Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 12/05/2009 7:29:19 AM PST by Delacon
Consider the Brits on the sideline until 2012 on global warming. The Met Office will need three years to rebuild ground-based climate models while recompiling raw data from the past 160 years to replace the data that the University of East Anglia’s CRU destroyed years ago. They want to create an open and transparent full data set, but until then have to back down from any of the conclusions that relied on UEA-CRU’s models (via QandO):
The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.
The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.
The British government is attempting to silence the Met Office, however:
The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.
But I thought they were interested in science, not political hackery!
The Met Office is taking the correct approach. The data on which they largely relied has not only been shown to have been corrupted by bias and corruption, it’s also been destroyed. Knowing the UEA-CRU’s credibility as a scientific effort has been compromised, real scientists would insist on recreating the data set in a thoroughly testable and transparent process before proceeding to use any of the conclusions reached from the previous work to form any more recommendations for action.
In fact, the UN, the UK, and the rest of the world should be insisting on the same approach — if they were interested in science in the first place. The UK’s efforts to quash the Met Office’s review, which is what scientists would demand in any other context, shows that the politicians aren’t terribly interested in whether AGW is scientifically supportable, or even true at all. They want the power that AGW hysteria gives them to seize control of private-industry production and the choices available to people now.
It’s the ultimate elitist entrée to statism, and they’re not going to let Climategate get in the way of it — even if the scientists themselves start balking at the political hackery surrounding AGW.
ping
If I understand this correctly, this is very significant. Thank you for giving me a dawning hope and a cautious grin.
They’re going to need a hell of a lot more than 3 years to rebuild their models.
How are they going to do this, they threw out all the data?
It will take three years to reaccumulate the data. The data that was tossed is apperently available from other sources, but they need to go and recompile the sets.
They need to start over.
Ok, but what models will they use? What guarantee is there that their data isn’t tainted?
Will they make their data and model code available to the public so anyone can take the same data and recreate what they do?
And even if their model shows warming, what proof can they give that it has any relevance to how the real Earth behaves?
I guess I missed the part where they cancelled all funding until the review was finished....
hh
They will have to recollect all the samples again from scratch. This time it will all be scrutinized by an ever growing group of skeptics.
When I run a test at work that was found to contain possibly tainted data, I always purge the data in question and start from scratch. Tainted data leads to tainted results and false conclusions. That pretty much sums up global warming research.
If they're on the verge of it being proven that their god is a lie, expect open warfare.
All good questions. One can only hope that there will be a great deal more transparency after this and that others will have freer access to the data and methodologies.
but they need to go and recompile the sets.
Two things......
.....1) This shows they were lying when they said there was no raw data. They could have pointed out which data they used and where to get it.
.....2) I doubt they will be able to recreate the "science" honestly because the previous "science" was based on cherry picked and "enhanced" data that was then nudged with math to manipulate the trends for a specific outcome.
The science was merely window-dressing to provide cover for a statist politicial agenda. The frustrating thing for Statists, is that the meaningless window-dressing is now tripping up all their elaborate plans.
According to what I was understanding from FOX news yesterday is that much of the data collection was flawed to begin with. New collection stations were coming online as old collection stations were removed.
If you collect data from the middle of farmland for 20 years and then switch to collecting data from a parking lot for even 5 years, the data will be horribly skewed.
Its a little like testing to see how long it takes to drown a mouse by throwing a few frogs into the test. It just doesn’t work.
I remember reading a story where they reviewed the British Naval records for temperature readings dating back to the 18th century. Now, the British Navy gave its sailors a daily ration of rum until 1970, so I suspect that quite a few these readings where taken through bleary eyes. I hesitate to overturn the western economic system based on these data.
In other words, they’ve lost their credibility and it will take the “scientists” in other countries 3 years to invent new data to support the original AGW claims. At that time, they will point to the new faked data and announce to the world that they were right even when the original data was false. But this time, they will protect their emails better.
In the meantime, Britain will stand by the original findings until “new” data can be obtained and analyzed.
These people have a level of faith that can only be called zealotry.
I think they think if the msm ignores it, they can still ram it through before it becomes reality.
Who knows, they may very well succeed.
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.