Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html

Hadley has finally publically released the code and a lot of the HadCRUT3 'adjusted' data. They are in the process of obtaining permissions to release the remainder of their data. Unfortunately the raw data is gone...adjustments were definitely made...but the methodology for these adjustments was not documented and will probably never be known.

"The Met Office do not hold information as to adjustments that were applied and so cannot advise as to which stations are underlying data only and which contain adjustments."

 

[GoPackGo]

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html

Hadley has finally publically released the code and a lot of the HadCRUT3 'adjusted' data. They are in the process of obtaining permissions to release the remainder of their data. Unfortunately the raw data is gone...adjustments were definitely made...but the methodology for these adjustments was not documented and will probably never be known.

"The Met Office do not hold information as to adjustments that were applied and so cannot advise as to which stations are underlying data only and which contain adjustments."

You can't trust ANY of the data then...."oh we adjusted the data", "we don't know what we did", "the raw data is gone" If a corporation did this to their books, people would be going to jail.

 

[Pens1566]

never mind the fact that there are plenty of other sources of data that come to pretty much the same conclusions.....

That kind of logic will get you nowhere around here.

 

[bfdd]

never mind the fact that there are plenty of other sources of data that come to pretty much the same conclusions.....

If by same conclusions you mean models that don't work and using data from sources that have been known to tamper with their data, CRU, NASA, IPCC, then yes you're right.

 

[werepossum]

That kind of logic will get you nowhere around here.

Ah, the Dan Rather gambit: It doesn't matter that I made it up, we all know it's true.

 

[Pens1566]

Ah, the Dan Rather gambit: It doesn't matter that I made it up, we all know it's true.

Whatever helps you sleep at night ..

 

[IGBT]

never mind the fact that there are plenty of other sources of data that come to pretty much the same conclusions.....

pre determined conclusions designed to facilitate an agenda and promote a fraud. the eco-KOOKS live in a universe of lies funded by grants and taxpayer revenue. They rob funding from legitimate research. Is this how you want your tax dollars spent?

 

[PJABBER]

Ah, the Dan Rather gambit: It doesn't matter that I made it up, we all know it's true.

Response to 'Climategate' question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI

An Environmentalist is Asked About Climategate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7n2m-VQupQ

Why won't Al Gore answer questions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fooYtalS9Gc

 

[WHAMPOM]

Truth be told, these climate models even with pjabbered data fail to predict the documented rise in global temperatures and their effects. Ready to enjoy the new Arkansas type climate and visits to the Iowa seashore.

 

[werepossum]

Response to 'Climategate' question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI

An Environmentalist is Asked About Climategate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7n2m-VQupQ

Why won't Al Gore answer questions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fooYtalS9Gc

LOL! Shades of 1984.

 

[monovillage]

"How to manufacture a climate consensus" an article in the WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html

 

[umbrella39]

pre determined conclusions designed to facilitate an agenda and promote a fraud. the eco-KOOKS live in a universe of lies funded by grants and taxpayer revenue. Is this how you want your tax dollars spent?

I'm sure he'd much rather have our tax dollars thrown at killing brown people thousands of miles away based on false information and pre determined conclusions designed to facilitate an agenda and promote a fraud. The neo-KOOKS live in a universe of lies funded by taxpayer dollars where the brave hide behind their keyboards. /cookie

 

[yuppiejr]

I'm sure he'd much rather have our tax dollars thrown at killing brown people thousands of miles away based on false information and pre determined conclusions designed to facilitate an agenda and promote a fraud. The neo-KOOKS live in a universe of lies funded by taxpayer dollars where the brave hide behind their keyboards. /cookie

I love that there's absolutely nothing left to defend you guys fall back on throwing out the race card even in the global warming debate. Good luck with that...

 

[werepossum]

I love that there's absolutely nothing left to defend you guys fall back on throwing out the race card even in the global warming debate. Good luck with that...

Any minute now Eskimospy is going to point out that raising the issue of foreign wars (which I'm assuming means Iraq and Afghanistan although neither of those nations are populated by particularly brown men) to defend global warming is a straw man.

Any minute now . . .

Wait for it . . .

 

[dainthomas]

"How to manufacture a climate consensus" an article in the WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html

Are those kind of goon squad tactics practiced in other scientific fields, or is this unique to climatology?

 

[Rastus]

Are those kind of goon squad tactics practiced in other scientific fields, or is this unique to climatology?

It's always gone on from Galileo to Genetics to AIDS research to Pharmaceuticals to AGW.

 

[OutHouse]

Response to 'Climategate' question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI

An Environmentalist is Asked About Climategate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7n2m-VQupQ

Why won't Al Gore answer questions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fooYtalS9Gc

wow

 

[Babbles]

Are those kind of goon squad tactics practiced in other scientific fields, or is this unique to climatology?

For nearly ten years I worked in the analytical sciences, however I cannot comment on the political side of things. What I can say is, that in a regulated environment, in other words things governed by EPA or FDA (or OECD) agency regulations, there are strict requirements in handling your data. The raw data must be presented as part of the data package and any data manipulations must clearly be cited. Furthermore there has to be a rigorous method validation to determine if your method is indeed a good method. If you have a failed set of data even that must be included; for FDA work a summary of all your analyses is usually included in the report, regardless if they failed or not.

So with all of that being said, what these scientists (or should I say "scientists") did at this climate research organization would never, never, never pass muster in any sort of actual regulated environment. Losing data is absolutely unacceptable, there is no way that results without accompanied data would ever be allowed in pharmaceutical research.

Regardless of what side you fall on in regards to this climategate issue, the objective reality is that these scientists were absolutely terrible and arguably unethical with how they handled their data. There should be no debate whatsoever on that matter. Even if their results were likely correct and supported their hypothesis, the fact that data disappeared should nullify any result that they issue.

Their behavior in how they conducted their research should be viewed as a scientific embarrassment, regardless if their hypothesis was supported by their data.

 

[OutHouse]

For nearly ten years I worked in the analytical sciences, however I cannot comment on the political side of things. What I can say is, that in a regulated environment, in other words things governed by EPA or FDA (or OECD) agency regulations, there are strict requirements in handling your data. The raw data must be presented as part of the data package and any data manipulations must clearly be cited. Furthermore there has to be a rigorous method validation to determine if your method is indeed a good method. If you have a failed set of data even that must be included; for FDA work a summary of all your analyses is usually included in the report, regardless if they failed or not.

So with all of that being said, what these scientists (or should I say "scientists") did at this climate research organization would never, never, never pass muster in any sort of actual regulated environment. Losing data is absolutely unacceptable, there is no way that results without accompanied data would ever be allowed in pharmaceutical research.

Regardless of what side you fall on in regards to this climategate issue, the objective reality is that these scientists were absolutely terrible and arguably unethical with how they handled their data. There should be no debate whatsoever on that matter. Even if their results were likely correct and supported their hypothesis, the fact that data disappeared should nullify any result that they issue.

Their behavior in how they conducted their research should be viewed as a scientific embarrassment, regardless if their hypothesis was supported by their data.

nice post.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Our "Little Ice Age" seems to end very conveniently right after the start of human industrial civilization. CO2? Oh no! The fifty year drought that depopulated the American Midwest during the Medieval Warm Period is coincidence too? Mole hills, boys! Mole hills.

 

[Ozoned]

Our "Little Ice Age" seems to end very conveniently right after the start of human industrial civilization. CO2? Oh no! The fifty year drought that depopulated the American Midwest during the Medieval Warm Period is coincidence too? Mole hills, boys! Mole hills.

No, actually, if you look at IPCC data and chart in 2003, and then look at IPCC data and chart in 2007, you will see that IPCC changed their mind & concluded that Little Ice Age and Medevial warm period never existed. Thanks for playing!

 

[Obsoleet]

We should continue to pollute and destroy the earth.. but at least we were anti-global warming! That will help when our species cannot survive anymore!

^This

There's no harm in preventing pollution. Nuff said, end of debate unless you're a GOP zombie.

 

[spidey07]

^This

There's no harm in preventing pollution. Nuff said, end of debate unless you're a GOP zombie.

Explain how CO2 is a pollutant. I'll go out on a limb and assume you understand the water cycle and photosynthesis.

 

[monovillage]

^This

There's no harm in preventing pollution. Nuff said, end of debate unless you're a GOP zombie.

But Spidey, he said "end of debate unless you're a GOP zombie" doesn't that trump science, facts and everything else?

 

[spidey07]

But Spidey, he said "end of debate unless you're a GOP zombie" doesn't that trump science, facts and everything else?

That's the rub. No matter what you personally believe, this is just bad science.