Northwest Indiana Discussion

Too bad the denialists can't find any emails from:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
the National Academy of Sciences
the Environmental Protection Agency
the American Geophysical Union
the American Institute of Physics
the National Center for Atmospheric Research
the American Meteorological Society
the National Research Council
the US Geological Survey
the US Dept of Agriculture
the vast majority of peer review
as well as independent research
the Pentagon
the White House
Scientific American
Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M
the American Physical Society
Jason Defense Advisory Group
the Center for Naval Analyses

yeah, it's really a shame

Climate Change Scientists Admit Dumping Data

Monday, November 30, 2009

Scientists at the University of East Anglia 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.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data."

The CRU is the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577 ... latestnews

Too bad the denialists can't find any emails from:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
the National Academy of Sciences
the Environmental Protection Agency
the American Geophysical Union
the American Institute of Physics
the National Center for Atmospheric Research
the American Meteorological Society
the National Research Council
the US Geological Survey
the US Dept of Agriculture
the vast majority of peer review
as well as independent research
the Pentagon
the White House
Scientific American
Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M
the American Physical Society
Jason Defense Advisory Group
the Center for Naval Analyses

yeah, it's really a shame

Tell it to the ice caps
An e-mail storm worsens the climate for consensus

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, November 27, 2009

Stop hyperventilating, all you climate-change deniers. The purloined e-mail correspondence published by skeptics last week -- portraying some leading climate researchers as petty, vindictive and tremendously eager to make their data fit accepted theories -- does not prove that global warming is a fraud.

If I'm wrong, somebody ought to tell the polar ice caps that they're free to stop melting.

That said, the e-mail episode is more than a major embarrassment for the scientists involved. Most Americans are convinced that climate change is real -- a necessary prerequisite for the kinds of huge economic and behavioral adjustments we would have to make to begin seriously limiting carbon emissions. But consensus on the nature and scope of the problem will dissipate, and fast, if experts try to obscure the fact that there's much about the climate they still don't know.

Here's what happened: Someone hacked into the servers at one of the leading academic centers in the field -- the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England -- and filched a trove of e-mails and documents, which have been posted on numerous Web sites maintained by climate-change skeptics.

Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, released a statement Wednesday saying, "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published e-mails do not read well." That would be an example of British understatement.

In one message sent to a long list of colleagues, Jones speaks of having completed a "trick" with recent temperature data to "hide the decline." The word "trick" is hardly a smoking gun -- scientists use it to refer to clever but perfectly legitimate ways of handling data. But the "hide the decline" part refers to a real issue among climate researchers called the "divergence problem."

To plot temperatures going back hundreds or thousands of years -- long before anyone was taking measurements -- you need a set of data that can serve as an accurate proxy. The width of tree rings was found to correlate well with temperature readings, and extrapolating that correlation into the past yields the familiar "hockey stick" graph -- fairly level temperatures for eons, followed by a sharp incline beginning around 1900. This is attributed to human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting increase in heat-trapping atmospheric carbon dioxide.

But beginning around 1960, tree-ring data diverge from observed temperatures. Skeptics say this calls into question whether tree-ring data are valid for earlier periods on the flat portion of the hockey stick -- say, 500 or 1,000 years ago. Jones and others acknowledge they don't know what the divergence means, but they point to actual temperatures: It's warmer now than it was 100 years ago.

Another e-mail -- from Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. -- is even more heartening to the skeptics. Trenberth wrote last month of the unusually cool autumn that Colorado was experiencing, and went on: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

He appears to be conceding skeptics' claim that over the past decade there has been no observed warming. In truth, though, that wouldn't be much of a concession. At issue is the long-term trend, and one would expect anomalous blips from time to time.

From my reading, the most damning e-mails are those in which scientists seem to be trying to squelch dissent from climate-change orthodoxy -- threatening to withhold papers from journals if they publish the work of naysayers, vowing to keep skeptical research out of the official U.N.-sponsored report on climate change.

In his statement, Jones noted that the e-mail hack occurred just days before the climate summit in Copenhagen. "This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change," he said. There's that understatement again.

The fact is that climate science is fiendishly hard because of the enormous number of variables that interact in ways no one fully understands. Scientists should welcome contrarian views from respected colleagues, not try to squelch them. They should admit what they don't know.

It would be great if this were all a big misunderstanding. But we know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and we know the planet is hotter than it was a century ago. The skeptics might have convinced one another, but so far they haven't gotten through to the vanishing polar ice.

Eugene Robinson

BTW grape, did you go to a ''gub'mint'' school to learn how to read & write?

where you're standing right now once was under a miles thick sheet of ice...but before that it was a warm shallow ocean....

where did it go edge?

Climategate Just Got A Whole Lot Worse


Monday, November 30, 2009
Posted by: Jillian Bandes at 1:26 PM

Today, the University of East Anglia revealed that the mountains of data used to back up their and the CRU’s climate change predictions are indeed lost.

Third party requests to view the data had been repeatedly turned down, with the UEA giving various excuses for why it could not make it publicly available. But today, they revealed that the excuses were a farce. The data isn’t there. It hasn’t been there since the 1980’s.

The UEA, along with the CRU and the UN’s IPCC, are the main victims of Climategate. Their defense was, to a certain extent, dependent upon the release of this raw data in order for critics to take a look at it.

The UEA’s defense of their data loss leaves much to be desired:
No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information.

Even if you accept their claim to have not deleted the information to prevent its disclosure, the fact still remains that the data has indeed been deleted. It’s the data on which climate change scientists, and all the major world governments, have based global warming theories.

Rajendra Pachauri of the IPCC has insisted their science is still sound without the original data because the information does exist in an altered form -- a form which conveniently shows world temperatures to have increased steadily. He says that altered data is completely sound because of the “peer review” process used to assess the original stuff. Here's Pachauri in



Like the UEA, Pachauri and the IPCC miss the point. Raw data is raw data. Claims made using the data is not legitimate if it is not available. Even supporters of the global warming movement believe that the original leaked emails make these organizations look terrible. Not having the data that could possibly exculpate them makes them look a whole lot worse.

http://townhall.com/blog/g/9cddff84-cb8 ... Descending

where you're standing right now once was under a miles thick sheet of ice...but before that it was a warm shallow ocean....

where did it go edge?

Hmmmmm, hold on, I'll let you know as soon as I find that out in the Bible.

Leaked E-mails Muddy Waters Ahead of Climate Change Conference

Updated November 30, 2009
FOXNews.com

President Obama faces no easy task in uniting dozens of bickering nations toward the goal of tackling climate change at an international conference in Copenhagen next week. But as if that weren't hard enough, a slew of leaked e-mails in the run-up to the conference has only fueled global warming skeptics who say the cause is bunk.

President Obama faces no easy task in uniting dozens of bickering nations toward the goal of tackling climate change at an international conference in Copenhagen next week. But as if that weren't hard enough, a slew of leaked e-mails in the run-up to the conference has only fueled global warming skeptics who say the cause is bunk.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11 ... latestnews

Translation: "I don't know and I don't really care about this topic because I'm just a typical internet troll."

I mean you need to look NO FURTHER than the Thornton Quarry to discover what used to be here...

UK climate scientist to temporarily step down

Dec 1 01:29 PM US/Eastern

LONDON (AP) - Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.

The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists were posted to the Web following the security breach last month.

The e-mails were seized upon by some skeptics of man-made climate change as proof that scientists are manipulating the data about its extent.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1