Slashdot Mirror
Temperature Data Wants To Be Free
An anonymous reader writes "The UK's Met Office Hadley Centre and University of East Anglia have been refusing access to the data used for their global climate averages and scientific studies. A copy of the data has leaked, and attempts continue to accomplish the release of the data by whoever maintains it. Excuses have included confidentiality agreements which cannot be verified because no records were kept, mention of the source has been removed from the Met Office web site, and IPCC records were destroyed."
Obviously the reasons they've given aren't the real reasons why they'd rather have the data suppressed. I suspect that it would wreck their human-caused global warming agenda.
"My dog ate it" and "It's sooopper secret" for foundational IPCC data is the last refuge of scoundrels and frauds. This nonsense has been going on for 10-20 years depending on how you count the timing of AGW alarmism's full frontal assault. A 1000x bigger scam than Bernie, more dangerous than Adolf and Josef combined.
The troll from ClimateAudit not being able to get free access to the source data isn't the same as there not being data. No one will give him data unless they have to because he dishonestly misrepresents it. And why the hell the UK government should spend ANY UK taxpayers money to even consider his request is beyond me. He's not British.
Lack of free climate data was in itself evidence that there was something wrong with the global warming theories.
Lack of records, source, and IPCC records are of course also evidence of something deceitful.
And for those of you that do not believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence:
it has been proven mathematically to be true:
http://kim.oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html
Kim0
All the relevant data is in the literature. You can look it up.
There are other ways to measure climate besides direct measurement of temperature.
These methods include Ca/Mg ratios in forams and other critters, oxygen isotopes, paleobotany data, et cetera.
CO2 can either be a lagging factor (when other things force temperature) as well as leading one (when CO2 forces the temperature). It's clearly complicated, and if you're interested, you can go get a PhD in climate modeling and join the discussion. Armchair pontification isn't gonna cut it.
There are good reasons why they could be withholding the data; it's not a red flag. It is common for scientists to hold data back so they can publish on their work first. Your conclusion is pretty extreme considering that most of this data is available via NOAA and other sources.
If climate scientists wanted money, they'd go work for industry. The best way for a climate scientist to get fame and money today would be to disprove global warming--- which just goes to show you don't understand science, scientists, their motivations, or their principles.
"Oh realclimate is run by climate scientists so they are the only place you can trust." No, that's not the case. Science doesn't work like that.
Well, that's not what I said. I said that they, being climate scientists, are part of the class that Watt and co. accuse of withholding and destroying evidence, and otherwise sinister behaviour. You got to hear what "their side" has to say against these accusations. I merely pointed out that the people behind RC, with their long track record of climate related papers accepted into top scientific journals (that's what makes me call them climate scientists, if you wonder), are excellent representatives of this side.
Anthony Watt is an ex-TV weatherman, but I haven't been able to find out if he's an actual meteorologist. If you can point me to documentation, I'd be grateful.
No, formal qualifications isn't everything, but you save a lot of time by using it as an initial guess of competence. The truth is, if me or you submitted a climate science paper to Nature, it probably wouldn't even get read... can you blame them for that?
If was going to disagree with the world's most famous matemathicians, I would want to look over my proofs again, get what I mean? I might be slightly less careful in correcting my child's elementary school teacher's mistakes.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Uh huh... got anything... peer reviewed?
If this guy is for real, I hope he carries on and gets the fame and fortune he's due. But that's going to take proving his hypothesis to the real skeptics--- scientists. Best of luck to him.
In any case, yes, global temperature is a control on oceanic cycles. It also is probably a system with feedback loop. That doesn't do anything to disprove my assertions, however.
... and we're basing that claim on ... deviations from what we call the "normal" global temperature. That "normal" temperature is selected as the average of a specific period in time.
That period in time (usually 196x to 199x/2000) is the "stable weather-utopia" referenced to as 1988 in my post. 1988 being the year James Hansen invented the global warming scare as a career move.
it's in my head
Sure, just like all those researchers working to disprove the existence of God. Do those guys get to write their own ticket as well?
Understand that this issue is now a religious one. Both sides are fanatically set in their ways, and no amount of scientific data one way or the other will sway any significant number of people on either side. Any attempt to use logic to disprove EITHER side will be met with some amount of "proof", after which, if you aren't convinced, you will be hit with venom or simply ignored, especially if you come up with an argument that they can't counter.
The amount spent by Environmental groups on this issue dwarfs that spent by fossil fuel lobbyists.
If you need a citation, how about looking at: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf In general, $79 BILLION spent by the US government since 1989 to support AGW. Exxon has spent $23 Million. Money has distorted the debate (you don't want to be on the wrong side of billions of research dollars). The site and its owners may have it's own axes to grind (don't we all) but let's stop with the "oil-company" conspiracy theory. It's just another distraction tactic by those with something to hide. Publish your data and models please.
Bullshit. If you could come up with a proposal for research with a good chance of finding against global warming, then you could write your own check for all your dreams of avarice. There are millions spent on lobbying for big business in Washington. Something that could make the global warming issue go away would be worth a good chunk of those budgets to the fossil fuel and automobile industries amongst others.
Actually, this is working the other way right now. Companies are not in the business of "truth", they are in the business of making profits. They read public opinion polls, not science journals and blogs, and see which way the wind (and all that government money) is blowing. So they GREENWASH everything to get a piece of that market. There is no corporate pot of money available here against AGW. Business is completely co-opted in favour since if it's not green, it won't sell. There is a huge government pot of money for AGW though, and it is distorting the debate.
You really need to find a mantra that you can state without actually lieing. The US automakers were making the large cars because they weren't making enough money on the smaller cars to turn a profit. They were basically only there to drive fleet mileage down and to have a low end offering to retain brand recognition. This has more to do with unions and labor costs which was a big topic of the bailouts in which GM was the only company to take. Ford (a US car maker) had actually turned a profit and Chrysler is took the rout of reorganization in order to get out from under a lot of the Union costs.
The so called oil crisis was caused by speculators running unchecked and it didn't happen until both houses of congress was controlled by the democrats. It doesn't take much of an imagination given their tax the piss out of everyone under the guise of global warming in which the data is not even availible to anyone not already drinking the kool-aid to assume this was by design and not because of market forces.
You also have no idea that green tech will be profitable. As it stands, they want to cap emissions and tax the hell out of everything in order to make it so. No one in their right mind would look at something that needs massive government expansion and mandated limits in order to be profitable as the "future" market until after those caps and taxes happened.
It sounds to me that you have been drinking the Kool-aid and are now unable to see things for what they are or were.
Why don't you look at cap and tax..er trade and tell me which organizations are attempting to put the other at a severe disadvantage by forcing studies published that won't even give access to the data used to represent the conclusions and opinions as reasoning for unprecedented government actions.
Yes, they get oil money. $230,000 in 2002. Vast amounts of oil money. Clearly $230,000.00 against AGW, as compared to $79,000,000,000.00 in favour will clearly sway all of us and win the day. Yes I am comparing a year of Exxon to almost 20 years of government funding. So divide $79B by 20 and the pro-AGW funding is still roughly 16,000 times greater for a single year. Congratulations for pointing out that Exxon is actually a small voice in the wilderness on this one.
Anyone educated knows that the earth goes through warm/cold times corresponding with solar activity. Take a look at the sunspot data over the last 100 years; more sunspots = warmer temperature on ALL planets in the solar system.
It's no coincidence that the current administration is pushing 'Global Warming' as a key issue when their solution to Global Warming is to tax carbon emissions. I mean what other way to lower the planets temperature than to tax farmers for their cattles carbon emissions and raise the prices on food right?...right?
*crickets*
And you point is what? GM still didn't make a profit off of them. Spending more money would not have changed that. It isn't a volume thing because they were already producing as many as they could. The cost per car verses profit per car wouldn't have change by increasing production. They still would have lost money on them and be in the same boat they are now.
This has all been laid out in finacial news papers before. I think you are failing to add in their costs of retirement packages that were brought on by the union. Anyways, the benefit packages and all add up to a labor cost for Toyota and other imports being about half to 2/3rds that of GM's. Having to pay 1/3rds less in labor costs when GM was still profitable would have made their small cars profitable and probably allowed them to do the investments you talked about in the previous paragraph.
Actually, Ford did some restructuring back in 2000-2003 and their unions got a lot less then they wanted. Ford also moves some production to overseas in that time span and their profit was primarily due to debt restructuring. It isn't hard if you just pay attention to what going on instead of swallowing the hype.
And again, your point is what? Chrysler choose to reorganize instead of continuing to operate with business as usual. And no, their mismanagement may have played a role in the deal but you cannot deny that their labor costs alone was 30-50 percent higher then their import competitors. It seems that you are trying your ass off to ignore this plain and simple fact. Here is a hint, if it takes 1 million instead of 750k to produce 65 cars that will only sell for 17k, then there isn't profit in it as if they had the lessor. This is a competitive advantage that allowed the imports to concentrate on R&D to make better products with better fuel economy. You can ignore it all you want, but the fucking math doesn't lie.