News Science vs. Politics: Tipping Points in Climate Change Communication

[skypunter]

More likely a concerned sceptic who took a temporary job as a cleaner at the university to gain access to some passwords.

Can we compromise with a concerned scientist working at the cleaner because he/she couldn't get published?

 

[russ_watters]

Fast moving thread so I'm sorry if this was posted earlier and I missed it:

George Monbiot, a well-known environmentalist who writes for the United Kingdom's newspaper The Guardian, called for re-examination of all the data discussed in the stolen notes and said Jones "should now resign" because of a message saying he would keep climate skeptics' papers out of the benchmark 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Jones vows in the e-mail to "keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-11-30-warming30_ST_N.htm

This is really bad because the unity of the consensus position is often touted as de facto evidence of how strong it is. I believe someone even mentioned it earlier in the thread how of several hundred mainstream peer reviewed articles over the past few years, not one forwarded a thesis counter to the AGW position. But if "skeptics" research is being actively suppressed, that creates a self-reinforcing appeal to authority type argument.

We've had some pretty lively debates among the moderators about what kind of evidence/papers/blogs/etc should be acceptible for use on PF and the starting point of such debates is the sanctity of the peer review process. If the peer review process has been compromised when it comes to climate research, then it all but necessitates opening the door for a free-for-all of unverified research. It's a really, really bad situation.

If someone told a story like what we're getting here without these emails, they'd probably have been banned as a conspiracy theorist/crackpot. But what we're seeing is equal in concept (scale still unknown) to the worst of what guys like Rush Limbaugh claim (that AGW is a conspiracy by some scientific establishment). No, he doesn't get a win for making something up that happened to turn out to be true, but it is a very bad situation when a crackpot turns out to be right. It's instant credibility.

 

[sylas]

Fast moving thread so I'm sorry if this was posted earlier and I missed it: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-11-30-warming30_ST_N.htm

This is really bad because the unity of the consensus position is often touted as de facto evidence of how strong it is. I believe someone even mentioned it earlier in the thread how of several hundred mainstream peer reviewed articles over the past few years, not one forwarded a thesis counter to the AGW position. But if "skeptics" research is being actively suppressed, that creates a self-reinforcing appeal to authority type argument.

We've had some pretty lively debates among the moderators about what kind of evidence/papers/blogs/etc should be acceptible for use on PF and the starting point of such debates is the sanctity of the peer review process. If the peer review process has been compromised when it comes to climate research, then it all but necessitates opening the door for a free-for-all of unverified research. It's a really, really bad situation.

If someone told a story like what we're getting here without these emails, they'd probably have been banned as a conspiracy theorist/crackpot. But what we're seeing is equal in concept (scale still unknown) to the worst of what guys like Rush Limbaugh claim (that AGW is a conspiracy by some scientific establishment). No, he doesn't get a win for making something up that happened to turn out to be true, but it is a very bad situation when a crackpot turns out to be right. It's instant credibility.

I wouldn't panic on that score. Part of the fun of science is that trying to get a large community of active scientists to collude on something is about as likely as a feline synchronized swimming team.

Part of the free and open disagreement that goes on is not just on the science, but also on decisions relating to what is and is not part of something like an IPCC report. It is hardly a scandal that scientists might disagree with each other on such a thing. We knew that already! Neither is it a serious ethical concern that some scientists have a strong feeling about keeping out what is -- in their judgment -- bad papers. It's a point of view to which they are entitled. I don't know why you think this it would be particularly surprising, or dismissed as conspiracy, that there are active scientists who feel this way.

What WOULD be surprising, and remains a rather far fetched conspiracy theory without any evidence, is the notion that Professor Jones would actually be able to manage the whole IPCC to his own taste. The sentence is obvious hyperbole, even without the amusing notion of redefining peer-reviewed literature. None of these guys are actually idiots, and they all know that they can't just redefine peer-reviewed literature. At most it means he will be arguing strongly to keep those papers out of the report -- and it is entirely within his rights, not at all unethical, for him to make a case for that position.

As it turns out, of course, the IPCC process does not follow what Professor Jones is advocating; but something more like what you would prefer. See, for instance this response from IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri: (Guardian, UK, Nov 29)

Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.

"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.

"Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening."[/color]​

And indeed, the papers under discussion were in the report. Consensus in science is not enforced; it is descriptive, not prescriptive. The tiny number of papers that go against the fundamentals of AGW are not because they are being banned, but because (almost) no one is writing them (not counting people who don't have a background in climate science and couldn't get a paper on climate science published no matter what its spin).

Is there actually a problem here? Not of ethics, or corruption, surely. It's just that some of these guys have a different idea from you on what might be best for the IPCC. Is it so bad that we find them saying so in a personal email? Should they be punished for that, or actually excluded from any further participation in the IPCC? That has actually been suggested! I don't take that seriously, they've got no more hope of excluding Professor Jones that Professor Jones was able to determine himself what could belong in the IPCC report. I just toss out another ruined irony meter with amusement.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[mheslep]

On the subject of ethics and corruption Pachauri apparently feels the IPCC is beyond reproach, but he also feels the need to point out the lifestyle corruption endemic http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen" :

Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer [...] "I think the section of society that will make it happen is essentially young people. I think they will be far more sensitive than adults, who have been corrupted by the ways we have been following for years now."

while at the same time Pachauri personally attaches a http://www.indianexpress.com/news/heat-on-cricket-pitch-warms-this-climate-change-laureate/231802/0" importance level to flying:

So strong is his love for cricket that his colleagues recall the time the Nobel winner took a break during a seminar in New York and flew into Delhi over the weekend to attend a practice session for a match before flying back. Again, he flew in for a day, just to play that match.

That anecdote aside, we also have the http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session29/doc7-add1.pdf" per this anti-flying website.

 

[Proton Soup]

On the subject of ethics and corruption Pachauri apparently feels the IPCC is beyond reproach, but he also feels the need to point out the lifestyle corruption endemic http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen" :

while at the same time Pachauri personally attaches a http://www.indianexpress.com/news/heat-on-cricket-pitch-warms-this-climate-change-laureate/231802/0" importance level to flying:

That anecdote aside, we also have the http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session29/doc7-add1.pdf" per this anti-flying website.

so India's got their own Al Gore, huh? when's this guy getting his Nobel?

 

[sylas]

so India's got their own Al Gore, huh? when's this guy getting his Nobel?

He DID get it, at the same time as Al Gore. He's the chairman of the IPCC, and the prize was awarded jointly. Here's a photo of the two of them, at the presentation. Photo from the Nobel website.

Rajendra Pachauri was not actually awarded this as an individual, but accepted as the representative of the IPCC. Al Gore received the other half of the award individually. I share your concern about the inconsistency of the personal lifestyles and the outward declarations of public figures like this, who speak specifically about the need for lifestyle changes.

As usual, none of this makes any difference to the science; only to the human failings and personal inconsistencies of two people.

Cheers -- sylas

PS. I do think he could do more about curtailing his own flying; but to be fair, the cricket story is almost certainly from a long time ago; before he or others had recognized a particular importance for curtailing of carbon emissions.

 

[D H]

We've had some pretty lively debates among the moderators about what kind of evidence/papers/blogs/etc should be acceptible for use on PF and the starting point of such debates is the sanctity of the peer review process. If the peer review process has been compromised when it comes to climate research, then it all but necessitates opening the door for a free-for-all of unverified research. It's a really, really bad situation.

I would argue that that is precisely the case. Some researchers with views contrary to this apparently engineered consensus have been forced to publish in journals such as Energy and Environment, for example. Not a crackpot journal, but not well-regarded either.

I think it is time to re-evaluate the rules for this subforum.

Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.

"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.

Surely you jest.

Is there actually a problem here? Not of ethics, or corruption, surely.

You do not jest??!

Is it so bad that we find them saying so in a personal email?

It is probably worse. Sane people avoid making truly damning statements in email messages; the really bad stuff is in private phone conversations and face-to-face conversations. That said, those email messages are very, very bad.

Should they be punished for that, or actually excluded from any further participation in the IPCC?

That would be a start. Not near enough, but a start.

 

[Coldcall]

excellent article in the FT today explaining why the CRU scandal is so bad (at last some mainstream media taking this seriously)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8aefbf52-d9e1-11de-b2d5-00144feabdc0.html

 

[DanP]

I studied the 'runaway' tipping point issue based on paleo climate but if I explain it, my threads get locked -even if I use peer reviewed studies- because it is against that so called CRU type 'mainstream' and hence it is so called deniers 'crackpot'. So the rules have to change first.

Many threads appear to be locked completely arbitrary on this board. Whenever a mod "feels" that they can't bring anything useful anymore. Way too subjective, if you ask me.

 

[russ_watters]

I wouldn't panic on that score. Part of the fun of science is that trying to get a large community of active scientists to collude on something is about as likely as a feline synchronized swimming team.

Part of the free and open disagreement that goes on is not just on the science, but also on decisions relating to what is and is not part of something like an IPCC report. It is hardly a scandal that scientists might disagree with each other on such a thing. We knew that already! Neither is it a serious ethical concern that some scientists have a strong feeling about keeping out what is -- in their judgment -- bad papers. It's a point of view to which they are entitled. I don't know why you think this it would be particularly surprising, or dismissed as conspiracy, that there are active scientists who feel this way. [emphasis added]

Did you misread the quote? He's not saying that papers should be excluded based on their lack of merit, he's saying that the rules of the game should be changed to keep out papers that at face value do seem to have merit. That's clearly inethical!

What WOULD be surprising, and remains a rather far fetched conspiracy theory without any evidence, is the notion that Professor Jones would actually be able to manage the whole IPCC to his own taste. The sentence is obvious hyperbole, even without the amusing notion of redefining peer-reviewed literature.

Certainly, the scope of this is something I don't yet have full grasp of. I doubt anyone does. But because of his prominence, this will raise suspicions that his attitude may be more pervasive than the evidence available can actually tell us.

 

[Proton Soup]

As usual, none of this makes any difference to the science; only to the human failings and personal inconsistencies of two people.

yes, as usual, politics influences science not one iota. it beats to its own drum, completely oblivious to the world around it. what a wondrous thing it must be to be above all this foolishness. oh, how i envy you scientists.

 

[russ_watters]

Okay I have a question i was wondering if anyone can enlighten me on this discrepancy.

I asked Gavin Schmidt on RC whether he thought the climate was a chaotic system. He said he did not know (seriously)...

Please note: this is a thread for discussion of the political implications of the CRU hack only. Please use our Earth sciences forum for discussion of the technical merits of AGW.

 

[Coldcall]

Please note: this is a thread for discussion of the political implications of the CRU hack only. Please use our Earth sciences forum for discussion of the technical merits of AGW.

Okay cheers, i moved the question to Earth sciences.

 

[Evo]

As it turns out, of course, the IPCC process does not follow what Professor Jones is advocating; but something more like what you would prefer. See, for instance this response from IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri: (Guardian, UK, Nov 29)

Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.

"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.

"Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening."[/color]​

And indeed, the papers under discussion were in the report. Consensus in science is not enforced; it is descriptive, not prescriptive. The tiny number of papers that go against the fundamentals of AGW are not because they are being banned, but because (almost) no one is writing them (not counting people who don't have a background in climate science and couldn't get a paper on climate science published no matter what its spin).

Is there actually a problem here? Not of ethics, or corruption, surely. It's just that some of these guys have a different idea from you on what might be best for the IPCC. Is it so bad that we find them saying so in a personal email? Should they be punished for that, or actually excluded from any further participation in the IPCC? That has actually been suggested! I don't take that seriously, they've got no more hope of excluding Professor Jones that Professor Jones was able to determine himself what could belong in the IPCC report. I just toss out another ruined irony meter with amusement.

Cheers -- sylas

Last year the IPCC "review" process was exposed as being highly biased. They had refused to release the WG1 review to the public. It was only after a FOI suit that they decided to release it.

The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little more than 600 in total. The other 1900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration”. And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?

Wrong.

For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by “hockey-stick” co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the US and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released.

An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the “Second Order Revision” or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality.

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented on more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.

Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments. Reviewers had to justify their requested changes but the responding editors appear to have been under no such obligation. Reviewers were sometimes flatly told they were wrong but no reasons or reliable references were provided.

In other cases reviewers tried to dilute the certainty being expressed and they often provided supporting evidence, but their comments were often flatly rejected. Some comments were rejected on the basis of a lack of space - an incredible assertion in such an important document.

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20081007-17643.html

You can read the WG1 review here.

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7794905?n=2&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25

 

[Coldcall]

Hepth,

Okay first of all i think i understand the disconnect we have in communication on this subject.

I and you both know this concept of absolute certainty is alien to scientific reason. This is exactly my point and I am not expecting them to know everything for sure. However that CERTAINTY is exactly what is being projected as the "consensus" opinion to the ordinary public who get their news spoonfed to them.

Now as those CRU emails show, these scientists have very cosy realtionships with journalists from "on-side" media organisations such as NY Times, BBC etc..(large promoters of the CERTAINTY proppganda). Those scientists have a duty to either explain why the hell they are so CERTAIN, and explain it in the context of the chaotic physics they are dealing with, OR, correct the idea that there is any consensus on the CERTAINTY.

Thats all. If i am asking hard questions which you deem unfair from a scientific perspective it is only because the agw HUBRIS is demanding it!

 

[skypunter]

I wouldn't panic on that score.

Cheers -- sylas

Stranger than fiction...now skeptics are being asked not to panic.

 

[Andre]

This is really bad because the unity of the consensus position is often touted as de facto evidence of how strong it is. I believe someone even mentioned it earlier in the thread how of several hundred mainstream peer reviewed articles over the past few years, not one forwarded a thesis counter to the AGW position. But if "skeptics" research is being actively suppressed, that creates a self-reinforcing appeal to authority type argument.

We've had some pretty lively debates among the moderators about what kind of evidence/papers/blogs/etc should be acceptible for use on PF and the starting point of such debates is the sanctity of the peer review process. If the peer review process has been compromised when it comes to climate research, then it all but necessitates opening the door for a free-for-all of unverified research. It's a really, really bad situation.

If someone told a story like what we're getting here without these emails, they'd probably have been banned as a conspiracy theorist/crackpot. But what we're seeing is equal in concept (scale still unknown) to the worst of what guys like Rush Limbaugh claim (that AGW is a conspiracy by some scientific establishment). No, he doesn't get a win for making something up that happened to turn out to be true, but it is a very bad situation when a crackpot turns out to be right. It's instant credibility.

Here is another one about "peer review management":

...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!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal...

 

[sylas]

As usual, none of this makes any difference to the science; only to the human failings and personal inconsistencies of two people.

yes, as usual, politics influences science not one iota. it beats to its own drum, completely oblivious to the world around it. what a wondrous thing it must be to be above all this foolishness. oh, how i envy you scientists.

Can we try to keep the context clear?

My remarks you have quoted are specifically addressed to the point of the amount of flying time clocked up by Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri. And I maintain, none of that makes any difference to the science. You have removed the remark from it's context here, and some people might thing it is now a remark about all the policitical brouhaha surround climate science generally. It is not.

We probably both agree that ideally the work of science in discovering answers to scientific questions should proceed without politically driven influence.

We agree, I suspect, that there IS in fact an influence of politics on this work; and that this is a bad thing. We might disagree on the nature and scope of that impact.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[mheslep]

PS. I do think he could do more about curtailing his own flying; but to be fair, the cricket story is almost certainly from a long time ago; before he or others had recognized a particular importance for curtailing of carbon emissions.

Why certainly a long time ago? Because this http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm" is beyond reproach? He didn't become chairman of the IPCC until 2002.

 

[Choronzon]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578486,00.html"

Looks like the story's not going to be going away anytime soon.

 

[turbo]

The loss of the data prevents other scientists from checking it to determine whether, in fact, there has been a long-term rise in global temperatures during the past century and a half.

In that article, FOX is distorting and sensationalizing the story. The data is not lost. It is publicly-available at a host of servers all over the world, subject only to the approval of the organizations that compiled the data, and in the case of NASA, NOAA, and other publicly-funded organizations no approval is necessary - just go get it. CRU is using this raw data to model climate - they did not compile the data. This hack is being used as a political football by the right, who are preaching to a crowd that knows little or nothing about how climate science is conducted.

 

[Andre]

Data is one thing, possible monopolizing and managing peer review is another.

 

[Evo]

In that article, FOX is distorting and sensationalizing the story. The data is not lost. It is publicly-available at a host of servers all over the world, subject only to the approval of the organizations that compiled the data, and in the case of NASA, NOAA, and other publicly-funded organizations no approval is necessary - just go get it. CRU is using this raw data to model climate - they did not compile the data. This hack is being used as a political football by the right, who are preaching to a crowd that knows little or nothing about how climate science is conducted.

Turbo, you need to keep up on what's happening, it's been mentioned repeatedly that the data is NOT available.

Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

Got to love this

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577746,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g12:r2:c0.560839:b29147990:z10

 

[mheslep]

Turbo, you need to keep up on what's happening, it's been mentioned repeatedly that the data is NOT available.

For clarity, some of the original raw station data has apparently been lost or destroyed as Evo's link states. The information supposedly derivative of that raw data is what has been made available.

 

[Sorry!]

Turbo, you need to keep up on what's happening, it's been mentioned repeatedly that the data is NOT available.

Got to love this

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577746,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g12:r2:c0.560839:b29147990:z10

Evo are you trying to say that CRU has dumped all raw data and that the data they have dumped (back in 1980... this is a key point) is not available at the observation stations or from other organizations? The problem here IMO isn't that people want data and CRU dumped it, the problem is that certain people will go out of their way to try and find things wrong with the CRU and its research. Which side is being more political now?

Let's imagine for a second that the CRU did have the data and agreed to release it. What then? It's not like anything new would arise from the skeptic position no new papers showing why the CRU method is wrong that haven't already been written. Instead the CRU would probably, most likely, be facing yet another political method to make them out to seem like a bunch of frauds and that they are involved in a huge scandal. Pretty much the same thing that skeptics had to do when NASA released its data.

This whole dumping of data thing back in the 80s to save space; on a scientific topic that was of really very little political, or public use at the time reminds me of the conspiracy theories surrounding the FBI and the Kennedy assassination.

 

[mheslep]

In that article, FOX is distorting and sensationalizing the story. ...

It was necessary to push Turbo1's well known FOX News-aggravation-button because many of the other major news networks are blacking out this story. With a trillion dollar climate bill passed by the House, a lead author of perhaps the primary section of the UN IPCC report has just stepped down. Penn State has announced an investigation of Dr Michael Mann. What do we see on CNN's front page by way of 'Breaking News'? Tiger Woods on SUV rampages, and 'promo' pieces on Obama's pending Afghanistan announcement.

 

[turbo]

Turbo, you need to keep up on what's happening, it's been mentioned repeatedly that the data is NOT available.

I posted a link to an archive of other links showing that the raw data IS still available, and you deleted my link because you said the link was to a biased site.

I can't re-post the link per forum rules, and prove that the raw data is still available, but it IS still available. There is no pro-AGW propaganda on that page of links, just links to raw data, processed data, and codes.

If you will allow it, I will gladly go to that page, copy the whole page of links, and copy them into a subsequent post with NO link to the hosting site.

 

[D H]

Data is one thing, possible monopolizing and managing peer review is another.

I concur. Fudging data? That happens all the time. Heck, even Nobel laureates (*cough* David Baltimore *cough*) have gotten away with it.

The apparent engineering of a false consensus, strong arming of the journals, and manipulation of the scientific community and the public are a different matter. Those rank right up there with Lysenko's machinations.

 

[turbo]

How can you prove that the totality of data is available ?

CRU did not generate the data-sets. They used the data-sets generated by others. The collection of links that I posted is very comprehensive and most of the links lead to very large data repositories. I sincerely doubt that the organizations hosting that original raw data have destroyed it, as is alleged of the CRU. There is a great deal of politicization of the CRU hack based on their alleged "destruction" of raw data. That is absolutely wrong. There are copies of the raw data all over the place. Can I prove that every piece of data that they used is available in its totality? Of course not. Somehow, nobody from the anti-AGW side is ever asked to prove that the original data has been destroyed, despite the fact that CRU did NOT compile its own data sets, and used the data collected by others.

 

[Evo]

I posted a link to an archive of other links showing that the raw data IS still available, and you deleted my link because you said the link was to a biased site.

I can't re-post the link per forum rules, and prove that the raw data is still available, but it IS still available. There is no pro-AGW propaganda on that page of links, just links to raw data, processed data, and codes.

If you will allow it, I will gladly go to that page, copy the whole page of links, and copy them into a subsequent post with NO link to the hosting site.

Turbo, CRU has admitted the data that was requested is "no longer available", did you read it? Are you saying that CRU is lying about that too? I agree that it's pretty much impossible to believe that they wouldn't keep the original data.