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

[Sorry!]

It's OK to be skeptical, and try to evaluate the research products as well as we can, with the information available to us. It's not OK to accuse groups of people of collusion, fraud, etc, just because you disagree with their findings.

Turbo get with the program my man, it's a discussion of politics in this here forum.

Research is not needed!
Why research information available when you can just make it up!
Science? What are you talking about science has nothing to do with politics! Who told you otherwise?
Of course it's OK to accuse anyone of anything! It's my political view!

You don't like it?? Well it's a good thing my political view doesn't answer to no one other than myself or you might have a point!

 

[DanP]

There is a tremendous amount of opinion floating around here, much of it seemingly based on ideology and not science, and that is disheartening on a science forum, because the only real tools that we have for detecting and measuring and mapping changes in climate are scientific.

Climate change is real. We are losing polar ice, glaciers, and mountain snow-caps. This is not just "weather". Losing such masses of fresh water long-term is indicative of something more than that.

The question before us is a 3-parter, IMO:
1)Is climate change driven by the activities of man?
2)If so, to what extent?
3)If not, are we humans just "along for the ride" in a natural cycle?

I don't believe that the AGW folks have nailed down their argument #1, though the preponderance of evidence seems to rest with them at this time.

Given the complexity of climate and the diffuse nature of pollutants, etc, the answer to #2 may be out of our reach.

It is for certain that the anti-AGW have not made a rational scientific argument for #3, which is interesting. Instead, they have relied on political appeals, nay-saying, and some level of skullduggery to make their case.

Given the stakes involved, you would expect OPEC, refiners, power companies, gas and oil companies to fund climate research on a scale at least equivalent to that at CRU and other research centers to scientifically advance their case that carbon emissions are not causing climate change. Why have they not done so, or have they failed to disprove the IPCC reports and are silent about that failure? Using the model of the tobacco industry, we can see how big businesses can fund "research" -real or not- to publicly refute real science that threatens their bottom line.

It's OK to be skeptical, and try to evaluate the research products as well as we can, with the information available to us. It's not OK to accuse groups of people of collusion, fraud, etc, just because you disagree with their findings.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I have to reiterate: Politics is not about science. It's not about being fair, or obey a certain ethical criteria.

I answered once why the companies with high stakes in AGW are not interested in producing climate research. It is much more effective to poor money into lobby groups and lawyers than scientists in this issue. This is not a battle about 'peer review' against 'peer review'. When you are down in the field and play the ball, you simply can't afford to waste time waiting for years and years of research and intellectual battles. This is the luxury only science can afford. You have to choose, act, pray you made the right choices and *DELIVER*.

This is the plain truth. It may be something many people won't like, but this is the world we are living in.

Since this particular sub forum is title "Politics and world affairs", the thread do have it's place. It's not "disheartening" for a science forum, it does damn well fit in this sub-forum.
No-one is trying to substitute science for politics or reversal.

If you found very interesting scientific data to be discussed, maybe you should open a thread in "Earth sciences" forums, and then all of us will be forced to obey the rules of sceince.

 

[skypunter]

Climate change is real. We are losing polar ice, glaciers, and mountain snow-caps. This is not just "weather". Losing such masses of fresh water long-term is indicative of something more than that.

It cracks me up when folks lead off with "climate change is real" as if someone is not aware that climate changes. It's rather insulting and starts you off on the wrong foot with most educated people.

Were you expecting reruns?

 

[DrClapeyron]

Global warming science is used to shield industrial goals. The debate isn't about whether global warming will happen or not, the debate is about how global warming will cause us to change. The fear of change is the common point both political sides are headed for, and that is needed in order to make a compromise.

At the end of the day it boils down to whether you are scared enough to allow change to happen.

 

[Sorry!]

turbo, I'm not really skeptical about climate change per se. the most compelling argument I've seen so far comes from Ruddiman ( i think ), which shows that the Earth was due for slipping into another ice age about the time man developed agriculture. and thus it is methane, not CO2, which is the source of the "problem".

CO2 i see as a proxy for energy usage. energy usage is a proxy for GDPs. and taxation. OPEC has no reason to care because oil use will not go down. new markets will emerge in other nations that aren't willing to sabotage their economies. CO2 usage will not go down. period. it's all really about who gets it, and who profits from it.

Yeah, it was a paper by Ruddiman, quite interesting I thought. It makes sense I'm not sure where I stand on that situation (if ancient farmers would have stalled an impeding ice age...)

It should be made clear though that just because he doesn't think the 'main source' of the original stalling of the ice age was CO2 does not mean he doesn't think that CO2 is a contributing factor to modern day climate change and greenhouse gases. He has another theory about the fall of CO2 levels and how it brought about a cooling period which caused the most current Ice Age. So he obviously does understand CO2 as a greenhouse gas and it's effects on our climate.

 

[Andre]

...3)If not, are we humans just "along for the ride" in a natural cycle?
...
It is for certain that the anti-AGW have not made a rational scientific argument for #3, which is interesting...
.

Why? Throughout the years here I have pointed to several relevant studies. Maybe I should make a compilation in the Earth forum.

 

[Evo]

According to the NYT, the event that Gore canceled was a tickets-only speech for the public promoting his upcoming book. That hardly qualifies as a betrayal of the AGW crowd, and he is making other appearances during the conference. I wouldn't read too much into it.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/gore-cancels-copenhagen-book-event/

Yes, I see the NY Times says he will now only be talking to a group of attendees at the Bella Center, but has canceled the one open to the public.

 

[Sorry!]

Why? Throughout the years here I have pointed to several relevant studies. Maybe I should make a compilation in the Earth forum.

You can't be trying to say that climate change doesn't exist at all can you?!
Right after skypunter just came out claiming everyone knows the climate changes! hahaha I just found that really comical I don't know why.

In all seriousness I'd be interested if you had the time to post some of those reports in the Earth sciences forum.

 

[turbo]

Yes, I see the NY Times says he will now only be talking to a group of attendees at the Bella Center, but has canceled the one open to the public.

AND he is making other appearances open to the public. Read down a bit farther. That canceled appearance was scheduled for the day when ministerial-level proceedings were to open at the conference. Perhaps he thought it was a bit more important to be available to speak to the ministers of other governments than to the general public... No, that would only make sense. Can't be that!

 

[Evo]

There is a tremendous amount of opinion floating around here, much of it seemingly based on ideology and not science, and that is disheartening on a science forum, because the only real tools that we have for detecting and measuring and mapping changes in climate are scientific.

This is politics, if you want to discuss science, go to the Earth forum. Did you see my warnings about not dragging the thread off topic?

It's OK to be skeptical, and try to evaluate the research products as well as we can, with the information available to us. It's not OK to accuse groups of people of collusion, fraud, etc, just because you disagree with their findings.

I'm glad to hear you say that. Maybe now people will stop calling people derogatory names and accusing them of conspiracies just because they are not in complete agreement with the AGW camp? That would be a definite step in the right direction.

 

[DanP]

You can't be trying to say that climate change doesn't exist at all can you?!
Right after skypunter just came out claiming everyone knows the climate changes! hahaha I just found that really comical I don't know why.

In all seriousness I'd be interested if you had the time to post some of those reports in the Earth sciences forum.

If you found something to be "comical" you should better know why. Andre was pretty much articulate in everything he said.

 

[DanP]

AND he is making other appearances open to the public. Read down a bit farther. That canceled appearance was scheduled for the day when ministerial-level proceedings were to open at the conference. Perhaps he thought it was a bit more important to be available to speak to the ministers of other governments than to the general public... No, that would only make sense. Can't be that!

I guess we will all have to wait for Copenhagen, to see the impact. Its due in several days.

 

[skypunter]

Is politics more about politicians, or the will of the people?
IMHO it's the latter.
In which case, the public comments appearing beneath most articles (regardless of which way they spin) appear to indicate that the vast majority of the public is not convinced that action to stop climate change is adviseable. That's putting it mildly.

 

[Evo]

AND he is making other appearances open to the public. Read down a bit farther. That canceled appearance was scheduled for the day when ministerial-level proceedings were to open at the conference. Perhaps he thought it was a bit more important to be available to speak to the ministers of other governments than to the general public... No, that would only make sense. Can't be that!

Yes, he's there to promote his new book.

 

[skypunter]

Al Gore will not appear in a venue which would allow public question or comment.
Can anyone recall the last time he has?
My recollection is that it was the last time he ran for President, but I could be wrong.
If he were my spokesman he would be fired for not doing his homework.

 

[DanP]

Is politics more about politicians, or the will of the people?
IMHO it's the latter.
In which case, the public comments appearing beneath most articles (regardless of which way they spin) appear to indicate that the vast majority of the public is not convinced that action to stop climate change is adviseable. That's putting it mildly.

It's not that easy. "Your" will is ultimately only expressed as an electoral option. GW is just one of the many facts to be factored in a electoral decision. There are much more mundane and temporally closer factors which may influence your vote. The substance of an elusive and temporally distant threat is way less than the factors which affects your day to day live here and now.

 

[turbo]

This is politics, if you want to discuss science, go to the Earth forum. Did you see my warnings about not dragging the thread off topic?

Maybe I should just stay out of your thread from now on. The whole point of the thread is how politics can be used to derail science, and that's going to be pretty hard to discuss if we can't mention the science that is being discredited and why.

 

[skypunter]

Scientists have made the mistake of jumping into bed with politicitians.
Now they are beginning to feel a burning sensation.

 

[DanP]

Maybe I should just stay out of your thread from now on. The whole point of the thread is how politics can be used to derail science, and that's going to be pretty hard to discuss if we can't mention the science that is being discredited and why.

Please dont. Move it to "Earth" sciences forum, and express you scientific concerns. Ill be happy to stand educated. It would be very ill advised to mix politics with science, for the two of them have very few common grounds.

 

[skypunter]

"It's not that easy. "Your" will is ultimately only expressed as an electoral option."

You are sorely mistaken if you think politicians aren't hearing the voice of the public each and every day.

Have you read the comments beneath these articles?

 

[skypunter]

You can't be trying to say that climate change doesn't exist at all can you?!
Right after skypunter just came out claiming everyone knows the climate changes! hahaha I just found that really comical I don't know why.

Where did he say that climate does not change?

Perhaps you are confusing the term climate change with man-caused climate change.

They are two different things.

Please clarify...

 

[DanP]

"It's not that easy. "Your" will is ultimately only expressed as an electoral option."

You are sorely mistaken if you think politicians aren't hearing the voice of the public each and every day.

Have you read the comments beneath these articles?

Im sure they do. But in the end, the ultimate validation is your vote. They will factor the risks ignoring some of the so called "will of the people" and play a card. It will boil down to whatever else you have been offered in compensation vs. the unpopular decisions. Things are far away from being black and white. Nobody will put out a government on the issue of GW as of today. There are much more temporally closer things to solve. Crisis, middle east, health policy...

 

[Sorry!]

Where did he say that climate does not change?

Perhaps you are confusing the term climate change with man-caused climate change.

They are two different things.

Please clarify...

Yes after re-reading turbos original post I notice now he said anti-AGW not anti-GW. That's my mistake.
-------------------------------
Anyways if you guys think you're discussing in this thread then I might just lose all hope for humanity.

This is more of a senseless 'bash-AGW/CRU/CLIMATE RESEARCH' thread than anything. As soon as evidence is supplied to substantiate the climate scientists it is dismissed. WHY?
Because it's politics? That's a load of crap. All this non-sense being posted with no legitimate sources other than your personal feelings on the situation, which is fine, but why are you trying to argue as if it's facts?

At what skypunter had said, I've already mentioned it, this comes down to PUBLIC opinion on the matter and that will determine the policies all across the board.

 

[Andre]

Okay I will make a climate science compilation tomorrow in Earth science, but I'm asthonished about not mixing science with politics.

Politics is about decision making and chosing a grand strategy for the best possible future prospects. Decision making depends on the best available scientific analysis of the situation and the possible results of political action. Take science out the equation and you're heading nowhere.

 

[DanP]

Anyways if you guys think you're discussing in this thread then I might just lose all hope for humanity.

Rather than loosing hope, adapt.

 

[skypunter]

Im sure they do. But in the end, the ultimate validation is your vote. They will factor the risks ignoring some of the so called "will of the people" and play a card. It will boil down to whatever else you have been offered in compensation vs. the unpopular decisions. Things are far away from being black and white. Nobody will put out a government on the issue of GW as of today. There are much more temporally closer things to solve. Crisis, middle east, health policy...

Obama rearranged his schedule too.
You can bet they are both watching this very closely, buying time and looking for ways to back out if more information surfaces before departure.
If the CRU file release is only a teaser and more files surface, this summit will be a CO2 free event.
If they both get the flu or something, we will all know what has happened.

 

[Sorry!]

Okay I will make a climate science compilation tomorrow in Earth science, but I'm asthonished about not mixing science with politics.

Politics is about decision making and chosing a grand strategy for the best possible future prospects. Decision making depends on the best available scientific analysis of the situation and the possible results of political action. Take science out the equation and you're heading nowhere.

Thanks Andre.

I agree with you completely. Just don't say it too loudly, the others might hear.

 

[DanP]

Take science out the equation and you're heading nowhere.

Its not about taking science out. Its about not mixing and confusing politics and science. Science it's certainly of factor. But is a far cry from expecting political decisions from the sole basis of science.

 

[skypunter]

Rather than loosing hope, adapt.

Here's a change in the local climate.
Perhaps we can discuss how Einstein and Oppenheimer dealt with politicians.
In their day, the world really was in the balance.

 

[DanP]

Here's a change in the local climate.
Perhaps we can discuss how Einstein and Oppenheimer dealt with politicians.
In their day, the world really was in the balance.

Do you really believe either of those two *BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS* had anything to say ? Let's spell it: "HIROSHIMA" , "NAGASAKI"

 

[skypunter]

At what skypunter had said, I've already mentioned it, this comes down to PUBLIC opinion on the matter and that will determine the policies all across the board.

That's why I don't buy far right rhetoric about our country becoming socialist.
We will not allow it, and any leader who attempts to take us in that direction will suffer the political consequences.
Call me an optomist.

 

[skypunter]

Do you really believe either of those two *BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS* had anything to say ? Let's spell it: "HIROSHIMA" , "NAGASAKI"

It's probably not a good analogy anyway. The science was known, not simply theoretical. Someone was going to build a bomb, so their choices were between bad or worse.

 

[DanP]

It's probably not a good analogy anyway. The science was known, not simply theoretical. Someone was going to build a bomb, so their choices were between bad or worse.

As it is today the GW vs high unemployment rates, mortgage crisis, money spent to "coerce" rogue sates, political support for troops, a shattered New Orleans ...

Which ones have more substance ?

 

[Evo]

Maybe I should just stay out of your thread from now on. The whole point of the thread is how politics can be used to derail science, and that's going to be pretty hard to discuss if we can't mention the science that is being discredited and why.

There is no need to get into the science itself in order to decide if someone's actions are unethical. CRU and the UN have both started investigations into the ethics now. And please leave the attitude out when posting, from your prior accusations that *I* arbitrarily would not allow you to post data from a blog, that wasn't *my* decision, that was a rule I was given to enforce. I know that it is hard to remain unemotional on certain topics, but the only way we can have useful discussion is for everyone, including myself, to try to keep it about what is in the news and not make it personal.

 

[turbo]

Okay I will make a climate science compilation tomorrow in Earth science, but I'm asthonished about not mixing science with politics.

Politics is about decision making and chosing a grand strategy for the best possible future prospects. Decision making depends on the best available scientific analysis of the situation and the possible results of political action. Take science out the equation and you're heading nowhere.

I share your dismay about this level of manipulation of the thread. Without a discussion of the merits of the science, the politics cannot be properly evaluated.

I know that you and Sylas are on opposite ends of the AGW-belief spectrum. Sorry! and I are in the middle, as far as I can determine, and we still get hammered, and even threatened. Where is the value of science, peer-review, duplication of results, etc, if political beliefs can trump them all?

 

[Evo]

Okay I will make a climate science compilation tomorrow in Earth science, but I'm asthonished about not mixing science with politics.

Politics is about decision making and chosing a grand strategy for the best possible future prospects. Decision making depends on the best available scientific analysis of the situation and the possible results of political action. Take science out the equation and you're heading nowhere.

The reason discussion of the science is not allowed here is that P&WA has an entriely different set of rules and the decision was that science was not to be discussed here as it would be considered circumventing the Earth science rules. I didn't make these rules.

 

[DanP]

I share your dismay about this level of manipulation of the thread. Without a discussion of the merits of the science, the politics cannot be properly evaluated.

no need to evaluate. Just treat it as an experiment, as opposed to theory. See what government does.

I know that you and Sylas are on opposite ends of the AGW-belief spectrum. Sorry! and I are in the middle, as far as I can determine, and we still get hammered, and even threatened.

Welcome into a political world. Is it East Texas oil fields or you who will support my kids in college ?

Where is the value of science, peer-review, duplication of results, etc, if political beliefs can trump them all?

Its burred in money.

 

[Evo]

Locked because members can't discuss without bickering and going off topic.

 

[Sorry!]

1) You miss the point of the entire thread. 2) Just because something is wrong, does not mean it is easy to disprove.

I used the term American because that is what most of the politicians are that are making the most amount of noise. Conclude what you will from that. I'm not saying anything about what their political motivations or their level of intelligence.

If AGW is so wrong and the CRU e-mails that were released show this then why has nothing new come up in the science. This is purely political moves being made, nothing about the actually science. You say that I'm being deceitful?

I think it is deceitful and political, not scientific, to say "well since I believe what was said in the e-mails shows that the scientist were unethical and possibly compromised scientific values means that the science behind all AGW can be dismissed."

First off- What you believe was said and meant in the e-mails shows no correlation to what was actually said in the e-mails.
Secondly- I do agree some of what was said in the e-mails may imply a compromised scientific method; even so, it has hardly any bearing on the actual science since you can go and test it yourself, which has been done by many people, many times. (I used sylas as an good example).

So then by continuing to talk about the CRU leaked e-mails will do nothing for or against the science of AGW. So yes, this method has been well over-used and it's time to get back to the science.

As a side note: I read an interesting article written up about the skeptics and how they continue to pull these views to get continued funding(in their main areas of research... you'll notice that most skeptics are not chiefly studying climate even if you go through the authors of the references Andre made above.) and money... I guess I can conclude all skeptics science can be dismissed? Obviously not, even considering a lot of them are not climate scientists you can not dismiss their science on that basis. You have to dismiss the science with science, that's the way it works.

 

[Evo]

If AGW is so wrong and the CRU e-mails that were released show this then why has nothing new come up in the science.

This makes absolutely no sense. The CRU e-mails revealed unethical practices that have taken place. Why would you be expecting "new" science to appear a few weeks later? From what? Please explain what you are talking about because it makes no sense to us.

 

[Sorry!]

This makes absolutely no sense. The CRU e-mails revealed unethical practices that have taken place. Why would you be expecting "new" science to appear a few weeks later? From what? Please explain what you are talking about because it makes no sense to us.

So you are going to try and tell me that if you were a skeptic of a particular field of science and you had scientific proof which conclusively proves that the data they use was being manipulated (I.e. another model a better method of dealing with data sets) that when it becomes released that a group of the science you are against has been 'manipulating' the data to 'mold scientific venue' that you wouldn't jump all over it with your OWN science. Instead most of what we have is politicians jumping all over it and scientists jumping all over it POLITICALLY.

Nothing scientific has come from it and nothing scientific will probably ever come from it.

 

[Evo]

So you are going to try and tell me that if you were a skeptic of a particular field of science and you had scientific proof which conclusively proves that the data they use was being manipulated (I.e. another model a better method of dealing with data sets) that when it becomes released that a group of the science you are against has been 'manipulating' the data to 'mold scientific venue' that you wouldn't jump all over it with your OWN science. Instead most of what we have is politicians jumping all over it and scientists jumping all over it POLITICALLY.

Nothing scientific has come from it and nothing scientific will probably ever come from it.

You are making absolutely no sense. What on Earth do you mean by "jump all over it with your own science"? Is that what you really think, that climate scientists that say the numbers are fudged by a certain group of other climate scientists that have refused to reveal the data points that they used so that their work can be verified have a "different science". What?

 

[Sorry!]

You are making absolutely no sense. What on Earth do you mean by "jump all over it with your own science"? Is that what you really think, that climate scientists that say the numbers are fudged by a certain group of other climate scientists that have refused to reveal the data points that they used so that their work can be verified have a "different science". What?

seycyrus's claim is hardly that they just are not allowing it to be verified. He is saying that they purposely did it to 'mold a scientific venue'. The point I'm making is that you can't refute that with e-mails you have to refute it with science. Yes the scientists do have a different view on the science... When I say 'with your own science' I think it's implied that I'm speaking of your VIEW of science. You can try to make what I'm saying seem as vague as you possibly can, it makes no difference. The skeptics have nothing new to add to their scientific claims even with this supposed 'knowledge' that data has been 'fudged' for their own 'scientific venue'.

EDIT: This is something that they wouldn't need CRU data to do. They would use their own data and their own models and they would present it as the correct version and show where CRU is wrong. Instead it's just now being assumed on a political level that because the released e-mails that AGW science is wrong. That's not science... This doesn't of course apply to every skeptic out there, there are some that understand this and are still going ahead with their own research.

 

[sylas]

You are making absolutely no sense. What on Earth do you mean by "jump all over it with your own science"? Is that what you really think, that climate scientists that say the numbers are fudged by a certain group of other climate scientists that have refused to reveal the data points that they used so that their work can be verified have a "different science". What?

Just a reminder. The vast majority of raw data is readily available and is more than sufficient to replicate the CRU analysis in the usual scientific sense of the word... with an independent analysis.

The small amount of raw data that cannot be made available is restricted not by the CRU, but by the owners of that data. It is not that scientists are "refusing" to reveal data. It is that some of the data is not theirs to reveal, and they are legally not able to just release it.

This kind of thing is not unusual in science. It's awkward, and the CRU is attempting to get the necessary permissions to make the full set available, but in the meantime the demands for access have been rather weird.

There's more than enough of the raw data readily available to replicate and confirm the basic results, and this has been done already. If anyone still really doesn't like using a dataset where they can't also get hold of every bit of raw data themselves, then I recommend you stick to the GISS data products, which also have the advantage of having slightly better global coverage, as well as full availability of all the raw data and code used to obtain the results.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Evo]

Just a reminder. The vast majority of raw data is readily available and is more than sufficient to replicate the CRU analysis in the usual scientific sense of the word... with an independent analysis.

The small amount of raw data that cannot be made available is restricted not by the CRU, but by the owners of that data. It is not that scientists are "refusing" to reveal data. It is that some of the data is not theirs to reveal, and they are legally not able to just release it.

This kind of thing is not unusual in science. It's awkward, and the CRU is attempting to get the necessary permissions to make the full set available, but in the meantime the demands for access have been rather weird.

There's more than enough of the raw data readily available to replicate and confirm the basic results, and this has been done already. If anyone still really doesn't like using a dataset where they can't also get hold of every bit of raw data themselves, then I recommend you stick to the GISS data products, which also have the advantage of having slightly better global coverage, as well as full availability of all the raw data and code used to obtain the results.

Cheers -- sylas

Not from what I've read. There was a small set of data points used out of a ton of data. The points were then 'homogenized" to use their term and they claim to not have knowledge of precisely which points were used. If you have an updated statement from CRU stating that they have now found those specific original data points in question, please post it as I can't seem to find that update. Because the issue isn't if tons of data is available, as you know, it's which "specific" points were used in specific studies.

 

[sylas]

Not from what I've read. There was a small set of data points used out of a ton of data. The points were then 'homogenized" to use their term and they claim to not have knowledge of precisely which points were udes. If you have an updated statement from CRU stating that they have now found those specific data points in question, please post it as I can't seem to find that update. Because the issue isn't if tons of data is available, as you know, it's which "specific" points were used in certain studies.

I don't believe that is at all accurate. There was a ton of data and it was all used. The data is homogenized, to use the term used by everyone working on this and throughout the literature. The same terms are used by the groups for whom you have full access to all the data.

You have to back up your assertion about anyone claiming that they don't know exactly what points are used. I don't believe any such claim has been made.

What has been pointed out is that the full database of combined data cannot be released because a small proportion of it is proprietary. It would be too much work to identify and pull out those proprietary points -- the analysis make no distinction between the sources of data, of course. There would be nothing to gain from this, because pulling out the proprietary data leaves you with what you've already got available from other sources yourself. FOI requests are quite properly denied if the information you request is already freely available elsewhere.

To summarize.

• It's misleading to say that the problem is scientists refusing to release data. The data to which you refer is not theirs to release.
• There is plenty of data readily available to confirm the results in the usual scientific sense of the word; by independent replication. This has been done by several groups.
• I think your account of the "issue" is completely mistaken. The issue is NOT "which points were used" but rather a demand to get a open access to the full database. The reasons why you can't have that are not because of recalcitrant scientists.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Pinu7]

Source? please.

The most trusted one, common sense. If more people are "convinced" of AGW, then there would be more pressure for scientists to provide data to support AGW to get funding. I am NOT saying that there is some super deep international fraud, but the circumstances are special enough to make it suspect.

With all the politically motivated nonscientific "eyes" on it, it is hard to consider climatology as trustworthy as the other sciences.

 

[Evo]

I don't believe that is at all accurate. There was a ton of data and it was all used. The data is homogenized, to use the term used by everyone working on this and throughout the literature. The same terms are used by the groups for whom you have full access to all the data.

You have to back up your assertion about anyone claiming that they don't know exactly what points are used. I don't believe any such claim has been made.

It's already been posted in the CRU hack thread, we discussed this there.

What has been pointed out is that the full database of combined data cannot be released because a small proportion of it is proprietary. It would be too much work to identify and pull out those proprietary points -- the analysis make no distinction between the sources of data, of course. There would be nothing to gain from this, because pulling out the proprietary data leaves you with what you've already got available from other sources yourself. FOI requests are quite properly denied if the information you request is already freely available elsewhere.

To summarize.

• It's misleading to say that the problem is scientists refusing to release data. The data to which you refer is not theirs to release.
• There is plenty of data readily available to confirm the results in the usual scientific sense of the word; by independent replication. This has been done by several groups.
• I think your account of the "issue" is completely mistaken. The issue is NOT "which points were used" but rather a demand to get a open access to the full database. The reasons why you can't have that are not because of recalcitrant scientists.

Cheers -- sylas

No, as I said, we've already discussed this. It's specific data points used in certain studies. That is what the issue is and it's all in the CRU Hack thread.

The specific data points requested were for this particular graph. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

 

[Sorry!]

It's already been posted in the CRU hack thread, we discussed this there.

No, as I said, we've already discussed this. It's specific data points used in certain studies. That is what the issue is and it's all in the CRU Hack thread.

The specific data points requested were for this particular graph. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

So all of them basically...? I must admit however, I do not recall people specifically only claiming that getting the data for that particular graph was their complaint. It's more about all the data being released.

Regardless if they wanted the 'small' dataset for that graph you posted it makes no difference. Sylas has already gone over why CRU will not release the data and why FOI requests have been, rightly, denied to people. It's not at all that hard to understand.

I guess once CRU obtains permission to release it's data it will all be clear, then how will people complain about CRU?

 

[Evo]

So all of them basically...? I must admit however, I do not recall people specifically only claiming that getting the data for that particular graph was their complaint. It's more about all the data being released.

Regardless if they wanted the 'small' dataset for that graph you posted it makes no difference. Sylas has already gone over why CRU will not release the data and why FOI requests have been, rightly, denied to people. It's not at all that hard to understand.

I guess once CRU obtains permission to release it's data it will all be clear, then how will people complain about CRU?

CRU has not said that they do not have permission to release this data. They said that they didn't keep it, they only kept the "homogenized data".

Also, are you familiar with WMO Resolution 40?

Members should provide to the research and education communities, for their non-commercial activities, free and unrestricted access to all data and products exchanged under the auspices of WMO . .

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/im/wmocovr.htm

Have you read the CRU's website on "availability of data"?

Since the early 1980s, some NMSs, other organizations and individual scientists have given or sold us (see Hulme, 1994, for a summary of European data collection efforts) additional data for inclusion in the gridded datasets, often on the understanding that the data are only used for academic purposes with the full permission of the NMSs, organizations and scientists and the original station data are not passed onto third parties

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/

They couldn't refuse to release the data to the climate scientist that requested it, so they told him they no longer had it.