1) CRU wouldn't release information to Dr. Anthony Watts, an expert in surface station quality, about which surface stations CRU was using to extract data until a Freedom of Information Request was sent.
2) When querried by Dr. Karlen about data used in CRU, Dr. Trenberth of CRU states that: "Major inner cities are excluded" It turns out that there are over 500 cities in the CRU database that the GISS database categorizes as “Urban C”, the brightest of cities. The data sets used to determine the globe is warming appear to have many problems.
Here's the link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/
3) Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. This 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 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...So now the calculation that got from raw data to "value added data" appears not to be able to be assessed.
If this is no big issue, then why, from CRU is there a series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data under freedom of information laws. This is what the head of CRU (Phil) said:
"Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …
Cheers Phil
2) When querried by Dr. Karlen about data used in CRU, Dr. Trenberth of CRU states that: "Major inner cities are excluded" It turns out that there are over 500 cities in the CRU database that the GISS database categorizes as “Urban C”, the brightest of cities. The data sets used to determine the globe is warming appear to have many problems.
Here's the link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/
3) Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. This 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 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...So now the calculation that got from raw data to "value added data" appears not to be able to be assessed.
If this is no big issue, then why, from CRU is there a series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data under freedom of information laws. This is what the head of CRU (Phil) said:
"Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …
Cheers Phil
Also from Phil: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone...We also have a data protection act, which I wil hide behind.
Also from Phil: I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails...According to the FOI Commissioner's Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on...
Does that sound like science?
Here's the link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole…/
4) Numerous emails from CRU show the "scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming."
Does this matter?
5) Back in 2006, when the "eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the ”hockey stick”, he excoriated the way in which this same ”tightly knit group” of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to ”peer review” each other’s papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang."
Is this concern real? What should be done about it?
6) Jones (head of CRU) and Mann (of Hockey Stick Fame) discuss how they can pressure an academic journal to reject the work of climate skeptics, perhaps with a boycott: ”Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes. ”I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies. They did remove that 'troublesome editor'.
blurbat, awaiting reply...