Slashdot Mirror

Sorry, copy and paste fail. I intended to link to these:

• Lu Guang from People’s Republic of China won the $30,000 W. Eugene Smith Grant in Humanistic Photography for his documentary project “Pollution in China.”
• Industrial Pollution Kills Hundreds Along the Huai River Basin in China
• de-industrialization of the west just moved the western problems of the past to a country that doesn’t seem to care much about pollution control.

...as just a few examples of the incredible disdain with which China pollutes its own backyard and poisons its people. Even Ceaucescu's Romania has nothing on this mess.

"It wasn't uncommon for someone to spend a month on a project and then just discard all their data because the data didn't make sense."

No need to discard perfectly good data when all you need to do is adjust it a little. Don't they know about Mike’s Nature trick?

Lindzen is paid by the fossil fuel industry

... as are the global warming people at CRU, according to their own emails. You know, the lead authors of IPCC reports. Oh, and yeah, the IPCC chairman himself is making (and stands to make) a lot of money from the fossil fuel (now renamed to "green tech") industry.

Not credible as a researcher

Oh.

Sources:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/21/pacharuris-carbon-choo-choo-off-the-rails/

Lindzen is paid by the fossil fuel industry

... as are the global warming people at CRU, according to their own emails. You know, the lead authors of IPCC reports. Oh, and yeah, the IPCC chairman himself is making (and stands to make) a lot of money from the fossil fuel (now renamed to "green tech") industry.

Not credible as a researcher

Oh.

Sources:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/21/pacharuris-carbon-choo-choo-off-the-rails/

In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent. The e-mails show that Tom Wigley, one of the most highly-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate, thought my paper was "valid". They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to get the journal editor to not publish my paper.

After my paper was published, the State University of New York, where the research was conducted, carried out an investigation. During the investigation, I was not interviewed: contrary to the university's policies, federal regulations, and natural justice. I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report's release, but I was not allowed to see the report: truly Kafkaesque.

The report apparently concluded that there was no fraud. The leaked files contain the defense against my allegation. The defense is obviously and strongly contradicted by the documentary record. It is no surprise, then, that the university still refuses to release the report. More details on all this, including source documents are, here.

If you read the links, it is clear that the data upon which Wang's research was based did not exist. Why do you criticize Keenan for exposing that?

Still wrong.

Clearly there's too much for plants to absorb anyway, since we know CO2 levels are increasing; we're not just getting more plants.

Yes we are, the Earth's biosphere is booming and has been for the last decades. Up more than 6% in total. Plants are currently CO2 starved, most become increasingly happy up to 1000ppm.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/

And, of course, the acidification of the oceans is also a huge problem.

No, it's not. CO2 in the atmosphere has been more than a magnitude higher before in history without the oceans having gone acidic. They're at PH>7 and will stay so. Any slight changes are easily coped with by creatures who've lived through much largers changes before - they've evolved to handle them. Some even grow better with increased levels of CO2.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162

Why don't you like science?

Wtf

Climategate is about a whistleblower releasing email, data and code having been gathered for a long time (likely due to FOI requests). The only other possible explanation is that it was done by mistake (yes, seriously)

There's absolutely no indications whatsoever that this was done by "hackers" - it would be near impossible actually.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/07/comprhensive-network-analysis-shows-climategate-likely-to-be-a-leak/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/the-crutape-letters%C2%AE-an-alternate-explanation/

Wtf

Climategate is about a whistleblower releasing email, data and code having been gathered for a long time (likely due to FOI requests). The only other possible explanation is that it was done by mistake (yes, seriously)

There's absolutely no indications whatsoever that this was done by "hackers" - it would be near impossible actually.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/07/comprhensive-network-analysis-shows-climategate-likely-to-be-a-leak/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/the-crutape-letters%C2%AE-an-alternate-explanation/

Providing you actually manage to get the raw unmodified data, which by many accounts is nearly impossible to do.

~95% of the British data is already freely available. The ~5% of data the British government licensed from other governments under contract is available if you work for the British government or a British university. Additionally, a pirated copy of the complete data set has already been leaked. So quit complaining that it's "nearly impossible" to get access to the data - only a small amount of the data is not available freely, the British government paid for it so that British researchers can use it, and if you actually did a degree or postgrad research in climatology at a British university you'd almost certainly be able to get a copy. And even if you didn't, and you really wanted a copy, you'd still be able to find a pirate copy of the leaked data somewhere on the net.

investigations on http://climateaudit.org/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Ahh, I think you're right - like I said, I find it hard to follow that ever-changing bill (just in the time since I posted it's apparantly not "medicare at 50" any longer - does anyone voting on this know what's in it?).

Here's one analysis of the Antarctic temperature record stuff. Several people around the web are trying to make sense of the data. It looks like the one climate station they liked wasn't near Mount Erebus, but on the peninsula (there are a couple of volcanoes out there, but I don't think they're active).

There's been an amazing surge in amature interest in science over the past month, as people plunge into the raw data and do their own analyses to see if the numbers are cooked as badly as they seem to be from the climategate emails. Whatever else comes of that, the renewed interest in science is wonderful, especially from the right. Climategate may eventually kill intelligent design!

BTW, if you haven't seen this data, you should. Ignore the blog poster's blathering and skip to the charts. You can validate all the data if you doubt it, but I've been following the Vostok ice core data for years now. There's a reason few geologists buy into the global warming panic (of course, a geologist may be thinking "meh, in 100 million years it will all blow over, blink of an eye really").

The link you posted has been replaced by
this one.

I don't have any proofs yet. I've downloaded a good chunk of raw data and am processing it for my own amusement. I've collected about 100GB so far. It's all out there for you to read if you want to. I don't expect my proofs to mean anything to you as I'm not a climate scientist. Fortunately a compact binary representation of the temperature data can be done in 20GB, and that's not too much for one machine to fit into memory any more (I have servers with 96GB each). As part of my hobby I'm designing a daemon that loads the raw data into a memory array and answers database queries on it. It could be a year before I have my own stuff to share, but it sure is fun!

In the meantime, here's that link to a non-reliable source you asked for. If you look at figure 5 you should be able to pick out the dust bowl drought era (1930-1945) and the rapid decline (1935-1970) that had a few scientists in 1975 concerned about an impending ice age - both events well supported by the historical record and not subject to scientific reinterpretation. Neither of these events is visible in the adjusted data. Then there's the fact that the cataclysmic rise in temperatures halted a decade ago for no apparent reason - itself a refutation of AGW. That's why their graphs stop in 2000.

Of course this link actually restates original work by Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian environmentalist.

If you look at the AGW alarmists' own chart of corrections (difference between raw and final) you can see that the AGW signal is imposed by the corrections and not by the data. It's as simple as that. They're telling you they made it up. Further, updates have been made in the last six months to modify the "raw" data to show the AGW signal. Fortunately archival copies are available of historical raw data and this isn't going to fool anybody.

As a final note, not one of the climate studies uses the actual daily mean temps, even where they were observed. Instead they use the average of the extremes, which isn't accurate to 3 degrees in 99% of cases. That puts the error bars around the observations at a far larger scale than the observed phenomena. It's flat made up.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ The link changed

Oh ok, so the skeptics are all in it for the money while the climate "scientists" are in it only for the love of humanity.

The Climategate emails reveal that Phil Jones and his bunch of crooks have been actively seeking funding from the same "Fossil Fuel" companies:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/

Robert Socolow the President of the APS and a prominent supporter of the link between CO2 and global warming has received millions in funding from British Petroleum. Please read up on what the "scientists" think about this (since you are convinced that not a single scientist could possibly disagree with AGW).

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/entry5964504.shtml

Also, since you are convinced that this is some sort of American right wing conspiracy, may I point you to this Open Letter sent by German Scientists to the German President Angela Merkel way before the Climategate controversy:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-anzeige/klimawandel-offener-brief-an-kanzlerin-merkel-temperaturmessungen-ab-1701-widerlegen-anthropogen-verursachte-temperaturschwankungen/

If you want the English translation:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-views

Japanese Climatologists and their disagreement over AGW:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/japanese-scientists-cool-on-theories/story-e6frg6t6-1111119126656

The big difference between AGW and "being nice to the environment" is with CO2. With AGW CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, without AGW it is plant food and the earth is better off with MORE of it in the atmosphere (as has been the case through of most of earth's history!) since it would increase crop yields and thus support more animals and humans.

Yes, really. It's that important to not do the wrong thing "just because".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/08/000811062434.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/

I largely agree with the spirit of what you're saying here, but you're conflating two issues. The author of the Economist article claims to not have the expertise to judge all of the scientific claims made in various quoted articles; so from his perspective, the smart thing to do is to believe the peer-reviewed consensus. That's all he's saying. However, this is NOT to say that global climate scientists within the field should do the same (and I think this is your point). They *do* need to listen to people outside their field and keep and open mind. It's their job.

No I was trying to ignore the issue of Eschenbach's credibility so that I can argue the other issue without conflating the two. I have no problem with his counter arguments to Eschenbach. I have a huge problem with his system of what to decide. If he can't educate himself then he needs to not act when there can be consequences, IMO. Anytime someone tells me that I should let someone else decide the validity of any opinion for me I find it very frightening.

You're absolutely correct, but the problem is that Mr Eschenbach *hasn't* shown such manipulation. Actually, the real problem is that Mr Eschenbach *thinks* that he has, but doesn't actually know what he doesn't know. In fact, in Mr Eschenbach's response to the Economist article, he states the following:

The question is, should temperatures more than a thousand km away from Darwin be used to arbitrarily adjust Darwin’s temperature by a huge amount? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

This quote demonstrates exactly why someone like Mr Eschenbach should be ignored by most people. First, the "arbitrarily adjust" comment reveals that he didn't even understand the explanations given for how things were adjusted (they weren't arbitrary, and that was wells stated). But second, he simply dismisses out-of-hand the possibility that two datasets separated by 1000 km can't be correlated!!! Uh, whoops.

This pretty much proves that Mr Eschenbach is wasting our time. He hasn't taken his own time to understand the arguments the scientists are making (or even basic statistics) and simply continues to repeat his claims.

So the fact that he isn't "decorated by academia" certainly doesn't mean we should dismiss his claims outright, but it probably does mean we should be a little bit more skeptical of his claims that are so far outside of his knowledge base.

And I think you've made my point here. You went out read the two articles looked at the discrepancy and found a logical fallacy which tells you who to believe. I'm good with that. It's a form of self-education. I'm not good with "don't listen to this guy because he's a voice from the wilderness".

You do realize that the AGW crowd were getting funding from Shell, Exxon, BP etc - and that they got their wishes into the so-called scientific process?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/

He's replaced that sticky with a different, updated one:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13888

They weren't preventing dissenting opinions from being accepting into peer reviewed journals - they expressed disappointment in the fact that the peer review process wasn't doing its job: weeding out bad science.

I don't think you've captured the true flavor of their hijinks.

Rigging a Climate 'Consensus' - About those emails and 'peer review.'

This September, Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that: "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted." Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds on his Web site, Climateaudit.org. He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more famous papers.

As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals, Mr. Mann & Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus, but it was not absolute, as they discovered in 2003. Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!"

Mr. Mann went on to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views.

Scientists actually are pretty skeptical people by nature,...... Most "skeptics" are nothing more than contrarians; skepticism to me implies a willingness to investigate the issue for one's self, but most of the denial movement shows such a poor grasp of the science that they clearly haven't done so.

When it comes to climate, there seems to be two groups - skeptics, and believers. It is amazingly difficult to get believers to reevaluate new data (and perhaps endanger millions in grants?).

Climate of Fear - Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
Physics Group Splinters Over Global Warming Review
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Can most scientists afford to be skeptics?

To which Paul Vaughan responded as follows:

Personal anecdote:
Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:

Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.

Follow the money -- perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.

Opposing toxic pollution is not synonymous with supporting AGW.

After all, there is huge money to be made and transferred due to "Climate change", even if it all turns out to b

I guess it got unstickied. The working URL is http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Earlier URL notwithstanding, the link to Willis's rebuttal seems to have moved here.

It's now at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Actually, the blogger replied to the response and addressed each point. He admitted to 2 minor mistakes that didn't affect his main point. Here's a link to his reply here. It's worth a read-through. He's a bit more than just a random blogger. He studies and focuses specifically on climate change. It's only unfortunate that so many folks seem to pick their side instead of reading both sides of the discussion. Depending on others to do your thinking for you is dangerous.

They see, somebody laying out refuting the points of the AGW crowd, which then responds with basically "U STUPID", that isn't going to gain any more fans.

Here's the problem: the Economist article actually responded to the various claims by checking out sources, while Mr Eschenbach's reply ignores the informative responses to his questions from scientists and he doesn't actually show the statistics were bad (he just claims it's obvious they must be). YET, Mr Eschenbach continue to spout out his claims.

So what now? Should the scientists continue to repeat the same thing over and over again back to Mr Eschenbach until he finally decides to spend a few weeks/months/years of his time actually trying to understand the issue? If they do keep responding, then it suggests there's real debate going on here. There isn't. The debate ended when Mr Eschenbach couldn't respond with actual science.

Should you're words carry more weight because you have been trained in an area you are speaking on?...yep. Should you be completely dismissed because you don't have a PhD?...no and to suggest it is irresponsible and idiotic.

I largely agree with the spirit of what you're saying here, but you're conflating two issues. The author of the Economist article claims to not have the expertise to judge all of the scientific claims made in various quoted articles; so from his perspective, the smart thing to do is to believe the peer-reviewed consensus. That's all he's saying. However, this is NOT to say that global climate scientists within the field should do the same (and I think this is your point). They *do* need to listen to people outside their field and keep and open mind. It's their job.

To also suggest that someone not so decorated by academia can never show statistical manipulation is stupid as well.

You're absolutely correct, but the problem is that Mr Eschenbach *hasn't* shown such manipulation. Actually, the real problem is that Mr Eschenbach *thinks* that he has, but doesn't actually know what he doesn't know. In fact, in Mr Eschenbach's response to the Economist article, he states the following:

The question is, should temperatures more than a thousand km away from Darwin be used to arbitrarily adjust Darwin’s temperature by a huge amount? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

This quote demonstrates exactly why someone like Mr Eschenbach should be ignored by most people. First, the "arbitrarily adjust" comment reveals that he didn't even understand the explanations given for how things were adjusted (they weren't arbitrary, and that was wells stated). But second, he simply dismisses out-of-hand the possibility that two datasets separated by 1000 km can't be correlated!!! Uh, whoops.

This pretty much proves that Mr Eschenbach is wasting our time. He hasn't taken his own time to understand the arguments the scientists are making (or even basic statistics) and simply continues to repeat his claims.

So the fact that he isn't "decorated by academia" certainly doesn't mean we should dismiss his claims outright, but it probably does mean we should be a little bit more skeptical of his claims that are so far outside of his knowledge base.

Honestly, this absurd statement made by the author sums up what I felt reading the entire article. It's rife with the rantings of someone who doesn't really understand what's going on, clearly admits he doesn't understand the math, yet wants to chime in and put his $.02 in while discrediting someone else just as unaccredited as himself. This is sheer lunacy.

Actually, the editor of the blog carrying post that the article is commenting on has some background in the subject matter.

I’m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.

Weather measurement and weather presentation technology is my specialty. I also provide weather stations and custom weather monitoring solutions via www.weathershop.com (if you like my work, please consider buying a weather gadget there, StormPredator for example) and www.tempelert.com, and turn key weather channels with advertising at www.viziframe.com

The weather graphics you see in the lower right corner of the blog are produced by my company, IntelliWeather. As you can see most of my work is in weather technology such as weather stations, weather data processing systems, and weather graphics creation and display. While I’m not a degreed climate scientist, I’ll point out that neither is Al Gore, and his specialty is presentation also. And that’s part of what this blog is about: presentation of weather and climate data in a form the public can understand and discuss.

Honestly, this absurd statement made by the author sums up what I felt reading the entire article. It's rife with the rantings of someone who doesn't really understand what's going on, clearly admits he doesn't understand the math, yet wants to chime in and put his $.02 in while discrediting someone else just as unaccredited as himself. This is sheer lunacy.

Actually, the editor of the blog carrying post that the article is commenting on has some background in the subject matter.

I’m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.

Weather measurement and weather presentation technology is my specialty. I also provide weather stations and custom weather monitoring solutions via www.weathershop.com (if you like my work, please consider buying a weather gadget there, StormPredator for example) and www.tempelert.com, and turn key weather channels with advertising at www.viziframe.com

The weather graphics you see in the lower right corner of the blog are produced by my company, IntelliWeather. As you can see most of my work is in weather technology such as weather stations, weather data processing systems, and weather graphics creation and display. While I’m not a degreed climate scientist, I’ll point out that neither is Al Gore, and his specialty is presentation also. And that’s part of what this blog is about: presentation of weather and climate data in a form the public can understand and discuss.

You can't? pity, but chances are then you're no different from the thousands of other "armchair scientists" making outrageous claims with no actual backing, as the guy analyzed in TFA.

Not quite...

I’m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.

Weather measurement and weather presentation technology is my specialty. I also provide weather stations and custom weather monitoring solutions via www.weathershop.com (if you like my work, please consider buying a weather gadget there, StormPredator for example) and www.tempelert.com, and turn key weather channels with advertising at www.viziframe.com

The weather graphics you see in the lower right corner of the blog are produced by my company, IntelliWeather. As you can see most of my work is in weather technology such as weather stations, weather data processing systems, and weather graphics creation and display. While I’m not a degreed climate scientist, I’ll point out that neither is Al Gore, and his specialty is presentation also. And that’s part of what this blog is about: presentation of weather and climate data in a form the public can understand and discuss. .....
. ..... While I have a skeptical view of certain climate issues, I consider myself “green” in many ways, and I promote the idea of energy savings and alternate energy generation. Unlike many who just talk about it, I’ve put a 10KW solar array on my home, plus a 125 KW solar array on one of our local schools when I was a school trustee. I’ve retrofitted my home with CFL’s and better insulation, as well as installed timer switches on many of our most commonly used lights.

I also drive an electric car for my daily around town routine.

I encourage others to do the same when it comes to efficient use of energy and energy conservation.

Updated link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero

12/12, Willis Eschenbach Replies to the Economist

That's odd. The article was there when I posted. Try this link:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13888

This might make sense if there were any "dramatic change in 1941. But as I clearly stated in my article, there is no such dramatic change. The drop in temperature was gradual and lasted from 1936 to 1940. The change from 1940 to 1941 was quite average. So that claim of yours is nonsense as well. In any case, the change in screening did not coincide with the 1941 move. In my article I cited a reference to a picture of a Stevenson Screen in use in Darwin at the turn of the century. Perhaps you didn't bother to read that.

Hard for me to know who is right without actually looking at the data, but honestly I would be surprised if there were any dataset as large as the global temperature dataset that didn't have some errors in it at least.

... and demonstrated the anonymous Economist author was a little short of the facts.

Why the hell did this guy get moderated down? He posted the author's response to the Economist article! It's directly relevant.

Isn't this precisely the risk of overreliance on the peer review system? Unpopular opinions get silenced. I would mod up the parent but can't as I have posted in the thread. So, I'm going to repost the link:

Willis Eschenbach's Response to the Economist Article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Posted at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ Take a look. The real point is the need for openness and open critical review of the methods used.

...to link to Willis Eschenbach's response in the summary. It appears that The Economist didn't even bother to contact Eschenbach before publishing this article by an apparently unnamed author. That isn't exactly what I would consider high-quality journalism.

They've also refused to disclose their raw data, or even a list of what data they used.

Let's pick on GISTEMP since they've open-sourced their analysis code. From their site:

The current analysis uses surface air temperatures measurements from the following data sets: the unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations.

Links to these data sources are provided in the documentation of their freely available analysis software:

Basic data set: GHCN - ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2
                                              v2.mean.Z (data file)
                                              v2.temperature.inv.Z (station information file)

For US: USHCN - ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly
                                              9641C_200907_F52.avg.gz
                                              ushcn-v2-stations.txt

For Antarctica: SCAR - http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/surface/stationpt.html
                                              http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/temperature.html
                                              http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/aws/awspt.html

For Hohenpeissenberg - http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/t_hohenpeissenberg_200306.txt
                                              complete record for this rural station
                                              (thanks to Hans Erren who reported it to GISS on July 16, 2003)

They've gone as far as ignoring FOIA requests to the point where NASA will soon be facing litigation.

The FOIA requests do not request data or data sources. CEI is asking for documentation, such as memos or e-mail, of discussions related to several topics including RealClimate.org and the error McIntyre discovered. Read it in their own words.

They can open-source all the algorithms they want, but without showing their data, it's completely useless.

Now that you have the data as well, we look forward to your analysis.

their conclusions are similar because they're actually all using the same raw dataset.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

They just all apply their own "adjustments" which is why they vary slightly. The above link is a good introduction to how well these "adjustments" work. Here's a good article questioning if the scientists didn't "adjust" so their numbers would match the other publications:

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/climategate_was_data_faked.php

I don't think anyone is faking data to deceive, but it's entirely possible people are saying "here's what everyone else found, if I don't find similar I'll be shunned."

I think you just aren't looking for information which contradicts your Global Warming belief. Start at WattsUpWithThat.com (and the related surfacestations.org) and see if you can find something interesting. There are plenty of links from there to more info.

McArdle knows nothing about these matters and doesn't seem to have consulted anyone who does. Have you?

Yes, I relied on the very careful analysis of Willis Eschenbach, who actually wrote the article that McArdle is linking to. Since you couldn't even be bothered to follow the link to the full analysis (which DOES address the concern you raise) what is your point?

I like to rely on sources that publish the entirety of the data they use along with the steps they take in analysis.

At the heart of things some people disagree with his proposed adjustments. But the fact is all of those station datas were adjusted in ways we have no clear explanation of beyond "trust us". That again, is not science.

but it has nothing to do with the fact that the temperatures really did continue to increase.

Of course, that is also bogus.

So the lists of sceptics who are non-climate scientists are irrelevant, while the Met Office list of names of non-climate workers is relevant?

One picture tells it all:
(graph of the difference in degrees between raw and "final" data sets)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

People aren't doubting SCIENCE.
People are understanding that SCIENTISTS are as likely as anyone to be venal, petty, biased, partisan, and above all the previous 8 year administration showed us: political.

When someone shows a graph of temperature data, that's interesting science.
When I (thanks to the internet) can pull up the raw paleoclimatological data from NOAA, and ask "hey, Mr. Scientist, why is it that your data doesn't match what I see?" and I get a lot of bullshit, handwaving, and a cavalcade of smoke and mirrors - I become somewhat skeptical.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ ... and then don't you DARE call my questioning of your methods "doubts about science" - that's just you building a strawman to try to paint me as some mullet-wearing, Creationism-believing rube.

I understand, it's much easier to just call your critics "stupid" than to acknowledge that the dogma you've been parroting is falling apart.

Yep. Here's an independent analysis of the raw data. It's a long read, but the conclusion of the (apparently non-political) author is:

they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

and after slogging my way through the data, I agree. When scientists are more worried about grants and political clout than facts, they are not to be trusted.

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

It's amazing the poster can claim with a stright face "nothing interesting" was found, when the top Slashot post in the very article he links to has a very long debate covering the source code that was released.

One very "interesting" item from that is this code:

;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

Which to me, is pretty damning stuff. Yes if you look currently that recalculation is not used (in that module anyway) but that code should NEVER have been typed and is a giant red flag something weird is going on. Yes I mock up sample data in my own code, but never have I taken real data and applied varying magic constants across the dataset. At the very least you'd expect to see a source for these amazing numbers quoted in the code - the only information we have is that it is "a correction for the decline" which is the heart of what worries people about the emails too.

Furthermore, the use of this is commented out NOW. But when exactly was it commented out? What datasets were published when this code was running? You can't say "look it does nothing now" because at some time it was doing something. And that is the heart of the problem, without data or the code visible no-one can know. So all the output they have produced is simply not science, even if parts of it happen to be accurate - because we have no way to independently discern what is fact and what is manipulated speculation.

It's not just "stolen e-mails" (ooooh, felony!! Quick! Lock up the miscreants!! There's never an Inquisitor around when you need one...); these huckleberries actually cooked the code. The Warmers are fanatics, more narrow-minded than Creationists, more dangerous and better connected politically than the Scientologists, but fundamentally no different. It's the indulgence-granting, end-is-nighing, repent-or-burn Medieval Catholic Church all over again, except this time without the pleasant chanting and neat robes. And just like that Dark Age sect, the top-placed five percent know that the fix is in while the bottom 95 percent are motivated by faith, fear, and social vengeance.

I'm now falsifying the contents of your post, pay attention ;)

Original scientifically "correct" diagram, which is as you write, a diagram where datasets have been dropped and the point is still made:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138393!imageManager/4052145227.jpg

The _fraudulent_ version where the curves - now continuing up without being visibly cut off, having had their data changed etc - that was actually published:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138392!imageManager/1009061939.jpg

From (and please read through):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/

(Yes, I know .. _that_ site .. !)

If you believe in proxy data then you believe that we should adjust today's NIST calibrated instruments by +.5c to match them, which is what the models are doing. I have a problem with that.

In 1960 tree ring proxies stopped matching observations, contemporary with the invention of datalogging. It's not reasonable to adjust NIST calibrated measurements to agree with tree rings on this basis. Trees did not have a meeting and agree to change their modus operandi.

And that's without considering that the tree ring data includes strip bark trees like Bristlecone Pines, which have an accuracy of 4-6 sigmas based on angle of attack on the borer. You're better off rolling dice, even before the "scientists" sampled 10x the trees they reported, and only reported the trees that matched the expected curve.

Ice gas proxies have similar problems. Their reports are interesing but anecdotal - they should not be presented in the same graph as measured data.

Regardless, the raw data says that the climate is cooling, and the scientists and their "corrections" claim that the climate is warming. If their corrections carry such weight over raw observations, should we not be entitled to some explanations? Why should we not believe this wacky guy?

False. A very detailed explanation as to why, and how they were indeed committing fraud, can be found here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/