Oh my! Whiny, petulant and hypocrisy? That's an attractive package!
My point had nothing to do with Phil Jones, but I will respond (sorry I didn't jump right on your little point there, Glenn, I wouldn't want to fail to show you "common courtesy". After all you told me I didn't actually believe in my convictions enough to do anything about them, and when shown you were incorrect you responded with more snark.
This is troubling. I will admit. I am not happy about this. Thankfully Phil Jones and the CRU are not the only source of data available to climate scientists!
No, your point didn't have anything to do with Phil Jones, but my previous note did and you avoided it. But thanks for finally answering this. Yes, it is troubling. In fact it is down right causative of distrust. When I map an area and want to drill a well, my work, my picks, everything I and a host of others do on the prospect gets inspected by the potential investor. At times it can feel like a worse anal probe than the UFO abductees claim they get.
And here is a guy who runs one of two major programs and he seems afraid to let people see what he is doing.
As to the other major source, the GISS, I know that they engage in the homogeneity filter which changes the slope of the stations trend. So, I already know not to trust them.
We do have NASA GISS as well as lots of various oceanographic systems all independent of the mighty Phil Jones, Svengali Puppetmaster of all Climatology.
And as I said, they apply a tilt correction to the raw data. They only correct the urban heat island by 0.3 deg when every study I have ever seen says that it changes the local temperature by as much as 15 degrees within a few hundred feet. See picture below from
Atlanta Urban Heat Island Research
Depending upon where the thermometer is, one can get a totally different reading. It is things like this that make me totally distrust the instrumental record. Add to this the problem of Balling and Idso, who merely subtracted the final from the raw data and found that each year editing along adds more heat to the final temperature record. See picture below.
They say:
"The annual difference between the RAW and FILNET
record (Figure 2) shows a nearly monotonic, and highly statistically
significant, increase of over 0.05 [deg]C [per]dec. Our analyses of
this difference are in complete agreement with Hansen et al. [2001]
and reveal that virtually all of this difference can be traced to the
adjustment for the time of observation bias. Hansen et al. [2001]
and Karl et al. [1986] note that there have been many changes in
the time of observation across the cooperative network, with a
general shift away from evening observations to morning observations.
The general shift to the morning over the past century may
be responsible for the nearly monotonic warming adjustment seen
in Figure 2. In a separate effort, Christy [2002] found that for
summer temperatures in northern Alabama, the correction for all
contaminants was to reduce the trend in the raw data since 1930,
rather than increasing it as determined by the USHCN adjustments
in Figure 2.It is noteworthy that while the various time series are
highly correlated, the adjustments to the RAW record result in a
significant warming signal in the record that approximates the
widely-publicized 0.50 [deg]C increase in global temperatures over the
past century." Robert C. Balling and Craig D. Idso, "Analysis of adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology
Network (USHCN) temperature database, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 10,, p. 1388
I wonder what the people at Scripps Institute of Oceanography down the road from me will do without Phil Jones direct influence? Oh, yeah, they have their own ships and research facilities. What about my former employer, Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory or their neighbors to the north, Woods Hole, do you think they have to call Phil every morning for marching orders? Oh, yeah, I bet they use their massive research infrastructure and their own ships.
No, You can be as snide as anything you accuse me of. Of course I know they don't get marching orders from Jones. That is an utterly stupid assinine thing for you to try to foist off as if it is even rational for you to posit that. What lunacy.
But, true believers lose their ability to be skeptical. You all are true believers. Indeed true beleivers know what to do without any marching orders. It becomes a bias. They KNOW that the world is warming and thus data that isn't showing warming MUST be wrong by definition and thus MUST have the homogeneity correction applied. It is all so scientific, but oh so biased.
Do the plants in North America wait for Phil to talk before marching north to Canada? Maybe. But Phil must be busy every morning.
You have the memory of an ant--a particular kind of ant. I have already stated that the world is warming. YOu keep saying things about plants as if you are furthering the debate or countering what I believe. I believe the world is warming. But you can't seem to recall that little fact from one day to the next.
Let's look at what the CRU actually say in response to this, shall we?
Here's their response: (
LINK)
(emphasis added).
I don't know what kind of industry you work in, but where I'm at
non-disclosure agreements are quite common and when violated become very hard legal issues to deal with.
But what would I know, I'm just in industrial research and development. I never found any oil.
I deal with confidentiality agreements all the time. I don't lose them as Phil did. I am knowledgeable enough in business law to know that one doesn't have a 'verbal' non-disclosure agreement. There is no such thing. And I worked in the UK with non-disclosure agreements, and there is no such thing as a verbal one there either. You are right on one thing, you don't know anything about non-disclosure agreements if you are saying that Jones has a verbal one.
Now, of course, I will not lie to you. I am annoyed about the following paragraph:
I am glad that annoys you. If I were on your side of the fence I wouldn't jsut be annoyed. I would be livid. Jones has just handed everyone on the other side the perfect hammer to doubt global warming. Jones has single-handedly given even supporters valid reasons for doubt about the validity of the data. As one friend said today, "Jones is afraid of having his data looked at; that can only mean one thing". Remember he was denying access long before he claimed all these verbal confidentiality agreements, which undermines his claim. And he has allowed some, select other groups to have the raw data he now says he lost--that says the nondisclosure agreement wasn't really a nondisclosure agreement.
While I (just as you are, no doubt) quite aware that storage of raw data is costly and a gigantic effort, but it would certainly make everyone's job a lot easier when dealing with the non-stop call for raw data, raw data raw data to prove the point. Especially in such a contentious issue.
I agree with you here. But when one is asking society to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on something, one has a right to examine the data just like when I ask people to spend $100 million on a well, they have a right to look at the data and decide for themselves. Society would be far better off if Jones would stop this nonsense, and that is what it is. If global warming is true, it will stand up to the inspection.
Oh, but why is it contentious? Because the scientists are all in disagreement with Phil et al.? No, it's contentious largely becaus of political debate and political pressure.
There is not agreement among 100% of the climatologists. Maybe 90% agree but there is a good size group of dissenters, who all have trouble getting funding because they are not members of the Church of the Warm World.
But that doesn't matter. It should still have all been saved and, when the requestors who want this raw data cleared each piece of the data with the individual NMS's and various other researchers they should have been able to get it. Of course, I somehow doubt the folks at ClimateAudit would have had the money necessary to track down all those NMS's because it was clearly not within CRU's legal ability to just give it all out willy-nilly.
That is just plain silly. Put the stuff on an FTP site and make it publically available. Then no one has to go to the trouble to deal with a freedom of information act request. It is stupid for them to claim that it takes too much of their time to give out the data. That is only true if they don't want to give it out.
As I said non-disclosure agreements are serious business. In my line of work I've actually had to abandon a line of research because we couldn't hammer out an NDA with a company.
I know this. I have never never ever seen or heard of a verbal nondisclosure agreement that was legally binding.
Well, if your company signed an NDA with Phil I'd say, yeah. You would.
Phil claims to have lost them. Fine, ask for copies from the other party. That would then make it clear what data is and what data isn't covered. But Phil lost them, and they aren't trying to get another copy from the country granting access. That too makes me think all this is lies and deception.
But again, I'm not happy that all this data isn't around somewhere and easy to access for all.
I appreciate this, and appreciate you answering this. I know it is not easy for you with what that guy did.
[/quote]]You might wish to talk to your friends in industry about non-disclosure agreements. Even in
research and development we use them. And believe me, R&D
is science.
[/quote]
I would say the same to you. because you seem not to be aware that there are no verbal ones. Like I told you, I have dealt with them on every single seismic contract I have negotiated. They all have NDAs
You're never going to get me to like hiding data behind NDA's, you're never going to get me to be happy about the loss of data of any kind. I'm a data hoarder. And I always prefer to give out as much data as I possibly can.
I am glad you don't like it. It makes me think maybe you have an honest bone in your body rather than the propagandist I see here.
But I am also not going to say that because of the CRU issue that all of climatology is in question.
You lose.
Glad I lost. You should have bet me a dinner.
I am going to say that until skeptics that others like me trust can examine the entire raw data set, that climatology IS in question. Here is why. One simply has to wonder what Jones was hiding. Given that there have been so many cases of fraud in science, one can't automatically rule it out because big money, honour and power are to be found in getting to a position like Jones has in any field. People do funny things when money, honor and power are within grasp.
For the record, scientists are no more honest than any other set of people
