Fission plants could be a short term (25 year) solution with the research money spent towards Fusion power using He3 mined on the Moon.
If we have a renewable source of power we can get clean water, restore our farming production. Eventually the power grid could be dismantled with each person’s energy requirement’s taken care of by their house or apartment, the fast breeders taking care of the cities.
Raw materials could be mined out of all the landfills and the toxic wastes could be sent to the desert continent of Africa to hopefully create giant sand worms capable of Spice production!
Oil would be worthless and the liquid toxins could be pumped back into the ground using the same pumps that took it out. With no revenue source besides pumping toxins, the Islamic terrorists lose their funding.
Giant fields of air purifying machines take the CO2 out of the air and produce O2 and carbon for carbon nanotubes for everything from Space Elevators to giant buildings that are cities within themselves.
That’s a future I could live with.
Stuff I wrote but took out
If there was no race against time preserving our energy by spending the time and money to do so without changing our way of life would make some sense. Then improving healthcare so you’ll see a bright clean future would be plausable, but not all at once.
I don’t think conservation is programed into DNA. Eating, breeding, pooping and sleeping are required however and come preloaded with your hardware.
With our SFX capabilities, I don’t see why the Gov doesn’t get an Osama look-a-like and tell his followers he’s been captured and lay don their weapons as he’s been told by Allah.
Eventually Bin Laden would have to show himself and in the confusion we could capture him so he could be paraded around more than Saddam was. We could do it with the double and it might not last, but it would certainly confuse them.
I’d like to think the longer we’re around, the closer we can get to realizing our place in this reality. Who said the reason for a journey of exploration is that when you return home you have a better understanding of yourself, seems like a good goal. Heck you might even find something better than 72 virgins, like the Planet of 73 Virgins!
Does that mean living like Native Americans before 1492, maybe, but maybe they were at least happy, They had their wars, but so does every other DNA based system. It’s just evolution.
If people REALLY believed in heaven, why would you want to live? I’d bet it has to do with the same thing that made those first protein molecules come together.
If Global Warming is real, why would you want to spend time and lots of money on healthcare?
The raw data got dumped in the 80s. That happens all the time – space is limited and magnetic tapes and journals take up space. Happened when I was working in an Observatory. The choice between keeping the raw and the analyzed data is simple: you keep the stuff you’ve worked on. That said – the raw data probably resides in the archives of the various meteorological agencies from which they were gathered.
Twelve? Fricken’ twelve? The future of mankind was predicated on examining a whole dozen trees? Really?
Nope, lots of other data out there: dendrochronologies without the 12 trees, glacier data, ice cores, borehole temperature reconstructions. Good summary at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
> Nope, lots of other data out there
Indeed so, and it conflicts with the story produced by those cherrypicked dozen trees.
> Good summary at
Sorry, but “realclimate.org” is not a reliable source in this matter.
Why RealClimate is not a reliable resource in this debate:
think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don’t get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&filename=1139521913.txt
This exchange illustrates perfectly, in a nutshell, why the climate data can no longer be trusted, let alone serve as the basis for trillions of dollars in spending and earth-changing policy decisions.
Sorry, but “realclimate.org” is not a reliable source in this matter.
Really, then how about scienceblogs, or discover magazine? BTW – what’s the beef with RealClimate – they release their data.
As for The Times story – a little extra piece related to it here:
“Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there—you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.””
>what’s the beef with RealClimate
Just as anyone who dares to doubt the veracity of Al Gore – Carbon Billionaire – is a “denier,” then anyone who supports as slavishly the work of the CRU frauds is a “government stooge.”
Turnabout is fair play.
Really, I remain amazed that someone smart enough to fire up the IntarWebTubes and not drool all over the keyboard reamins dumb enough to not understand why it might be a damned good idea to have a truly open and honest and scientifically rigorous analysis of the data, with minimal politiczation of the process, for an idea that, if either extreme is right, will cost the world trillions of dollars and perhaps billions of lives. If the greenpissers get their way, the number of lives lost across the world in the effort to fund their schemes would put most wars to shame.