As climate extremists, Democrats, and President Barack Obama (but I repeat myself) push for nonsensical cap-and-trade legislation and prosperity-killing, sovereignty-threatening treaties, at least some of the data undergirding the supposed science backing their efforts seems to no longer exist. I'm not kidding.
At National Review Online Wednesday morning, Patrick J. Michaels told us that:
.... the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
There have been many questions about the integrity of the science behind global warming, but what Michaels describes may be the most troubling example yet cited.
Here's more from his column:
In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”
Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.
So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.
So far, nothing is necessarily out of order. Raw data from faulty weather stations could theoretically be adjusted for the shortcomings described. But the problem is that there are no records of what adjustments were made.
Read the entire NRO piece for the changing stories of Phil Jones about his ability to make the raw data available. Michaels quotes Jones's latest rendition to another scientist who requested it:
Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available.
In other words, we're being told that a lot of the raw data is gone. We're just supposed to trust that the adjustments made were done accurately and properly. Even if they were done conscientiously at the time based on the best available knowledge, there's no way to modify those adjustments for better information about how to make them that may have come along in the last three decades.
So here's the bottom line:
.... So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why?
.... If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.
It looks like there's a lot of material in place that should motivate someone in the establishment press to do an investigative report. Don't hold your breath. To do it, many in the media will have to back down from their own shrill advocacy. One of the worst has been Reuters, which at least as of a couple of months ago had its own "Help Reuters Fight Global Warming" Facebook page.
Will anyone in the establishment media, which incessantly questions the accuracy of scientific reports based solely on who paid for them, even care to tell its shrinking audience that much of the scientific data supporting what I have for years referred to as "globaloney" is apparently not there?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Global Warming
September 26, 2009 - 10:44 ET by allanfThe refusal of this climate group to share raw data is a a giant red flag.
Of course that won't matter to politicians or "journalists" like Steve Croft of Bill Blakemore who say "the debate is over".
And Democrats had the tererity to accuse President Bush of being anti-science.
the data needed to verify
September 26, 2009 - 10:51 ET by Free Stinkerthe data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer.
Fighting Global Warming is so hugely important to mankind that the underlying data was never backed up?
I CALL B.S. !
Methinks someone at Global Warming Inc. realized the "underlying data" was actually undermining data and acted to cover their tracks. That way, no way can look at this data now, or 10, 20, 30 years ahead and say "You were lying out of your wazoo!"
"President Obama is learning on the job and it shows." --Boris Epshteyn
Al Gore was seen touring a
September 26, 2009 - 11:22 ET by nicksmith112Al Gore was seen touring a coal mine in Tennessee. I think he is going to run with this Global Cooling thing.
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
Free
September 26, 2009 - 16:33 ET by NorthCoasterMichaels and McIntyre have been fighting the hiding of raw data and formulas used to manipulate the data for years. A few Global Warming supporters who are truly interested in Science have shared their data and methods.
Check out the ClimateAudit website at http://www.climateaudit.org/ for more information. There is an astounding body of review archived on the site. The left hand column at the site lists pages of interest as well as blogs that are seriously interested in dealing with real Science.
If you look soon, there is an article about data from the Urals complete with an interesting graph showing 2 different results from studies using the same data.
Back in the day...
September 26, 2009 - 11:16 ET by InfoJunkieBack when I was in elementary school, in the 80's, I remember the same information coming out except my teachers and the media were beating the drum of GLOBAL COOLING!!!
At my age there was supposed to be a GLACIER where I live.
Thanks for the education.
I am waiting for the all-liberal SUICIDE PROTEST!!!
In Search Of... The Coming Ice Age
September 26, 2009 - 11:19 ET by nicksmith112http://www.youtube.c...
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
deja vu redux
September 26, 2009 - 13:23 ET by celatorThe we-are-all-are-gonna-die-because-of-man-made- global-cooling scam goes back to the late 60's.
I remember a test question in some class or other that asked: "Experts all agree that if we continue abusing the earth's climate at the present rate, the food supply will be exhausted by 1975. What would you propose to correct this emergency?"
The correct answer, of course, had to be along the lines of driving cars less, living a "simple" life...and yes, use less TP, etc.
The teachers you had then must have been brainwashed by the same teachers I had.
It was obviously a money making scheme then, as man made global warming is now.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
We must now all join
September 26, 2009 - 11:17 ET by nicksmith112We must now all join together to fight the toilet paper ban. I need my plush TP. Just say no to swamp-ass!
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
LMAO!!!!!!
September 26, 2009 - 11:21 ET by Timothy HNice that was hilarious. Made even funnier by the fact that I was waste deep in Swamp yesterday on a field-trip with two of my kids' 6th grade class. eeeewwww...........
That post should have come with a warning to help save keyboards.......
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
Many of us stricken with
September 26, 2009 - 11:28 ET by nicksmith112Many of us stricken with chronic swamp-ass have secretly been using baby-wipes......shhh...don't tell Sheryl Crow.
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
We don't need no steeenking data
September 26, 2009 - 11:33 ET by JerryData? We don't need no steeenking data!
Isn't having concensus enough??
Why have proof when the debate is over?
Two plus two IS five. I swear.
Mommie! Those knuckle dragging deniers are hurting my self esteem!
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
"Jones’s response to a
September 26, 2009 - 11:40 ET by danbo"Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so 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?”" Source
HAHAHAHAHA. HEHEHE. I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. (Charles Gibson of the dead media.)
So much for scientific principles
September 26, 2009 - 12:08 ET by CobraManI guess he doesn't believe in peer review.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
He was perfectly clear
September 26, 2009 - 12:18 ET by FeynmanFanHe was perfectly clear about saying that he didn't want anybody proving him wrong. Nice that they're working the whole world into a froth about this and there's no objective review of the data - or, apparently, any original data to review.
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
Yea Cobra, Here's more on peer review
September 26, 2009 - 12:45 ET by upcountrywaterToday over at Wattsupwiththat ...But hay it's from wikipedia.
We’ve been lectured time and again about the importance of having
climate science work come from peer reviewed papers, saying that the
work of dedicated amateurs has no place in climate science unless the
work rises to publication/peer review level.
[...] In this case, the United Nations simply grabbed an image from Wikipedia
that supported the view they wanted to sell. The problem with the graph
in the upper right of page 5 of the UNEP report is that it has not been
peer reviewed nor has ever been part of a peer reviewed publication,
having its inception at Wikipedia. And then there’s the problem of
“Hanno” who is an anonymous contributor.
Maybe it's the "paper work reduction act" in play... We threw away ,opps "recycled" all that paper, now trust us!
State controlled health care is Tort Reform.
My guess is that it has been "peer reviewed" ...
September 26, 2009 - 12:59 ET by Tom Blumer... but what "peer review" means is a lot less than is commonly understood:
What Does "Peer Review" Mean?
Peer reviews are usually done without getting access to the underlying raw data.
Peer review vs Reproducibility
September 27, 2009 - 16:33 ET by Edward Lee"Peer Review", by itself, just means that some person who, in the judgment of the journal, thinks it should be published. This is only the beginning of the scientific review process. In order to recommend publication, the reviewer should consider whether or not the results are independently reproducible or refutable, and reject the paper if not. He won't always take the time to track down all the relevant data referenced, but it should at least be referenced and available for more detailed review by those actually attempting to reproduce it. If he does not reject a paper without tractible data, it will simply be left to readers of the article after it is published to flag it as being without scientific merit. Such seems to be the case here.
dan
September 26, 2009 - 16:38 ET by NorthCoasterHave you checked out the wattsupwiththat websit you referenced above. Take a look at the archived pictures of weather station locations. It's no wonder that temperatures have risen over the last 50 years. Some of the sites are a hoot! You can see the influence of HVAC units, parking pavement etc..
Between siting problems and
September 26, 2009 - 19:23 ET by danboBetween siting problems and adjustments. (The best sited stations are still often adjusted. ) Who knows what the pattern has been for the last 50 or so years. And definately by how much.
Many people have learned not just to save links to data and charts. But also to save hard copies. Data on the web keeps changing.
HAHAHAHAHA. HEHEHE. I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. (Charles Gibson of the dead media.)
US Government regulations
September 26, 2009 - 12:45 ET by NL207US Government regulations governing grants require that the raw data for any paper need only be kept for 10 years after publication.
That being said, important papers have their data records retained for far longer than 10 years by the researcher(s) or their sponsoring institutions as a matter of acedemic discipline and integrity. Jones and Wigley (orig published 1984) certainly meets this test and their notebooks should have been retained, even if not a matter of law.
Jones and Wigley set the pattern for monitoring station "adjustments". I suspect this work is much of the underpinnings for the monitoring station data "adjustments" being done by NASA/GISS. If Jones and Wigley were found to be invalid, this would have profound implications for later work based on this result.
Regulation smegulations
September 27, 2009 - 17:09 ET by Edward LeeGovernment regulations don't dictate the scientific method. Recall, "Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate". This implies that the data's long term significance was not appreciated at the time, and it may indeed have been destroyed after 10 years ... all in perfect compliance with regulations. This does not alter the fact that the data is then lost to science. If the data is lost, so too is reproducibility of his "adjustments". He could have twiddled and dickered the numbers until they fit his theory, and no one could prove otherwise. How convenient.
His attitude, noted by danbo, adequately illustrates that Jones is entirely unfamiliar with the scientific method, “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Source
Given this statement alone, nothing that he publishes can be treated as science.
-----
September 27, 2009 - 21:31 ET by dahliatraversThat's exactly right.
This is not the attitude of a scientist but of a third grader who doesn't want to share a toy.
OMO!
September 27, 2009 - 21:43 ET by Free StinkerOMO!
Where have you been dahlia ?
Horse - friggin - poo
September 26, 2009 - 12:49 ET by JWFI worked in data processing in the Navy in the 80's. Data was taken from human written records and put into computers for data crunching. All that data started on paper.
No. The number crunching could be done over and over again. The raw base data must be protected.
The entire listing of every little part or thing that could be ordered for the United States Government, every screw, piece, part for every tank, ship, plane, office could be held on a few 2400 foot 9-track tapes at 1600 bpi.
Jones is lying through his teeth.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Well Tom. fortunately someone is keeping records out there..
September 26, 2009 - 13:02 ET by Gary HallAs Obama warned the world at the UN last week:
“Rising sea levels threaten every coastline.”
Recently the LA Times warned us (CA is spending $millions in planning for spending $billions for mitigation efforts - relocations, etc) that in Los Angeles the ocean is expected to rise some 57 inches by the end of this century (90 years from now). Just when is it supposed to start rising faster than 3 1/4 inches every 100 years?
Mean Sea Level Trend 9410660 Los Angeles, California
Now. On the other hand, as all of our bright environmental reporters would tell you - oh sure they would - Oslo, Norway is facing a very serious situation from sea level change:
Mean Sea Level Trend 040-321 Oslo, Norway
Of course those reporters do warn us quite regularly about how the coastlines of India wil be the first to go:
Mean Sea Level Trend 500-091 Chennai/Madras, India
Look out - the end is near!
(;~/ gary
wrong thread
September 26, 2009 - 13:07 ET by NL207.
Cap And Tade Is Already Being Put Into Place
September 26, 2009 - 15:40 ET by John Galt1776Carol Browner, Obama's Climate czar in charge of the EPA has already started to implement the Cap and Trade legislation through the EPA which she is in charge of.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Barack Obama's Shadow Government
Everyone knows that President Obama has surrounded himself with a
league of unelected Czars.
Not so well known is the fact that these hidden, unaccountable
bureaucrats are creating an immense set of regulations that could cost
each American family thousands of dollars annually.
While cap-and-trade energy tax bills appear stalled in Congress, a
shadow carbon tax regime is secretly emerging in the closed confines of
the EPA.
But it is not the EPA director levying these massive new taxes; it is
instead Obama's "White House Climate Czar", Carol Browner.
Browner has a checkered past. Even before the bizarre 2007 Supreme
Court case that ruled the EPA had the authority to mandate 18,000 pages
of greenhouse gas regulations, Clinton EPA Director Carol Browner had
argued that the EPA could claim outrageous powers over the American
people.
Mary Nichols, head of California's Air
Resources Board, has confirmed that Browner led White House efforts to
establish new auto emissions standards. For the first time, these
standards drew their power from the EPA's supposed authority to
regulate greenhouse gases under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Nichols stated
that Browner did so in secret: "We put nothing in writing, ever."
Left to her own devices, Browner will soon graduate from vehicles to
the EPA's entire 18,000-page blueprint for the whole U.S. economy.
Everything that moves will come under the dictates of Browner's EPA
bible: trucks, buses, planes, trains, ships, RVs, lawn mowers, and
every other vehicle you can imagine.
Browner's EPA also intends to regulate many commercial buildings.
Restaurants, schools and hospitals -- buildings that have commercial
kitchens with gas burners -- will fall under the purview of Browner's
regulations.
American taxpayers should be outraged.
Not only are unelected EPA bureaucrats
acting unilaterally, without Congressional approval,
but the EPA itself is not being led by its duly confirmed administrator
-- Lisa Jackson. Instead it is being
directed by Carol Browner, the White House Climate Czar with a
troubling history.
cont on link
EPA
To Implement Cap & Trade Regulations
Obama and the people he
September 26, 2009 - 15:51 ET by danboObama and the people he surrounds himself with don't have the self control not to. Their egos will dictate that they don't have to care what the American people want. And they won't listen to anyone else.
But this and the seizure of the medical system will be the final straws that throws them out of power.
Unfortunately, it'll be up to someone else to try to undo the mess they made.
HAHAHAHAHA. HEHEHE. I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. (Charles Gibson of the dead media.)
not just "some data"
September 26, 2009 - 15:46 ET by wizardjrThis is absolutely crucial data. It is the base study/report that started the whole damn AGW mess. It is the foundation and touchstone for the idiocy of AGW.
I heard some time way back about their refusal to cough it up for peer review via notes and statements from posters on other blogs like junkscience.com. This is their final way out... "Ooops, sorry the dog ate it." Liars and theives the lot of 'em.
HOCKEY STICK déjà vu
September 26, 2009 - 22:00 ET by needleSomebody ought to swat Phil Jones really hard with a hockey stick.
- Relying upon the State Run Media for your information is like relying upon an embezzler for your portfolio management.
A half truth is still a Lie
September 27, 2009 - 00:41 ET by ChattychitoAny kid (or adult for that matter) with a computer can simply download Google Earth then take a quick look at the supposed melting and breaking off of great masses of Ice from Antarctica.
What you will see is all that is breaking off is Surface Ice, underneath the broken up pieces you will see a large dark masses of solid Ice still intact. Well what they claim is only a half truth. Only large portions of surface Ice are breaking off not the whole Ice shelf as they claim.
a half truth is still a lie. It is no matter the lie is still a lie purported by Big multinational corporations, and those for a one world Socialist Global Governance. Al gore has made more money off this global warming scare than any other person. yet those who agreed with him 3 years ago are now no longer agreeing.
he forced the Scientific community to really look closely at the claim and what they found was it was all a lie. now the scientist are turning away from the lie to the truth.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
I don't
September 27, 2009 - 09:34 ET by jessieHI don't know about "global warming" or "climat change", but I'll bet we have a really bad winter, this year. The federal govt. has no proof of any warming. I guess they shredded the documents. Kind of a shame, after making it all up, to shred it up.