Slashdot Mirror
House of Commons Finds No Evidence of Tampering In Climate E-mails
dwguenther writes "The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved. The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit ... had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming."
According to the article, the head of committee which produced the report "said the lawmakers had been in a rush to publish something before Britain's next national election, which is widely expected in just over a month's time"; two further inquiries are to examine the issue more closely. The "e-mails appeared to show scientists berating skeptics in sometimes intensely personal attacks, discussing ways to shield their data from public records laws, and discussing ways to keep skeptics' research out of peer-reviewed journals," but the committee concluded that East Anglia researcher Phil Jones was not part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakens the case for global warming.
The Deniers never really cared about silly things like evidence, or the opinions of pretty much every expert in the field. The whole "Climategate" was just a warm fuzzy excuse to be proud of their intellectual bankruptcy. Now that this red harring is off the table I hardly expect these enlightened thinkers to change course and face reality. Thank god I have some karma to burn, because I'm certain there will be a denier with modpoints.
for you darn kids and your "science" no one would have ever known that global warning deniers are totally FOS.
What dumbass can't accept the fact that their code arbitrarily tosses data out due to data exceptions? You think this is ok and therefore the rest of us are deniers? What kind of fucktard defends this kind pile of shit code and then calls everyone else names. You dumb fucktard. What an asshat.
"So then you go to what we do know, that temperatures have risen .12C a decade and ask, how much of that is due to CO2. If you dig into, for example, the IPCC report, you get the answer is that most of it is probably caused by CO2 (and other GHG). OK, fair enough, how do we know? Dig deeper into the IPCC report and it's based on climate models. OK, and how do we know the climate models are reliable? The answer is we don't, and if you keep digging, you will find that they aren't."
Buzz! Wrong. We calibrate models on historic data and check if their predictions match the reality.
Wow.
I for one am glad you can no longer dump ozone depleting gasses into the atmosphere because it happens to be better for your bottom line. Do you cry yourself to sleep every night thinking about the economic harm to all those whale oil salesmen and slave traders that were put out of business? I'm sure those guys had to find another source of income too.
E pluribus unum
Oh, that link again.
... so this file cannot possibly be raw data either.
.. File 9641C_201003_RAW.MAX surely has the raw maximum daily temperature values from stations? Oh damn, its got the *mean* maximum values, computed monthly.. so THIS can't be the raw data, as the raw data was used to create THIS file of means... where is the raw data?
I know for a fact that you did not use that link to get to actual complete data. You want to know how I know? Because its a ruse meant to convince people that wont bother to check it.
I have followed your link before, because I want data on the stratosphere. This is what happened when I followed it:
I look in the raw data section and low and behold, there is no raw data linked to for the stratosphere. Damn. Guess I'll have to settle for processed data.
I look in the processed section and yay!, there is a link to the processed data! I follow the link and the page it brings me to looks like it has a lot of data... but whats this.. everything there is a GIF file? Every last thing? Its just a page with links to GIF images of graphs? Where is the data? Am I expected to write a program that loads the GIFS and scrapes the pixels finding how high the graph is, and then perform some sort of conversion of that pixel height into actual data? Where is the stratospheric data? That site you linked to, that you claimed had the data, which also itself claimed to link to the data, did not in fact link to the data. There is no way to get to the data using your method of using your link GOD FUCKING DAMN I WAS LIED TO BY THAT SITE, AND OTHERS LIKE YOU!
I then went and checked the other links on that page, and low-and-behold, nearly all of them do not link to actual data, or did not linked to what was claimed.
Surely they got the surface data right for the U.S, right? Well lets see.. the link for the RAW USHCN network, version 1, links to processed data.. just about every data source in there has, and I quote, been "adjusted." Lets check out 'README.TXT':
hcn_doe_max_data.Z
Areal Edited, Time of Observation, and Filnet Adjusted Maximum Monthly Temperature
hcn_calc_mean_data.Z
Time of Observation and Filnet Adjusted Mean Monthly Temperature (Calculated from hcn_doe_max_data.Z and hcn_doe_min_data.Z)
hcn_doe_mean_data.Z
Areal Edited, Time of Observation, and Filnet Adjusted Mean Monthly Temperature
hcn_doe_min_data.Z
Areal Edited, Time of Observation, and Filnet Adjusted Minimum Monthly Temperature
hcn_doe_pcp_data.Z
Areal Edited, Time of Observation, and Filnet Adjusted Monthly Precipitation
station.history.Z
Station History
station.inventory.Z
Station Inventory
station.landuse.Z
Station Area Land Use and Land Cover
urban_max_fahr.Z
Urban Heat Adjusted Maximum Monthly Temperature
urban_calc_mean_fahr.Z
Urban Heat Adjusted Mean Monthly Temperature (Calculated from urban.max.Z and urban.min.Z)
urban_mean_fahr.Z
Urban Heat Adjusted Mean Monthly Temperature
urban_min_fahr.Z
Urban Heat Adjusted Minimum Monthly Temperature
Now, besides that fact that most of these files arent even there any more, surely 'station.history' has a good amount of raw data in it? Its the biggest file in the directory... but after downloading it and looking at it, it becomes obviously rather quickly that the best this file can have is one record per year per station, because the records are very inefficiently encoded (and the fact that no station has more than a single record for a single year)
So where is the raw data for surface stations? Maybe in version 2? Yes, its got some raw data... or does it?
I guess so much for getting the raw data us
"His name was James Damore."
"whilst no foul play was found, the commission slammed Jones and the University for it's hap hazard approach."
In other words, the foregone conclusion they were ordered to come up with - "nothing to see here, move along folks" clashes with reality. So they inserted weasel words like hell till they could still give the pollies, who had ordered a specific conclusion, to say "see the results say nothing was wrong."
If you can't see how twisted and fucked-up this "investigation" is, I have only two questions remaining: what fucked-up shit are you smoking to get you that detached from reality, and why won't you share with the rest of us you stingy bastard?
Even if you don't believe in science, you need only be old enough with good enough memory to remember what the seasons were like up to 20 years ago. The seasons are different now. Some places that were thick in snow every winter, now have little snow most winters (the last winter being an exception), places that had hot and dry summers now have humid summers. These are my own personal experiences.
Sure, climate always changes... but slowly and gradually, unless in a region that's recently had a volcanic eruption, massive forest fire, or something along those lines. And with all the pollution we humans are causing, I'd reason that each large city is the equivalent of a large forest fire burning out of control without pause for a very long time. And that's just talking about pollution. In addition to that we're changing entire ecologies, and as a consequence the local climates that those ecologies helped maintain.
So even if humans are not completely at fault, we certainly are a very big part of the problem. Science confirms our observations, and helps explain how and why climate change is happening.