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.
Well said. I want to change what I think the big issue is here. Kyoto passed(thankfully not in the US) but is a joke. None of the signatories met their emmissions goals. Copenhagen could get a treaty passed but even Hansen came out and said it will be a joke. The big issue is statism. It doesn’t matter if AGW is real or not. It doesn’t matter if it curbs co2 emmisions. What matters is that laws be passed so that governments have complete control over the means of production. IE socialism. If Copenhagen yeilds a treaty, the socialists of the world get one step closer to their ideal, climate science/climate change be damned.
Well, no shxx Sherlock!
This is what makes sense, but unfortunately, it is being done by the same people who helped make the current problem.
However, once the data is made public, it can at least be checked. Hats off to them.
This isn’t going to stop Global Warming nuts.
This is going to be a very difficult task. The LEAKED file,
“HarryReadMe” is believed to have been created by a scientist/ programmer who was attempting to clean up and justify the code. He was completely thwarted in his attempting to do that because so much of what he was seeing was impossibly obtuse, or even CLEARLY was creating biasing errors.
EAU CRU could NOT respond properly to the FOI requests, as a result, without CLEARLY exposing this data manipulation.
ALL of the data from HADCRUT is affected by this.
The ONLY hope of their “new graphs” showing temperature rising in line with the “old” will be IF they can manage to include Urban Heat Island affected stations in such a way that can be unquestioned, and that they will be able to be forgiven about doing that since it “doesn’t matter much” for some reason.
short addendum:
The HarryReadMe file was apparently created itself during a three year effort.
3 years, my butt. Two weeks, Just read the emials you morons.
sunspots need at least 50 gauss magnetic field to form....and the sun's magnetic field is slowly declining.
They got the data from somewhere--weather station readings, tree core samples taken by various scientists, ocean temperatures recorded by satellite and held by some university, etc. Those records have to be recollected and that's what takes time. And money. That's what makes the destruction of the data even more heinous. The CRU undoubtedly paid for a lot of the data the Mr. Jones et.al. so cavalierly tossed in the rubbish bin. At least the university could fire him for willful destruction of university property.
On the bright side, Jones is suspended until the investigation is over, so he's got at least three years to squirm.
True, although in watching this play out I am comforted in knowing that their fate will be similar to that of the late great Dan Rather.
“the actual hottest date was 1934, during the height of the dust bowl.”
My Grandmother you to go on and on about ‘34.
“you to go on and on”
“used” to go on and on...
We don't have 3 years! WE are ALL going to DIE!
Exactly the way I read it.
Is that ManBearPig?
I’m sure the UN could do it quicker - they must have a reserve set of figures in a drawer somewhere.....
+++++++++++++++
Or is it in the trunk of a Lincoln on the Jersey expressway, along with the dead voters box o’ votes that suddenly appears when needed.
Ok, but what models will they use? What guarantee is there that their data isn’t tainted?
+++++++++++++++++
Good points all. For anyone not in the AGW cult, say people who hadn’t made up their minds yet, it will take MUCH longer to rebuild any trust in this tainted pseudo-’science.’ Because of Climategate, even with the undecided naive sheeple it may take decades (if ever) to rebuild the cult’s status.
Of course what really matters is what the facts are - and that is what they are entirely short of.
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.
+++++++++++++++
There is a theory about lying and deception and politics. If you repeat a lie long enough and often enough and creatively enough, eventually a lot of people will believe it’s true. This is the craziness we’re dealing with here - on the largest scale imaginable.
Regarding Climategate, there are lies, lies and stinking lies.
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.