"Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked –[epic fraud?]"
Click the picture:
However, here are the two papers that demolish AGW/Climate Change and place it in its rightful realm of -phlogiston "science"--
Posted on 11/28/2009 9:25:05 PM PST by Steelfish
Climategate: University of East Anglia U-Turn In Climate Change Row
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.
By Robert Mendick 28 Nov 2009
David Holland is seeking prosecutions against some of Britain's most eminent academics for allegedly holding back information in breach of disclosure laws.
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.
Scientist at centre of leaked email row stands by his findings The publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre. The full data, when disclosed, is certain to be scrutinised by both sides in the fierce debate.
A grandfather with a training in electrical engineering dating back more than 40 years emerged from the leaked emails as a leading climate sceptic trying to bring down the scientific establishment on global warming.
David Holland, who describes himself as a David taking on the Goliath that is the prevailing scientific consensus, is seeking prosecutions against some of Britain's most eminent academics for allegedly holding back information in breach of disclosure laws.
Mr Holland, of Northampton, complained to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) last week after the leaked emails included several Freedom of Information requests he had submitted to the CRU, and scientists' private responses to them.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
There once was a school named East Anglia
Whose emails became a real tanglia
they lied about where it gets hot
but to cut this Gordian Knot
is like trying to find balls on Camille Paglia
Some poor schmuck programmer was trying to re-create the original data from the graphs....without any success.
Did Al Bore invent a time machine as well as the internet?
The original data was on paper....let them make us some PDF's of the original scientific data.
Nice but don’t quit your day job picking nits just yet...
Everything you need to know about recording climate change;
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
“.....have agreed to publish their figures in full.”
and if you believe those figures, I got a bridge in Havasu I want to sell you.
There is an email going around and there will be tens of thousands (HOPEFULLY) dumped on their office this Christmas season.
They WILL open them because a lot of their mail is donations.
Take up their time and give them a massive headache
I just printed off an 8x10 MERRY CHRISTMAS Celebrate the Birthday of Our LORD JESUS and put it into a standard #10 business envelope so it wouldn't look like a card. I also used a security envelope so they couldn't see through and know there wasn't a check.
I suggest passing this great idea to EVERYONE in your email friends list... make this a CHRISTMAS the ACLU will never forget!
Their Address
ACLU
125 BROAD STREET
18th Floor
NEW YORK, NY 10004
Presumbly, the files have been sanitized.
A nice way to buy time for a few months and hope the outcry dies down.
Responsible researchers would release all the data not covered by these agreements now and then publish each released increment as it was released.
And does anyone know at this point the data is original and unaltered?
Or in other words, the “raw” numbers could be preprocessed through a computer to provide the desired result...
How does one check them?
Doubtful that they can sanitize them. Thats a lot of data to rig, and doing it to suit the model they have isn’t a trivial thing.
Besides this, the state of the databases was terrible. They seem to have been unable even to replicate what they had previously reported.
You have it exactly right - its all about delay now.
If they are given a pass to blame delays on the mysterious other parties, they can keep this going for months.
Somehow I doubt they will be given the time. 2010 is going to be electorally “sensitive” in the US, the UK AND Australia.
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.
Anyone passing out lollipops for every new lie they try to pass off as their data?
Or in other words, the “raw” numbers could be preprocessed through a computer to provide the desired result...
They threw out the raw data, per the Sunday Times:
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.
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.
So in other words,
The only way to have any confidence in the results is to start over completely. To use absolutely nothing from these Universities because it could all well be tainted.
What ought to happen is a public server setup with unaltered world temperature records from everywhere available and let everyone that wants to have a shot at reconstructing past global temperatures.
The only way to have any confidence in the results is to start over completely. To use absolutely nothing from these Universities because it could all well be tainted.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.
That's right - according to that, there is no reliable data indicating global warming.And no substantive reason not to "Drill, baby, drill."
ping!
"Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked –[epic fraud?]"
Click the picture:
However, here are the two papers that demolish AGW/Climate Change and place it in its rightful realm of -phlogiston "science"--
That's what should happen, but it raises the question of whether the institutional gatekeepers of the so-called "raw data" aren't also tweaking the numbers. After all, most of them also have their fortunes tied to the AGW sugarplum fairy.
“...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.”
A nice way to buy time for a few months and hope the outcry dies down.
I noticed the time-buying “trick” also. Just sent this email off:
press@uea.ac.uk
Confidentially agreements v. FOIA
Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research
University of East Anglia
Dear sir;
I’m writing to urge you to quickly clarify a major conflict between the FOIA and the confidentiality agreements with third parities.
It’s crucial to either release the data regardless of those agreements, or to clearly explain to everyone why the FOIA does not override those agreements.
Time is of the essence. Taking several months implies to everyone that you are simply stonewalling in hope the issue dissipates.
Without timely resolution of this matter, and without a clear explanation of how FOIA cannot be complied with immediately, you will deeply damage the credibility of AGW and your institution in particular.
Quite sincerely,
(my full name)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.