Andre said:
meanwhile it seems that there is http://www.thegwpf.org/news-a-events.html :
Yes. I agree this is an appropriate response. I've already linked to the BBC original for this back in [post=2463251]msg #145[/post], and again in [post=2463317]msg #154[/post]. The story is
Inquiry into stolen climate e-mails, an early look at the inquiry now being set up, by Roger Harrabin for the BBC.
But
this is not looking good:
There's a certain irony in that. This is a story alleging that original raw data has been lost; but does not let you discover the original sources for their story.
As described, the story is incorrect in the details -- like many other stories that have been rapidly circulating based apparently on assuming the worst. It is also old news; not some new discovery in the light of the stolen emails.
The real details of what is alleged in this story is contained in the CRU page on data availability, which is currently down precisely because of the problems caused by the illegal access. However, the information can still be found in, for example, a google cache of the page. The original
https://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/, and I am using a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 21 Oct 2009 12:27:45 GMT, shortly before the hack.
We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data. The priorities we use when merging data from the same station from different sources are discussed in some of the literature cited below. Parts of series may have come from restricted sources, whilst the rest came from other sources. Furthermore, as stated in
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ we have never kept track of changes to country names, as it is only the location and the station's data that are important. So, extracting data for a single country isn't always a simple task.[/color]
This isn't new information; it's been known for some time, and is a major reason many of the FOI requests cannot be granted.
The claim that original data is now gone is simply incorrect. The original data is, as always, kept with the owners of that data -- the various national bodies who keep their own national weather and climate records. They have it still.
The backdrop to this -- which is perfectly apparent if you read more of the hacked emails in a real attempt to figure out the whole story, rather than merely isolated examples chosen to suggest the worst of the scientists involved -- is a long standing campaign of harassment from individuals who cannot or will not accept the constraints under which the CRU is obliged to act. It's led to a dreadful situation of frustration and anger on the part of the scientists, and with good reason.
There is also a common misunderstanding of what replication means in science. Genuine replication does not mean getting exactly the same data and repeating exactly the same calculations. That is more of a verification or audit; which might indeed be a useful internal exercise for an organization, if they have the resources.
Scientific replication means another independent collection of data, preferably from independent data sources. With historical data that is not always possible; but certainly there are other major efforts that repeat the same measurement, but using different data as they can obtain themselves and using different algorithms. If you don't trust the CRU... then use one of the others. If you don't trust them either; then do it yourself. Get as much raw data as you can -- the vast majority of it is readily available -- and repeat a calculation. It's a big job but not actually prohibitive. If you don't get approximately the same result using the 95% of the data that has always been available, then that is a genuine exposure of a problem... in your processing or in theirs.
The problem with the so-called skeptics is that they just want to take the data already assembled by others. There's nothing wrong with that... except that they want ALL of it, NOW, and will not accept that this can't actually be legally done, unfortunately.
The major advantage of a truly independent inquiry is that it would not be merely a witchhunt to seek out any failings of the CRU staff, but would actually look at all aspects of the difficulties of dealing with critics who will never be satisfied under any circumstances.
Cheers -- sylas
