Al Gore Slamdunked

[VinnieK]

Do you understand that manipulation of data is necessary? Can you see why this might be? It's a serious question...

 

Dave

 

I have some questions for you Dr_Dave.

 

1. When was the CRU set up?

 

2. Why was it set up?

 

3. Who funded it?

 

4. When the data was requested under Freedom of Information requests, why did CRU scientists deny access under reasons of 'proprietary' - why didn't they just say that they dumped it in the 80's?

 

Why don't you answer the question posed to you. You've asked your share, now let us hear what, if anything, you have to say.

 

Incidentally, the answer to 1-3 is: Look it up on google.

 

4. Are you referring to McIntyre's request to get CRU temperature data? If so, it's worth pointing out that he went to the Met office, who denied his FOI request in part on the basis that it was proprietary, not the CRU.

[Dr_Dave]

I have some questions for you Dr_Dave.

 

1. When was the CRU set up?

 

2. Why was it set up?

 

3. Who funded it?

 

4. When the data was requested under Freedom of Information requests, why did CRU scientists deny access under reasons of 'proprietary' - why didn't they just say that they dumped it in the 80's?

 

If I answer yours will you answer mine?

 

1. 1972

2. To be a unit to research the climate

3. "academic funding councils, government departments, intergovernmental agencies, charitable foundations, non-governmental organisations, commerce and industry"

4. I expect some of it was proprietary. I really don't know.

 

Now come on, do you understand that it's necessary to manipulate data?

 

Dave

[Ringwraith]

Vinnie says that he doubts that "the government or the public would have been too eager to devote god knows how much money towards preserving vast quantities of raw data" - (and remember, we're talking about the 80's here)! Yet in reality the UK government became a strong supporter of Climate Research in the mid-1980's.

 

CRU was set up in 1972 but moved to a new building in the 1980's.

 

At a time when governments around the world were becoming more and more interested in climate change, a time when the IPCC was being set up and the CRU was receiving new funding, new buildings and specific direction into the possibility of man made climate change, you would think that they might just hold onto their raw data, but oh no, they dumped it!

 

As for manipulation of the data, if the raw data no longer exists to check against then how can anyone verify if any manipulation has been done correctly?

[Terse]

As for manipulation of the data, if the raw data no longer exists to check against then how can anyone verify if any manipulation has been done correctly?

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but that is a question that I would certainly wish to ask. The only research I've undertaken has been in the field of history - where preservation of original data is considered paramount.

[Chinahand]

I am reasonably certain you will find multiple articles in Science, Nature etc documenting the proceedures they have used to do the manipulation - I have already linked to discussion of such articles talking about the manipulation of water temperature records due to changing collection methodologies.

 

It wasn't that the CRU privately manipulated the data and then destroyed the results.

 

A large part of their raison d'etre was to amalgamate historical records - they had to justify what they were doing to other scientists. That was a public, detailed and contentious job - which produced error barred results.

 

Everyone gets obsessed about the exact figure - but the science is getting the error bars. As long as the error bars are agreed the actual data point is reasonably irrelevent.

[Terse]

Ah! I see. Science is not as exact as Arts.

[Dr_Dave]

As for manipulation of the data, if the raw data no longer exists to check against then how can anyone verify if any manipulation has been done correctly?

 

But Ringwraith, the raw data does exist. I gave you a link to it today, but you dismissed it.

 

What would make you happy here? A time machine?

 

Dave

Edited November 30, 2009 by Dr_Dave

[Ringwraith]

But Ringwraith, the raw data does exist. I gave you a link to it today, but you dismissed it.

 

What would make you happy here? A time machine?

 

Dave

 

Oh does it Dr_Dave?

"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.

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. "

 

No need for the time machine, an independent inquiry will do.

[VinnieK]

At a time when governments around the world were becoming more and more interested in climate change, a time when the IPCC was being set up and the CRU was receiving new funding, new buildings and specific direction into the possibility of man made climate change, you would think that they might just hold onto their raw data, but oh no, they dumped it!

 

As for manipulation of the data, if the raw data no longer exists to check against then how can anyone verify if any manipulation has been done correctly?

 

Firstly, it wasn't their raw data, they retrieved the data from various weather stations around the world, used it and then adjusted it to take into account variability in collection methods. In effect, all they did was compile it ready for analysis, whether the original data remains in the posession of the weather stations in question I don't know. Maybe you should take it up with them?

 

Secondly, the data was lost moving to the new building. This suggests that they held on to it for as long as circumstance allowed. By then, their research and methodology would already have passed sufficient scrutiny and been published, so really there was no reason to keep it whatsoever.

 

Edited to add:

 

Oh does it Dr_Dave?

 

"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.

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. "

 

I'm sorry, but you really are either being astonishingly thick or shamefully disingenuous. UEA got rid of their records of the raw data they used. Which part of this don't you understand? The raw data still exists, and is available (follow Dr_Dave's links) to anyone.

[Ringwraith]

At a time when governments around the world were becoming more and more interested in climate change, a time when the IPCC was being set up and the CRU was receiving new funding, new buildings and specific direction into the possibility of man made climate change, you would think that they might just hold onto their raw data, but oh no, they dumped it!

 

As for manipulation of the data, if the raw data no longer exists to check against then how can anyone verify if any manipulation has been done correctly?

 

Firstly, it wasn't their raw data, they retrieved the data from various weather stations around the world, used it and then adjusted it to take into account variability in collection methods. In effect, all they did was compile it ready for analysis, whether the original data remains in the posession of the weather stations in question I don't know. Maybe you should take it up with them?

 

Secondly, the data was lost moving to the new building. This suggests that they held on to it for as long as circumstance allowed. By then, their research and methodology would already have passed sufficient scrutiny and been published, so really there was no reason to keep it whatsoever.

 

Edited to add:

 

Oh does it Dr_Dave?

 

"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.

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. "

 

I'm sorry, but you really are either being astonishingly thick or shamefully disingenuous. UEA got rid of their records of the raw data they used. Which part of this don't you understand? The raw data still exists, and is available (follow Dr_Dave's links) to anyone.

 

No, the original raw data existed in the form of paper and magnetic tape records, CRU compiled and manipulated this and lost, dumped, burnt or did whatever with the original paper and magnetic tapes.

 

Nobody can check any of CRU's compiled 'raw data' against the original papers or tapes because they no longer exist.

 

I wont be taking it up with anyone, hopefully the inquiry will though.

[VinnieK]

No, the original raw data existed in the form of paper and magnetic tape records, CRU compiled and manipulated this and lost, dumped, burnt or did whatever with the original paper and magnetic tapes.

 

Nobody can check any of CRU's compiled 'raw data' against the original papers or tapes because they no longer exist.

 

Which they got from the weather stations, which is the data available online and which can be viewed following Dave's links. If anyone thinks CRU's analysis is just plain wrong, they can get the data, perform their own analysis and publicise their findings. What on Earth is so difficult to understand about this?

 

To be honest, when the e-mails were first leaked I was a bit miffed with some of the things members of the CRU are recorded as having said to one another. However, having seen the meal being made of this by you and some quarters of the media, stretching the truth and relying on nothing more than insinuation, distortion, and outright bullshit to push your opinion, never once justifying it with anything even approaching reason and demonstrating little interest in actual discussion, I can't help but feel a great deal of sympathy for the CRU.

 

Don't get me wrong, I can understand some aspects of sceptic's positions, and that this is a very complex subject (certainly the science is beyond me). Furthermore, I do sometimes disagree with the way both the message and the solution have been pushed by the Government. But you are nothing less than shameless, with no discernable interest in this issue or its resolution beyond self-interest and feeding a juvenile hunger for conspiracy theory.

[Ringwraith]

Which they got from the weather stations, which is the data available online and which can be viewed following Dave's links. If anyone thinks CRU's analysis is just plain wrong, they can get the data, perform their own analysis and publicise their findings. What on Earth is so difficult to understand about this?

 

To be honest, when the e-mails were first leaked I was a bit miffed with some of the things members of the CRU are recorded as having said to one another. However, having seen the meal being made of this by you and some quarters of the media, stretching the truth and relying on nothing more than insinuation, distortion, and outright bullshit to push your opinion, never once justifying it with anything even approaching reason and demonstrating little interest in actual discussion, I can't help but feel a great deal of sympathy for the CRU.

 

Don't get me wrong, I can understand some aspects of sceptic's positions, and that this is a very complex subject (certainly the science is beyond me). Furthermore, I do sometimes disagree with the way both the message and the solution have been pushed by the Government. But you are nothing less than shameless, with no discernable interest in this issue or its resolution beyond self-interest and feeding a juvenile hunger for conspiracy theory.

 

Ah, Real Climate's links to 'computerised' versions of raw data. Thing is Vinnie if we can't apparently trust CRU, one of the world's top 3 Climate Research units with their data why should we trust any of the others?

 

I've never said there was a conspiracy, I have merely added links to this thread to broaden the debate, and linked to newspaper articles and the like posing the question of corruption and conspiracy.

 

I certainly now believe that there is enough evidence for an inquiry into CRU, and hopefully any such inquiry would also answer the question of potential for further corruption and or a wider conspiracy.

 

Frankly your overreaction to me posting some of the links I have, and your general rudeness (along with the likes of Slimy) don't do you any favours either really.

[Cambon]

"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.

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. "

Well i for one am shocked. I mean, how stupid can one be? I never knew east anglia had a university!

[Slim]

I've never said there was a conspiracy, I have merely added links to this thread to broaden the debate, and linked to newspaper articles and the like posing the question of corruption and conspiracy.

 

Typical response of a conspiracy nut job. You're just asking questions right?

 

Many people don't actually believe that 'climate change' is down to human activity, many people believe that it could lead to global taxation. Some people even believe that many of the world's leaders are having a meeting in Copenhagen next month to set that up, and introduce global governance to enforce the taxation.

 

Some people believe that data has been manipulated to cement the man made global warming theory, you may have read about that in this thread and on the news recently.

 

Are you ashamed of standing by these statements?

[Ringwraith]

I've never said there was a conspiracy, I have merely added links to this thread to broaden the debate, and linked to newspaper articles and the like posing the question of corruption and conspiracy.

 

Typical response of a conspiracy nut job. You're just asking questions right?

 

Many people don't actually believe that 'climate change' is down to human activity, many people believe that it could lead to global taxation. Some people even believe that many of the world's leaders are having a meeting in Copenhagen next month to set that up, and introduce global governance to enforce the taxation.

 

Some people believe that data has been manipulated to cement the man made global warming theory, you may have read about that in this thread and on the news recently.

 

Are you ashamed of standing by these statements?

 

I'm not at all ashamed Slimy, what I have written is true. I'm certainly not as hypocritical as you are and shouldn't even bother replying to your juvenile rants,

 

You strike me as some kind of rabbid ex-smoker who now crusades against smoking wherever you come accross it, yet for you it's the climate or cycling or some other nonsense you have fixated in your head.