CRU E-mails and data

[La Bise]

Damn those warmists, they are even melting glaciers in the Himalays to induce us in error. What did they use to melt all that ice at the foot of Everest, a giant fan? What do you reckon Pete?

[Methuselah]

Damn those warmists, they are even melting glaciers in the Himalays to induce us in error. What did they use to melt all that ice at the foot of Everest, a giant fan? What do you reckon Pete?

Either that, or planes loaded with rock salt??? Why else would ice retreat in a cooling world...

Anyway, back on topic, it's good to see that Prof Jones has stood aside. Now we wait!

[Devonian]

Anyway, back on topic, it's good to see that Prof Jones has stood aside. Now we wait!

Pete, sorry but I disagree. It most certainly is not good that a scientist is forced to stand aside because extreme AGW sceptics (who after persistently harassing and telling lies about him for years - like kids who bait teachers, they just wont stop) have now stolen his private correspondences, mischievously misinterpreted what he said and then are now baying for his scientific life.

I'm very glad that I stand for square for scientific independence. Dr Jones wont be removed (or if he is we enter a climate science dark ages), but we might well be seeing the peak of extreme conspiracy theorising AGW scepticism.

[Solar Cycles]

Pete, sorry but I disagree. It most certainly is not good that a scientist is forced to stand aside because extreme AGW sceptics (who after persistently harassing and telling lies about him for years - like kids who bait teachers, they just wont stop) have now stolen his private correspondences, mischievously misinterpreted what he said and then are now baying for his scientific life.

I'm very glad that I stand for square for scientific independence. Dr Jones wont be removed (or if he is we enter a climate science dark ages), but we might well be seeing the peak of extreme conspiracy theorising AGW scepticism.

We entered those dark ages, the day Mann fabricated the hockey stick! The rest is history as they say!

[jethro]

There is nothing "extreme sceptic" about expecting scientists, more especially leading scientists, to conduct themselves and their work in a professional manner.

At the very least Jones should be reprimanded for blocking the release of data and if it turns out that he did block the inclusion of work (offering to re-write the peer process) submitted to the IPCC, then he should face the consequences.

If the peer process cannot be trusted, where does that leave science?

I don't support the manner in which this has all come to light, but in fairness, if the data had been made available for all to see and check, this would probably never have happened.

As ye sow and all that.

[Devonian]

We entered those dark ages, the day Mann fabricated the hockey stick! The rest is history as they say!

SC, please don't make false and malicious allegations of a fine scientist.

It's these persistent false allegations over the years that have led us to the point that extreme sceptics now see a massive world wide conspiracy all around them.

[Methuselah]

Pete, sorry but I disagree. It most certainly is not good that a scientist is forced to stand aside because extreme AGW sceptics (who after persistently harassing and telling lies about him for years - like kids who bait teachers, they just wont stop) have now stolen his private correspondences, mischievously misinterpreted what he said and then are now baying for his scientific life.

I'm very glad that I stand for square for scientific independence. Dr Jones wont be removed (or if he is we enter a climate science dark ages), but we might well be seeing the peak of extreme conspiracy theorising AGW scepticism.

Sorry Dev...I didn't mean 'good' in the sense that I believe he's done anything wrong; but, in the sense that he's confident (justifiably IMO!) that he'll be exhonerated by whatever the 'enquiry' reveals...It also puts him (for the timebeing, at least) less susceptable to the cynics' anti-scientific rantings...

[Devonian]

There is nothing "extreme sceptic" about expecting scientists, more especially leading scientists, to conduct themselves and their work in a professional manner.

At the very least Jones should be reprimanded for blocking the release of data and if it turns out that he did block the inclusion of work (offering to re-write the peer process) submitted to the IPCC, then he should face the consequences.

If the peer process cannot be trusted, where does that leave science?

I don't support the manner in which this has all come to light, but in fairness, if the data had been made available for all to see and check, this would probably never have happened.

As ye sow and all that.

jethro, you're assuming guilt...only show trials do that

[Admiral_Bobski]

I think it is unfortunate that Professor Jones has felt the need to step aside - why should he have to step down before he has been put on (metaphorical) trial, much less found guilty? Important to note, though, that he has only stepped aside while the investigation is ongoing. Hopefully, should he be vindicated, he will be able to return to his post.

This CRU leak thing is starting to bug me now - there's various avenues of exploration that have been opened up, but most people are attacking the wrong things. There's reports of the "threats" that have been made to Pat Michaels: there have been no threats, only comments along the lines of "I'd like to give him a beating" which most people, if they're honest with themselves, have probably thought or said about rivals or people they dislike. This is not threatening behaviour; it is just people saying things about people they don't like. So what?

More later...

CB

[Devonian]

Sorry Dev...I didn't mean 'good' in the sense that I believe he's done anything wrong; but, in the sense that he's confident (justifiably IMO!) that he'll be exhonerated by whatever the 'enquiry' reveals...It also puts him (for the timebeing, at least) less susceptable to the cynics' anti-scientific rantings...

Ahh

[Solar Cycles]

SC, please don't make false and malicious allegations of a fine scientist.

It's these persistent false allegations over the years that have led us to the point that extreme sceptics now see a massive world wide conspiracy all around them.

Absolutely nothing false about it Dev, as most of us know ( those who don't bury their head in the sands that is .) Mann's hockey stick, has proven to be a work of lies and deceit. I see no reason to debate this any further!

[Methuselah]

Absolutely nothing false about it Dev, as most of us know ( those who don't bury their head in the sands that is .) Mann's hockey stick, has proven to be a work of lies and deceit. I see no reason to debate this any further!

Well, no-one's forcing you! I couldn't resist...

Anyhoo, let's all keep it polite and friendly, eh??

[jethro]

jethro, you're assuming guilt...only show trials do that

Presumably you missed the word IF in my post.

[Devonian]

Absolutely nothing false about it Dev, as most of us know ( those who don't bury their head in the sands that is .) Mann's hockey stick, has proven to be a work of lies and deceit. I see no reason to debate this any further!

Lies and now deceit. What else can you accuse him of?

It's a sad time where scepticism (which is in fact a good thing) gets a bad name when it becomes extremist, vile, name calling, paranoid and see conspiracy everywhere.

Why can't we debate this on the basis that all those involved are honest and decent? I can bring myself to do that if it helps, why can't extreme sceptics? Not, surely, because the only way extreme AGW scepticism gets any traction is by allegation? It's got nothing else, no science, no data, no evidence - all it can do is viscously attack science and scientists. Very sad.

Presumably you missed the word IF in my post.

OK, sorry, my apologies, I missed the if's but in the first sentence I don't see one. There is no evidence Dr Jones hasn't conducted himself in a professional manner, just allegation and misinterpreted personal emails.

Edit: actually Jethro, you also said "At the very least Jones should be reprimanded for blocking the release of data" again, this is not proven, or shown but just an allegation, besides some of the data isn't his to make public.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Devonian

[Hiya]

Excuse my ignorance but what is an "extreme skeptic"? Is that someone who is very, very skeptical?

I'm also surprised no-one has commented more on this:

http://camirror.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/uea_nov2009.gif

I'd have prefered a more in depth explanation of what exactly they plotted.

[VillagePlank]

There is no evidence Dr Jones hasn't conducted himself in a professional manner, just allegation and misinterpreted personal emails.

I think that's the crux of the matter. It is now clear (even if it wasn't so before) that CRU, for whatever reason, and like NASA, are behaving like corporate companies and hanging onto data and, particularly, methods as if it were equivalent to IPR.

I can understand why, I can understand the motivation: but surely it still stands that all science is meant to be reproducible and therefore verifiable?

It is therefore in the interests of science and climate science as a whole that Dr Jones steps aside during any investigation. I suspect, having looked at the source-code, it will be a case that Dr Jones inherited a mess (which is not to say a mess can't work, properly - trust me, this code is angelic when compared to local council source-code!) and, we know, that 'Harry' has spent quite a while cleaning up and debugging source-code.

An unfortunate comedy of errors, perhaps? But certainly no conspiracy here.

Edited December 2, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Excuse my ignorance but what is an "extreme skeptic"? Is that someone who is very, very skeptical?

I'm also surprised no-one has commented more on this:

http://camirror.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/uea_nov2009.gif

I'd have prefered a more in depth explanation of what exactly they plotted.

People that think a few words in a few stolen emails confirm there is a massive world wide scientific conspiracy (fraud) going on involving thousands of scientists? I'm afraid it puts them on a par with 9/11 conspiracy theorists and those who think we didn't land men on the Moon.

I think that's the crux of the matter. It is now clear (even if it wasn't so before) that CRU, for whatever reason, and like NASA, are behaving like corporate companies and hanging onto data and, particularly, methods as if it were equivalent to IPR.

I can understand why, I can understand the motivation: but surely it still stands that all science is meant to be reproducible and therefore verifiable?

It is therefore in the interests of science and climate science as a whole that Dr Jones steps aside during any investigation. I suspect, having looked at the source-code, it will be a case that Dr Jones inherited a mess (which is not to say a mess can't work, properly - trust me, this code is angelic when compared to local council source-code!) and, we know, that 'Harry' has spent quite a while cleaning up and debugging source-code.

An unfortunate comedy of errors, perhaps? But certainly no conspiracy here.

I'm not strongly against your sentiments but I'm yet to see an answer to how the CRU are suppose to make public data that isn't theirs? I also wonder why people decide to be suspicious of the CRU's motives first rather than see that you can't make public that which is someone else's.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

I'm not strongly against your sentiments but I'm yet to see an answer to how the CRU are suppose to make public data that isn't theirs? I also wonder why people decide to be suspicious of the CRU's motives first rather than see that you can't make public that which is someone else's.

I did highlight the point with 'particularly methods' ie the source-code, and, indeed, that is what I meant. Sorry for any confusion.

(and only 5% of the data is not theirs to forward on)

Edited December 2, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

I did highlight the point with 'particularly methods' ie the source-code, and, indeed, that is what I meant. Sorry for any confusion.

(and only 5% of the data is not theirs to forward on)

Ahh, I see. Oh, and my last sentence was general not directed...

So, am I right to think you say only 5% of the data isn't available atm? I've not seen a figure before.

[VillagePlank]

Ahh, I see. Oh, and my last sentence was general not directed...

So, am I right to think you say only 5% of the data isn't available atm? I've not seen a figure before.

No 5% of the data is covered by agreements of use (ie local meteorological sites that sell the data) which, actually, is fair enough. Can't take their investment in collecting the data, give it to UK and then find it splashed all over the web. However, CRU could have arranged nominal licensing fees for that portion of the data and forwarded any collections to the local sites at hand (therefore making them more money)

I'm fairly certain of the 5% figure, but, for the life of me, I can't find a reference.

[VillagePlank]

Mann's work is to be looked into, now, here

[VillagePlank]

I'm fairly certain of the 5% figure, but, for the life of me, I can't find a reference.

Best I can do without spending a whole heap of time reading cynical comments on blogs (they get even me down, and I'm a happy bunny, today, and I'd like to stay that way) is here where they mention a tiny %, but not the 5% I've quoted.

[WindWatcher]

The 95/5% reference I assume comes from here http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

Steve

[osmposm]

Absolutely nothing false about it Dev, as most of us know ( those who don't bury their head in the sands that is .) Mann's hockey stick, has proven to be a work of lies and deceit. I see no reason to debate this any further!

Very glad to hear it, SC. Presumably therefore we will not hear from you in the future when all you have to offer is insults, both to him and to those of us with 'buried heads'. Your more thoughtful, less provocative posts will continue to be welcome as always.

EDIT: Sorry, I see that Pete's already commented in much the same way.

Edited December 2, 2009 by osmposm

[Coast]