Monday, November 30, 2009

Climate change data not dumped

I was going to leave the big non-troversy over the so-called global warming scandal but The Times article in which it mischievously takes the words of Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit and frames it as if relevant and "damning" data was supposedly destroyed requires correction.

NO data was destroyed.
Check this link where the scientists fire back - no data was destroyed.

Oddly enough The Times' article just happens to leave out that part of the explanation. Here's what actually happened:


According to CRU’s Web site, “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency.

The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.

“When you’re looking at climate data, you don’t want stations that are showing urban warming trends,” Jones said, “so we’ve taken them out.” Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. “We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world.”

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? The data is still there?!

And again, read who is funding the sceptics and in particular the group spreading the “destroyed data” claim: Competitive Enterprise Institute.

CEI is a think tank funded by donations from individuals, foundations and corporations. CEI does not accept government funding. Past and present funders include the Scaife Foundations, Exxon Mobil, the Ford Motor Company Fund, Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation[5][6]. …

CEI is also active in the legal aspects of antitrust and government regulation. As part of its “Control Abuse of Power” (CAP) project, CEI launched lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), respectively.

Again, the connection to energy industries and big tobacco. Ding a ling people, someone is yanking your chain..

Almost every one of the main anti-AGW front groups is connected to either big energy or big tobacco, and often both.

Houston, we have a problem.

Climate change is real and unfortunately both ends of the loon fringe are controlling the debate while moderates like us are being confused with the issues. Meanwhile, possibly, climate change is becoming irreversible so in a few years it won't matter anyway.

Like I've said before, we can see it, we can feel it, we KNOW the climate is changing and to deny that 6 500 000 000 beings had no part in it is denialism of the highest order.

What must happen is that you engage your representatives to get their take on the subject and then vote accordingly. Changes to the way we live will come, of that you can be certain. What kind of change is up to us. Get involved.

12 Opinion(s):

FishEagle said...

The energy industry IS taking everyone for a ride. Don't these people have kids of their own??? Don't they care about the future of their children? It just goes beyond me.

Ding a ling people! haha. Your way with words is just something else Dobes.

Anonymous said...

This is not a new subject. The CRU, in August 2009, posted the following on their website (after a request from an academic for their data was denied) :"We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."

Now all of a sudden, only 5% has been destroyed. CRU have been going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data - so, what is the real story here??? If the original source data is still available for this "lost" data, why did the CRU not state this from the beginning and not a week later. This would have avoided any confusion and doubt and maybe the conspiracy theories. I smell a rat - or is that CO2?

Doberman said...

You all have a point. Gawd, am I the only one who is getting dizzy?

FishEagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FishEagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FishEagle said...

In some instances the scientists were not allowed to provide raw data to the public because the data was purchased from a service provider. It was never a case of data being denied to the public for the sake of secrecy or other more sinister motives. That data is still there to be purchased by anyone that may have any queries.

All the data that is availabe, raw and processed, have since been posted on the Real Climate website at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Anonymous said...

Yes climate change is real, but carbon dioxide is not the cause.

Is is the scape goat to usher in an era of globalist control, under the pretence of being green.

Did anyone notice the subtle shift away from "global WARMING" to "climate change". This is because the scientists realised that their is no more warming.

Anonymous said...

Climate change is real. It gets cool at night and warm in the day. Very warm in summer and friggin cold in the winter.

Face it, there is no denying climate change.

hahahahaha

POLLUTION is also real.

BUT global warming is a load of crock.

You are correct in that we are being diverted and that we are missing the real problems which happens to be pollution.

The world has been cooling for the past decade.

FishEagle said...

@Anon 8.15 Climate change is a better suited name because it refers to the problem in its entirety. Global warming only refers to the immediate problem.

Research by A. Eichelor (Senior Scientist at the Switzerland's Paul Scherrer Institute) shows that CO2 - AND NOT THE SUN - is significantly correlated with temperature since 1850. I can provide the link to the study, alhtough one has to subscribe to access it.

FishEagle said...

Anon 8.19. My comment copied from another post -

Here is an explanation of the warming of the earth, as measured in the oceans and NOT the surface air temperature, which is NOT a reliable indicator over a short time span. The planet is heating up -

http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/21/debunking-the-myth-global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

Anonymous said...

FishEagle!! you are being deceived!! The Sun determines the heat on the Earth, less sun flares and the planet gets colder, food cannot be grown and we all starve. Plant life needs CO2 to survive (we learned that in Primary School) What did you learn at School!!!!!! They are using this to bring in the "One World Government" which you have been duped into accepting. Don't you know that the CREATOR of this world controls all of the WEATHER and man can do nothing!!!!!!!

FishEagle said...

Anon 6.49. I have respect for your faith. Here is a story that I always really enjoy. You may have heard it but here goes anyway. A man survives after his boat sank at sea. He was very angry that God allowed his boat to sink. He is floating in the water and praying to God to be saved. After a while a canoe comes along and the guy in the canoe tells the man to get in. The man responds that he prayed hard and he had faith that God was going to save him. He was not going to get in. After much persistence but with no success, the guy in the canoe paddles off. The man in the water started praying again. Then along comes a boat and they find the man at sea. They tell him to get in the boat. The man refuses, giving the same reason that God will save him. Eventually the boat left without the man in the water. The man is getting desperate now, his legs and arms tired, so he prays really hard and asks God to save him. A ship comes along and when they see the man they send somebody to go and help him out of the water. You can guess the answer that the man gives - he says he was waiting for God to save him and refused to get on the ship. After the ship went off the man drowns because he can't stay afloat anymore. When he gets to heaven he's angry at God and he asks God why He let him drown after He let his boat sink. God then explained to the man that He tried to save the man 3 times, but the man never got into any of the boats that God sent to save him.