February 27, 2010 
In light of some comments of Ron Cram, I would like to make a few points:
1. The opinions I express on this blog are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
2. I am not and have never been a member of the communist party.
Thank you.
About Policy Lass
Exploring skeptic tales.68 Responses to “A Note to Readers”
Leave a reply to J Bowers Cancel reply
The Policy Lass
The Policy Lass 
SheWonk, it is OK to ban certain parties form your blog should they become threatening. I do not think any reasonable person would frown upon that. This is your blog and IMO Cram has crossed the line numerous times.
Funny, I used to be a staunch conservative (thanks to mum and dad). Then I finally saw the light 🙂
But no, I am not a communist either, so lower your guns 😉
Susann, what a comedienne you are! I never said your comments were those of your employer or that you were a member of the communist party. I simply said your defense of hiding data from policymakers is not a good idea. Policymakers are not going to like to hear you defend that. I am trying to get you to rethink some of your comments.
For example, I think you are the last person in the world who still thinks Phil Jones was right to deny McIntyre data. Even Phil Jones has admitted he should have shared the data.
Ron, you continue to misrepresent things. I do not condone “hiding” anything from policy makers. I am saying that policy makers do not want the minutiae of scientific debates over proxy data and statistical techniques in their summaries. They hire scientific advisors who are experts to analyze the science and advise on how reliable it is and what the options are with respect to policy decisions.
With respect to the AR4 and the issue of divergence and the claim that anyone was hiding anything from policy makers, here is a quote from the WG1 on paleoclimate:
[my emphasis]
No hiding.
You can see that the divergence issue was discussed in the AR4 and even the critics of those who argue against using divergent samples in analysis. There is no “hiding” going on. This debate is about a particular set of proxy records used to reconstruct paleoclimate. It is not about current warming, which is based on instrumental records and satellite measurements. This kind of detail is not included in summaries for policy makers. They have experts who read the WG1 reports and determine what is important for the policy maker to know.
What Jones is talking about in the emails is this “divergence” — just as the AR4 did not include the post-1960 data neither did Jones in the WMO document, which was a high level summary for public consumption. They did nothing wrong except to use language that denialists could latch onto for their smear campaigns.
You obviously have no sense of humor. You know I try to make my blog entertaining. If you’re going to advise me to watch my expression of free speech for fear that my job will be threatened, I can’t let it go by without a reference to McCarthy…
It is interesting that when Watts decides he does not want adverse comments he quickly throws in the “coward, hiding behind pseudonym” comment.
In one of my last posting names (Bill, TFP) I was effectively banned when he decided to just about posted the name of my employer (Your electronics company there in the UK has a contract with the U.S. Navy for some avionics test systems). I believe this was a threat to inform my employer that I was posting on their computers (actually in break times!). He’s done this to others who post from universities (I know you post from xx uni – use your real name or do not post again).
The banning of thefordprefect was because I refused to apologise for suggesting that most posting on the blog thought more of their wallet than the environment!!!
The banning of tfp was possibly because I pointed out the UK “misuse of computers” act where looking at data that you have not been expressly given access to is illegal – the childish mole saga on watts and CA retrieved a file that fell into this crime.
Watts does not seem a very “nice” man!!!!!!
Still – a new name and a proxy server and I’m back if I can be bothered!
The whole anti-agw blog thing, as someone else pointed out, is a bit like wack-a-rat. You debunk one thread and another saying much the same thing pops out a couple of days later on the same blog.
Unfortunately they seem to be winning the media war. I really hope they are correct and AGW is false. But I think not.
It is easy to criticise – it is much more difficult to generate research to be criticised.
Given the Pentagon’s stance on global warming you could get a bonus 😉
Susann, your ability to rationalize is amazing. Even when we have the emails and the admission of “hiding the decline,” you are still here to defend the perps with “No hiding.” It’s laughable. Only problem is that it undermines your credibility.
We already have the truncated data, the spliced data, the bodged data and the admission. It is an open and shut case for prosecutor. Your analogy to Einstein’s ^ was completely wrongfooted. Briffa bodged hard data. Then his accomplices took his bodged data and wrote papers using the data and not disclosing it was bodged. Einstein was dealing with a conceptual understanding, not changing numbers. And he did not have any accomplices taking his ^ and using it like it was fact.
The anti-science attitude of the perps at CRU is being crushed by the rigorous and well-thought out submission by the Institute of Physics. I have been waiting to see you attack them for being anti-science or having times to Ed Wegman or something. You need to get a grip on yourself, Susann.
Susann,
I was just reading the submission by the Royal Society of Chemistry. It is also quite good. Here are a few excerpts:
4. The apparent resistance of researchers from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) to disclose research data has been widely portrayed as an indication of a lack of integrity in scientific research. The true nature of science dictates that research is transparent and robust enough to survive scrutiny. A lack of willingness to disseminate scientific information may infer that the scientific results or methods used are not robust enough to face scrutiny, even if this conjecture is not well-founded. This has far-reaching consequences for the reputation of science as a whole, with the ability to undermine the public’s confidence in science.
7. It is also imperative that scientific information is made available to the wider community for scrutiny: the validity and essence of research relies upon its ability to stand up to review. In fact, advances in science frequently occur when the prevailing view is challenged by informed scepticism, this is fundamental to the scientific method and should be encouraged, even if controversial. The RSC firmly believes that the benefits of scientific data being made available and thus open to scrutiny outweigh the perceived risks. To this end, scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act. Furthermore, research needs to be presented in an accurate and reliable manner in the correct context in order to optimise this process. It may also be necessary to incorporate an independent auditing system into peer review with the ability to demand access to raw data sets to ensure best practices are being adhered to.
I love the use of the term “auditing.” It shows the Royal Society has been reading ClimateAudit.
13. As has been set out in the review, it is necessary to investigate the email exchanges which were discovered along with other relevant CRU information to establish whether data have been manipulated or suppressed. This is, not only needed in order to identify any unacceptable behaviour, but also to verify the results which have been published. This is vital in clarifying the severity of the acts carried out by those scientists at the CRU involved, i.e. whether it was a misguided protection of their work or a malicious misrepresentation of data.
I think it is clear the data bodge, data truncating and data splicing are all malicious misrepresentation of data.
See the full submission at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4202.htm
And I think the serial liar Ron Cram is one of the most evil denialist posters around, spreading his lies all over the internet.
The earth doesn’t lie.
I do hope Jones has the sense to bring the appeal rejection letter sent to McIntyre that says that though his FOI request was being denied, UEA was working with various Met agencies to make their proprietary data available.
And that those that control 80% of that data have already done so.
The evilness here is that even after being told that the data would be made available as various Met agencies agreed to it, that McIntyre began flooding CRU with even more FOI requests.
Richard Courtney has a good point! He wrote a nice submission to the UK Parliamentary Committtee. Attribution studies have always looked incredibly weak to me, but Courtney has come up with a great analogy that brings home the point.
Courtney writes:
Additionally, I point out that the AGW attribution studies are wrong in principle for two reasons.
Firstly, they are ‘argument from ignorance’.
Such an argument is not new. For example, in the Middle Ages experts said, “We don’t know what causes crops to fail: it must be witches: we must eliminate them.” Now, experts say, “We don’t know what causes global climate change: it must be emissions from human activity: we must eliminate them.” Of course, they phrase it differently saying they can’t match historical climate change with known climate mechanisms unless an anthropogenic effect is included. But evidence for this “anthropogenic effect” is no more than the evidence for witches.
End quote
The fact is it is possible to write a computer program which explains a great deal of late 20th century warming as natural if you factor in the changes between cool and warm climate regimes. The fact these two very different global climate regimes exist is in the literature, but those with GCMs do not bother with them.
See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm
dhogaza, you think I’m evil because I’m on the side of openness and transparency in science? That is certainly a minority opinion.
The Institute of Physics wrote in their submission to the UK Committee:
7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.
In other words, when a researcher has to rely on an FOI request to get data, that is a black mark on the researcher is refusing to provide data. Yes, lots of FOIs were submitted to Phil Jones because, contrary to the standards of science, he refused to provide data, methods and code. In his own words, he “hid” behind claims of confidentiality. Today, of course, he admits it was a mistake. He should have provided all the data McIntyre wanted. McIntyre did not know to ask for the emails. When the emails came out, we really got to see behind the curtain. What we see is evidence of crimes. Of course, the crimes were not committed by criminals yet because they have not been convicted yet. The crimes were committed by perpetrators led by Phil Jones.
Ron, prove that
a) Briffa “bodged” hard data (you’ll first need to define what you consider “bodged”)
b) others used that data as such (i.e., not the original data)
c) others not disclosed this information (which must by necessity include not referring to the papers in which Briffa describes what he did).
Ron, failure to comply with confidentiality agreements, and there were such agreements, is a crime. People thus asked Jones to commit a crime, and failing to do so is a crime, too…Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Ron, why don’t you cite points 10 and 11 of the submission of the Royal Society of Chemistry? Hmmmm? Who’s auditing the auditors? No one! They are free to come with falsehood, even deliberate falsehoods, and then get to continue their attack with impunity. On the other hand, genuine mistakes or even perceived mistakes are to be soon as criminal acts?
Hypocrite. Let’s see McIntyre’s and Watts’ emails to do with their “scientific endeavours”.
Blah. Get a grip, but read this list of what others wrote before you do:
The Consensus on Global Warming: From Science to Industry & Religion
http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
OMG, so they’re not criminals now, but perpetrators of crimes? Hmmm…. what does one call a perpetrator of a crime? You’ve been well trained.
Ooh, can I? 😉
“10. The issue of misinformation in the public domain must also be tackled. Just as the scientific community must be open with regard to their evidence base, those who disagree must also provide a clear and verifiable backing for their argument, if they wish their opinions to be given weight. When disagreements occur, the validity of the analysis must be established before credence can be given to any opinion. Increased understanding of the process of scientific research, firstly in the government, but also within the media and general public, is vital in order to foster a more open sharing of information.
11. Support from the scientific community is needed to provide context and to explain the process by which conclusions are reached. Encouraging scientists to openly engage with the public can only be achieved if researchers are given the necessary backing in the face of any unfounded arguments against their work. This support must come from the highest levels, sending out a strong message on the importance of scientific methodology and research and promoting open sharing of information between scientists and the wider community.”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4202.htm
Got any comments, Ron?
Actually, it would be a civil offense, but other than that, you’re right.
No, I think you’re evil because you’re a serial liar, at a level that’s pathological.
Marco,
Regarding your questions on the Briffa bodge, all of your answers are in the McIntyre submission.
Regarding the confidentiality agreements, Jones provided data to other people he refused to provide to McIntyre. McIntyre was asking for the same data Jones sent to Peter Webster. Jones refused. So, is Jones in trouble for sending data to Webster? I don’t think so.
Regarding points 10 and 11 of the Royal Society of Chemists, I do not have a problem with anything there. There is not enough specificity in the points to know what who or what they are talking about. They seem to be discussing general principles. For example, they do not identify any “unfounded arguments” against any scientific paper. Since all of McIntyre’s arguments are well founded, this comment cannot apply to him. In a general sense, I agree with points 10 and 11 and did not see any reason to comment. What about points 7 and 13 which I quoted above?
JBowers,
Yes, see my comment to Marco.
Jones wasn’t allowed to give data to non-scientists not doing scientific research for peer-reviewed publication. It’s in the Nat Met license agreement.
Ron, there’s something you don’t seem to realise. Take South Africa for instance. The reasons for other governments being so precious about their met data is simple: they resent being used as simple data gatherers for other nations to exploit, after they invested the time and money in acquiring the data in the first place. Jones didn’t just magic the data from thin air, but had to invest time and money in getting it for himself. The various nations understand the need for data for what they see as legitimate research that adds to the overall pool of knowledge, but to hand it out to some blogger would have been a big no-no.
Don’t like it? It’s how it is.
JBowers,
I have read many of the statements of different scientific organizations regarding global warming. Perhaps you do not know that there is a significant push on in several of these societies to change their public statements? The disciplines most unhappy with AGW are the geologists, the meteorologists and the physicists.
The geologists do not buy into global warming because they think the climate researchers are underestimating natural climate variability. Geologists have to be familiar with the earth over geologic time scales and the claims about unprecedented and unnatural warming do not pass the smell test with the geologists.
The meteorolgists do not buy into the global warming hype because of the ridiculous claims made about the predictive value of the GCMs. The meteorolgists deal with weather prediction computer programs all the time. The accuracy of the programs are measured with stringent verification tests which are not possible with climate projections over 100 year period. The meteorologists know their computer programs are good for 5-7 days – although some try to go out 14 days. Nature is chaotic. This is just as true for climate as for weather. The meteorologists laugh out loud when the climate researchers claim it is easier to project climate 100 years from now than it is to project weather 14 days from now. Think about it. It is a ridiculous claim on the face of it.
The physicists do not buy the alarmism because the climate researchers are not behaving like scientists. Science is supposed to be open and transparent. When researchers act like they are hiding something, the physicists figure they are probably hiding something. When the CRU emails came out, then everyone could see CRU was hiding something.
Of the three groups, my guess is the physicists would be the easiest group to win back if the science was verifiable. But it is going to be very difficult to win over the geologists and meteorologists. They know too much about the subject to buy the claims put out by the climate researchers.
Regarding the criminals word, Susann reminded me that the word should be reserved only for those who have been convicted. The ICO said Phil Jones should be charged but the statute of limitations had run out. Instead of calling him a criminal, I will go with the word the cops use – perpetrator.. or perp for short.
JBowers, McIntyre has published in the peer-reviewed literature. When CRU said the data could not be given to non-academics (a requirement not mentioned in the confidentiality agreements), then Ross McKitrick requested the data. Again Jones refused. I do not know why you are making this argument. Even Jones admits he should have turned the data over to McIntyre.
Ah, thanks for answering me: Briffa DID describe what he did (no hiding), and subsequent people have more than likely referred to that paper. More “no hiding”. That *McIntyre* claims there is no scientific reason means absolutely nill and nothing. He’s not a dendrochronologists. In fact, Tom P has shown him to be wrong, delayed oscillator has shown him to be wrong, but you still see all he says as absolute truths.
Here Briffa has a nice criticism you can bite into:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
J Bowers already refuted your comment on the Jones’ agreements, although I’d like to add that also other agreements than those of the Met office only allowed data use for academic purposes. McIntyre has OPENLY admitted he’s not interested in publishing, so he’s not an academic that can have the data.
Your final comment on the RSC comment is laughable. Here Briffa has a nice criticism you can bite into:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
McIntyre’s criticism well founded? No, founded on biased selection and poor understanding.
Points 7 and 13 cannot be seen separate from 10 and 11. The RSC will find that protection of own work (however misguided it may seem to some) is directly due to the failure of protecting climate scientists against the distortions of others. Accountability should go two ways. Manipulation of data has not happened at CRU, as the e-mails show time after time. Note that manipulation is not the same as developing various tools to look at data, which ultimately may turn out to be wrong.
Oh yes it was mentioned, it was even bolded, I’ve read it myself. I was slapping deniers with it as soon as I found it. It was fun.
Where does Jones say this?
More lies from Ron Cram.
A few scientists in those disciplines are skeptics, not “the disciplines”.
The last attempt by the skeptical community to change the APS statement was signed by about 0.5% of the physicists in the society.
Ron, the data had to be licensed for a specific purpose then deleted if no longer part of a project, and the purpose of the data had to end up in the peer reviewed literature.
Think on it a while: peer reviewed science is also available to the nations the data comes from, so they get something from their data in return.
Please let’s not forget to also drop the word “crime”, as “crime perpetrator” and “perpetrator of a crime” says about the same thing as “criminal”.
I’m a meteorologist, and pretty much all of my colleagues here, in the USA and elsewhere are on board with AGW. The doubters, who are in the minority by a long shot are unsure as to exactly how much warming there will be for doubling CO2. The resident troll (Cram) lies again. He also has no bloody clue about models and the difference between an initial value problem vs. boundary problem (i.e, WRF/UKMET/GEM NWP models vs. AOGCMs). The lies just keep spewing.
McLie has published ONE paper with McK in a reputable peer-reviewed journal– and that did not contribute much, if anything, to the science. Go figure, he is not a climate scientist, nor a statistician and yet feels omniscient and compelled to pontificate. A classic case of D-K and an egotist to boot with a fanatical and mendacious following.
Dedicated to Ron Cram.
Luminous @31, hilarious, and probably true. I needed that, USA just tied it up with the Canucks. Ugh!
Oh, resident trolls the theory of AGW is not based on AOGCMs, nor is climate sensitivity to doubling (tripling?) CO2.
Can someone please confirm something for me? Watts says he was a meteorologist on his webshite, but what exactly are his qualifications?
Sorry for the typo in previous message.
Oops.
MapleLeaf, first congrats on the hockey win. I thought our guys had the momentum after scoring with 24 seconds left, but … oh well.
So you are a meteorologist, eh? Maybe it is just the meteorologists in the US, but if you ask almost anyone down here, they aren’t buying it. There has been this top down thing going on trying to force them not to speak up, but most of them are not buying it. Ask Joseph D’Aleo or John Coleman, the two founders of The Weather Channel about the percentage of meteorologists who buy into CAGW. Or ask Anthony Watts. Or ask William Gray. As a discipline, they are very skeptical of the claims made for the GCMs. The GCMs are a very important part of the projection of catastrophic consequences. Meteorologists are not buying the claim climate researchers fully understand natural variability and find especially laughable the claim researchers “know all the forcings.”
JBowers,
No, the confidentiality agreement does not use the term “non-academics.” There are plenty of non-academics who publish in the peer-reviewed literature, such as government researchers and researchers for private industry. Check it again.
Regarding Phil Jones saying he regretted his decision not to disclose data, I was referring to this news story.
“He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics – a decision he says he regretted.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm
He has a high school education, and apparently attended Purdue for awhile, but did not graduate (no idea how many years he attended).
The AMS has at least two certifications that I’m aware of. I investigated once. I forget the titles.
We can call one the “modern certificated for which one must have a BS Meteorology”.
Then there’s the “archaic one where you could qualify without a degree”, i.e. the “TV weather reader certificate”. Watts is old enough to have gotten the older certificate (I’m not sure they offer it any more).
Ron Cram:
More lies by Ron Cram. There seems to be a disproportionate number of TV weathercasters who are skeptical. When polled, of 124 respondents 35% agreed that climate has warmed since 1950, 20% neutral, 34% disagreed. About 1/2 say it’s not “unequivocable” that humans are the primary cause. That’s not the same as saying “none of the warming is due to CO2 emissions”.
That is not “almost anyone” down here – even among TV weathercasters, many of which hold no degree.
I don’t know of any poll among PhD meteorologists doing research, but a lot of the published science on climate change comes from that community, and very little of that contradicts the consensus view.
And, of course, if it were true that “almost all” meteorologists deny AGW, then the AMS would not be officially in support of science. They’d be supporting Ron Cram pseudoscience.
I really have to ask – don’t you get tired of lying?
Really? That depends on how you define ‘bona fide’ academic research.
Quote (their bold, not mine):
________________________________________________________________________
UK Met. Office
Meteorological Office (UKMO) data supplied through NERC Data Centres to bona fide research programmes.
Conditions of Use
Once the project work using the data has been completed, copies of the datasets and software held by the end user should be deleted, unless permission has been obtained for them to be retained for some alternative use.
–snip–
It is to be expected that ‘bona fide academic research’ using the data will eventually result in scientific publications in the open literature. ‘The Data Centres will request details of such publications in due course, and if they do not arise UKMO may seek further evidence that this was at least the intention at the outset of the research. Scientific papers must give due credit to UKMO, either through acknowledgement or, if the data provide a significant basis of the work, co-authorship. Any processed / derived datasets resulting from the project should be made available to the appropriate NERC Data Centre for licensing / transfer to other researchers and the UKMO.
The copyright / intellectual property rights of any data, software, information or documentation so supplied by UKMO in support of such a programme are retained by the original owner (generally the UKMO or its subcontractors). UKMO will protect its IPR by legal action if there is rr~isuseo f these rights such as the passing on of data to other third parties. NERC recognises that some data holdings supplied by UKMO under the arrangements are commercially valuable : the recipients of data are under an obligation to respect the terms and conditions of data supply, and to have regard to the security of datasets entrusted to them. Any infringement, whether by deliberate abuse or negligence, will be regarded extremely seriously by NERC, as endangering Council’s own reputation and the integrity of the NERC supported scientific community. The introduction of sanctions against individuals or Departments may be considered if breaches occur.
Cram, ask the AMS, CMOS….Watts and his fellow cranks are outliers.
dhogaza,
Can you provide me with a link to this poll? All I know is the meteorologists I talk to all say the vast majority of their brethren are not buying it. Yes, the AMS has an official position but that is dictated by a small number of people. Dr. William Gray of Colorado State is a Ph.D. meteorologist and most of the people who got their doctoral degree under him are not buying that CAGW will be catastrophic.
According to your poll, about 50% are skeptical that global warming is caused by man. That number is probably accurate. The question I was referring to had more to do with the catastrophic consequences and the predictive power of the GCMs. Probably 80% of meteorologists laugh at the claim that climate is easier to predict 100 years in the future than weather in 14 days.
J Bowers,
You keep inserting the word “academic” when it does not appear in the original text. Academic means associated with a college or university. This agreement does not make that requirement. “Bona fide” (which is really weird term in this context) research can be performed by government researcher or researchers at think tanks or private industry. Are you really going to claim Stephen Schwartz, senior atmospheric scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory, is not a bona fide researcher? He certainly is not an academic. Who is to say the research by Steve McIntyre is not bona fide? He has published in the literature. When they turned McIntyre down, Ross McKitrick asked for the data (he is a professor who does research at University of Guelph) and they turned him down. What Jones did was wrong and he regrets it now. I have already provided you with that link.
I really don’t know where you think you can go with this.
Is that quote from one of the CRU agreements? I don’t see CRU mentioned.
Ron, it’s from a scan of the original documentation dated 11/19/2003!!!!!
<i?"It is to be expected that ‘bona fide academic research’ using the data will eventually result in scientific publications in the open literature. ‘"
Don’t accuse of me inserting a damned word! If your reference is the current webpage, guess what, they changed it recently.
At the top of the scanned pages:
THE CLIMATIC RESEARCH UNIT
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
Give it up and don’t ******* accuse me of altering the text.
And before you start bleating on about how you don’t see it there anymore, that wording was on the UK Met Office website after the emails were released last year. Like I said, I had a most satisfying time delivering a big shipment of fail to deniers with it.
Fact is, the denialsphere is pretty crap at sourcing anything for themselves and consistently take any intellectually bone idle route that also feeds their confirmation bias.
J Bowers,
How was I to know you had scanned the document? You never said that. I was just reading what you copied and pasted. From my reading it seemed you thought “bona fide” research could only be done at university. I’m sorry for the misunderstanding, but you have to admit it wasn’t my fault.
So, it seems they changed the text because they realized lots of qualified research is done outside of university. Fine. No big deal.
At any rate, it does not change the fact Jones denied the data to Ross McKitrick at University of Guelph. What Jones did was wrong and he regrets it. End of story.
This is just too surreal. I gave you the part saying what he couldn’t do and you seem to see a big blur. Unbelievable.
Here’s another from Bahrain. Just to make sure you don’t miss the relevant bit this time I bolded it:
______________________________________________________________________
DATE: l2TH FEB. 1994
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your letter dated 28th Jan. 1994 requesting Climatological Data for Bahrain.
I am glad to be of assistance to you and data requested is enclosed.
Please do not supply this data to third parties, unless authorized by us.
Should you require any further information or advice, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours faithfully,…
____________________________________________________________________
And I might as well do Norway while I’m here….
____________________________________________________________________
10. november 1993
–snip–
The disk and the following precipitation data are sent to you without charge. The condition is that you do not use them commercially or give them to a third party. We probably must charge you for other data if you want them, because we have to do the calculations on overtime. We are at the moment changing the climate archives from ordinary file storage to a new database, and are really under a heavy workload.
____________________________________________________________________
J Bowers,
I do not think you are reading what I wrote. Jones sent data to Peter Webster at Georgia Tech. Either this violated some agreement or it did not. I seriously doubt anyone is upset that Jones did this. At any rate, if Jones sends it to one researcher he should send it to everyone who requests it. But Jones did not do that. Now Jones says he regrets that decision.
For more info on this, see http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1065&filename=1256765544.txt
To save time, you may search the page for “Webster” and pick up the story there.
Ron Cram:
No. It took me all of about 15 seconds to find it on WUWT with Google.
If you don’t have the skills to Google, you’re unlikely to be successful in overturning the work of thousands of scientists …
Dr. William Gray is one PhD. Do you have any idea how many PhD meteorologists are out there doing research on climate-related issues? Hint: more than one.
Only *most* of his grad students are skeptical, not all? That surprises me. I’d expect that by this point, grad students might be shying away from him, due to his unsupportable position on climate change.
Ron retreats! First it was almost all of them! Now it’s 50% of them!
A prediction – Ron will repeat his “almost all of them” claim elsewhere by the end of the week. Ron never responds to correction by changing his tune.
However, think this through, dude.
34% disagree that it’s warming at all (which says something about their knowledge in the first place, but nevermind).
I think it’s safe to say that 100% of those that don’t think it’s warming also don’t think that CO2 emissions are causing warming.
So of those who accept it’s warming, about 16% don’t agree with the “unequivocable” claim.
And, of course, even if we were to ignore that “According to your poll, about 50% are skeptical that global warming is caused by man.” the 50% includes 34% who don’t think it’s warming at all …
Disagreeing with the “unequivocable” claim does *not* necessarily mean they’re skeptical. if the wording were changed to “very likely” you might get a very different response.
See, Ron, you’re lying to a group of people who aren’t as passive as those you typically run up against at places like dot earth, where denialbots like you flood threads to such an extent that reasonable people like me give up. We’re going to continue to cut you to pieces just as long as you keep lying.
Ronnies nose grows another inch …
The portion of the e-mail he’s pointing to is just a long-winded parroting of McIntyre et al claims from CA regarding Jones’s nefarious actions.
“I seriously doubt anyone is upset that Jones did this. At any rate, if Jones sends it to one researcher he should send it to everyone who requests it. But Jones did not do that.”
McIntyre is not an academic researcher, and McKitrick is not an academic researcher working in the field.
Jones probably regrets ever having become a scientist in the first place. I doubt that in graduate school he was warned “you’ll be under constant attack by dishonest laymen who will do anything to get you fired, to harass you, to occupy your time with vexatious FOI requests that take away time needed to do your job as a researcher, make death threats serious enough to warrant giving you police protection, etc”.
People like you, Ron, are trying to destroy climatology as a profession, by making it so unpleasant that people will shy away from it.
Do you have kids, Ron? What will you tell them 20 years from now when climate predictions continue to come true, and when they realize that if it weren’t for people like you, we could’ve started taking modest steps back in 1989 that we could continuously build on, solving this problem.
At this point we’re probably committed to another decade of inaction, thanks to people like you.
Think about what your lies imply.
dhogaza,
I am happy to retreat when I am in the wrong. I have commented here in the past about these disciplines. I believe I wrote that, based on my very unscientific poll asking people about the views of their colleagues, about 99% of geologists are unconvinced CAGW will be catastrophic, about 80% of meteorologists are skeptical and a similar number of physicists (although the sample size was smaller on physicists and the real number might be very different).
The key issue is not whether temps increased in the late 20th century, but whether this was mostly natural or mostly manmade and whether it is the beginning of global doom. If you say the poll shows 50% are skeptical of the strongest claims about global warming, that seems reasonable to me. But a much higher number are skeptical of the claims made for the GCMs predictive power 100 years from now. Talk to any weather man who understands how their computer programs work and he will almost certainly laugh at the claims made by climate researchers.
The 34% who do not think it is warming may be of the opinion the surface temp record has a non-random warming bias. There are many people who hold this view. Have you read this? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/spencer-spurious-warming-demonstrated-in-cru-surface-data/
Ron continues to lie, lie, lie. For God’s sake man do you have no shame? Evidently not.
The Canadian Geophysical Union GU polled their members last November on AGW…over 90% agreed with the statement they released with CMOS.
This from their website:
“On November 26, 2009, the CGU and four other organizations sent an open letter to the Government of Canada regarding the upcoming UN conference on climate change in Copenhagen. We thank all CGU members for responding with a vote on the letter. Thirty-one percent of the members voted, and the results showed 91% in support of the letter. The executive recognises the differences in scientific opinion, and strongly encourages continued scientific enquiry and debate.”
And it gets better:
“The CGU began as a society dedicated to the scientific study of the solid earth and has evolved into one that is concerned with all aspects of the physical study of Earth and its space environment, including the Sun and solar system.”
Also, read this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/14/global-warming-target-2c
The denialists are in the minority and by a huge margin.
I think it is time to ask Cram to PFO. (You can edit that last bit if you want SheWonk, but I have had enough of this tripe from trolls and look forward to a more constructive, sincere and honest debate in the future here).
Bullshit.
Yes, we know any poll you might take is unscientific …
We all can pull crap out of our ass – that’s why our ass exists.
So, treat us to a list of everyone you’ve polled, and a statistically valid test as to why your poll is meaningful.
Because you’re telling us you’ve actually done the work, so you can share numbers, statistical analysis, controls you ran to make sure you’ve had a statistically valid sample, etc.
I’m sure shewonk will be more than happy to host your data showing that 99% of geologists are skeptics. There are only tens of thousands of them, and I’m sure you’ve talked to all the most important ones.
Share your e-mails? Please?
I want your precise definition of “catastrophic” you gave to your geologists.
I want your raw data.
And your raw metadata.
And every e-mail you’ve posted to geologists on this subject.
And every response you’ve gotten to your questions, in full.
Also, the source code to any software you’ve used to perform your analysis showing that 99% of geologists disagree with “CAGW”, with “C” precisely defined.
You’re on the hook, now. Where ever you post, you are on the hook. If you can’t satisfy these demands, I’m going to link to this thread as a response to whatever you post, wherever I can find it.
None at all.
Ron – were you raised to lie by your parents? Were they as dishonest as you, making it seem to you that lying is part of some accepted moral code?
Or did you grow up, and reject the normal teachings that honestly is honorable, and that lying is a sin, and become a serial liar with no sense of truth all on your own?
I’m curious … nature vs. nurture …
dhogaza, wow. You are quite worked up, aren’t you? I said it was an unscientific poll. I am not publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. I am talking about talking to some friends and getting their feedback on what their colleagues say to them. Could my unscientific poll be completely worthless? Of course. I think I made that point when I said it was unscientific. But I am telling you what I have been told about what my friends and their colleagues believe and why they believe it.
MapleLeaf, you are quoting from Canadian geologists poll. Can you find such a poll for American geologists? I am willing to bet it would be dramatically different. Perhaps not as much as my unscientific poll, but I think Americans are generally less likely to be hold to CAGW faith.
I have said nothing dishonest here. I never said a scientific poll of Canadian geologists showed they were skeptical. Yet, I have two people accuse me of lying without cause. Do you see how you are? When you cannot win with facts, you launch into personal attacks.
I don’t really believe you are upset at my discussion of my unscientific poll. I think you are mostly upset at me for pointing to the submissions to the UK Parliamentary Committee and showing the real scientists are very concerned about the way the perps at CRU went about their business. The real scientists don’t like the data bodge, the data truncating, the data splicing and hiding the decline. You cannot really deny the points I’m making so you jump on my unscientific poll to try to make something out of that. My unscientific poll is meaningless. You could do your own unscientific poll and get vastly different answers. Try to stick to the main points which are the real scientists (physicists and chemists, so far) are very unhappy with the pseudoscience methods of climate researchers.
Ron, the AGU position statement is here:
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
If so many geologists supposedly are not buying the CAGW (however the C is supposed to be interpreted), how come there is no uproar? You can do the same with loads of professional scientific organisations
Your precious IOP published this two months ago:
Click to access file_38336.pdf
And real scientists, like I am, don’t like some of the things you claim, but do want those claims to be proven. Hide the decline/truncating data? Extensively discussed in the literature! I can also point you to the left censoring that is common, and actually required to prevent misattribution, in many medical studies.
Data “bodging”? Discussed in the literature, including explanation why. That Briffa later developed better methodology, also discussing that in detail is…well…scientific progress.
The RSC nor IOP discussed any of the things you claim “real scientists” are concerned about. Both were critical of data sharing policies. They will change their opinion quite rapidly when faced with the malicious onslaught of unchecked defamation and false accusations by McIntyre, but especially his long list of cronies. McIntyre has plenty of chances to discuss his ideas and notions in the peer-reviewed literature, but, as he admitted himself, he needs to keep his audience happy. He’s not interested in the scientific process, he’s interested in remaining the head cheerleader of the defamation-crowd. And you are one of his useful idiots.
The emails were redacted by the hacker.
How do you know there aren’t a hundred emails covering permission being sought and granted which weren’t released? Think of the motives for release, Ron. They weren’t to make the scientists look good, now, where they?
How do you know it wasn’t done by fax or even snail mail?
Do you even understand the terms of the agreement?
What’s the first thing you do when a “sceptic” tells you your house is on fire? Check the car.
> The claims on the Climate Audit site are
>exaggerated, but get taken completely out of
>context by the other blog sites that get referred
>to in Dr Boehmer-Christiansen’s email. I will
>draw your attention to two things
>
> 1. The Yamal chronology is only used in 3 of
>the 12 millennial temperature reconstructions in Ch 6 of the 2007 IPCC Report.
>
> 2. McIntyre was sent the data for Yamal by our
>Russian colleagues on Feb 2, 2004.
>
> I realize Dr Boehmer-Christensen no longer
>works for you, but she is still using your affiliation.
>
> Best Regards
> Phil Jones
A quote would be appreciated.
Someone recently posted it here I think — can’t remember where.
Ron: I just want it noted that I have not called names or launched any personal attacks on commenters here. ( March 1, 2010 at 12:56 am)
***
Ron: Susann, what a comedienne you are! (February 27, 2010 at 2:23 pm | #2)
Ron: Susann, your ability to rationalize is amazing. (February 28, 2010 at 8:24 am | #6)
Ron: You need to get a grip on yourself, Susann. (February 28, 2010 at 8:24 am | #6)
Ron: J Bowers, I do not think you are reading what I wrote. (February 28, 2010 at 8:15 pm | #49)
Ron: dhogaza, wow. You are quite worked up, aren’t you? (March 1, 2010 at 12:56 am | #59)
Ron: I am happy to retreat when I am in the wrong. ( February 28, 2010 at 8:40 pm | #53)
Ron: For example, I think you are the last person in the world who still thinks Phil Jones was right to deny McIntyre data. (February 27, 2010 at 2:23 pm | #2)
Susann: I do not condone “hiding” anything from policy makers. ( February 27, 2010 at 2:57 pm | #3)
Ron seems happy to retreat. But now he needs to retract. Since mentioning Phil Jones has been critical to Ron’s mission here, it might be important for him to retract that accusation, and not just retreat.
I think it’s your dishonesty that upsets people, not your unscientific poll.
My deeply christian mother taught me that lying is a sin. It’s one of her beliefs that I share.
Willard @62. You asked for a quote, it is in the following article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/climategates-guerrilla-warriors-pesky-foes-or-careful-watchdogs/article1474924/
In it Steven McItyre says: “There are 10 peer-reviewed articles I could draw out of the Climate Audit posts,” Mr. McIntyre says, “but I’ve got this very large audience. I’ve got to keep feeding the blog.”
He admits it; feeding his blog and his faithful following takes precedence over science and advancing science. This is a pretty damning comment. He is also deluded to think that he could publish 10 papers using ‘material’ from his blog, well maybe in E&E 😉
McI has also volunteered in the past in a CanWest paper (who are in bed with the denialists) that:
“Everything that I’ve done in this, I’ve done in good faith”
Absolute nonsense, TomP, DeepClimate, SheWonk, Deltoid and others have all demonstrated repeatedly that this is another lie by McIntyre.
Funnily enough recently DeepClimate demonstrated how McI was guilty of “provides fodder for skeptics”.
And then McI admits to “feeding the blog”. For once I agree with McI and DC was bang on:
http://deepclimate.org/page/2/