What if AGW is Wrong? Implications & Possible Consequences

[Jimmy Snyder]

This is where the most disagreements come from but again, if you want to discuss science instead of just attempting to bash climate science in any thread... then head over to the Earth Sciences forum.

What bash. I have been asking the same question over and over again. I thought that the reason I got no answer is that no one knew. How do you expect me to bash climate science when no one was willing to impart the least bit of it to me so I could bash it?

 

[xxChrisxx]

What bash. I have been asking the same question over and over again. I thought that the reason I got no answer is that no one knew. How do you expect me to bash climate science when no one was willing to impart the least bit of it to me so I could bash it?

Jimmy if you are aksing questions this basic (this isn't meant in an insulting way I promise), you are best looking at a scientific magazine. Nature, or New Scientist and such like. From there they will have links to proper scientific papers. Full papers don't usually concern themselves with something this basic.

I'll find a couple of starter threads for you and some papers that you don't have to buy, and link them when I get the chance.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Jimmy if you are aksing questions this basic (this isn't meant in an insulting way I promise), you are best looking at a scientific magazine. Nature, or New Scientist and such like. From there they will have links to proper scientific papers. Full papers don't usually concern themselves with something this basic.

I'll find a couple of starter threads for you, and link them when I get the chance.

You will not turn the publics head with articles. You need to tell them "Temperatures have risen x degrees since YYYY a.d., z% of it is due to human activity". If you can't say it, you may as well air-condition your doghouse.

 

[xxChrisxx]

You will not turn the publics head with articles. You need to tell them "Temperatures have risen x degrees since YYYY a.d., z% of it is due to human activity". If you can't say it, you may as well air-condition your doghouse.

I thought you were interested in researching this topic further, to answer your questions?

 

[Sorry!]

Please state your case. It feel pretty lonely though, having to see all the look-how-superior-I-am-to-you,-you-miserable-denier posts.

You're slightly irritating now, however I shall respond to this one last request of yours...

1 Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.

2 Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.

3 Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.

4 Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative sterotypes of rivals outside the group.

5 Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.

6 Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.

7 Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.

8 Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.

Since you try to apply this directly to myself (even though I am merely responding to your questions... somehow answering what people on these forums would like to know is 'groupthinking'...) I'll try to apply most of them to you:

1 Illusion of Invulnerability: Well this is obviously hard to 'show' but I think if one looks through the Earth Sciences we can clearly see how this fits yourself... overly optimistic

2 Collective Rationalization: I don't even feel the need to pin anyone post you've made to this one... It's clearly visible from where I'm sitting in this thread alone...

3 Illusion of Morality:

some folk, currently labelled as "flat-earthers" or "denialists" (and as crackpots here), agree about the possible mistake.

Personally I agree about science, it's way too late to build in safeties to recover from the shock.

In response to the OP here discussing how science will receive 'backlash' if AGW is without merit. I think this shows that you are trying to morally justify your position.

Problem is not who does it, Astronuc, problem is that it is happening allegdly fighting off global warming. Without it, it would be much tougher to give it a legitimation.

Another post by you showing the 'morality' of the issue.

4 Excessive Stereotyping:

the insistence on consensus is a typical central factor of groupthink.

I absolutely agree that it's paramount to do anything possible to promote a better sustainment of the world but it MUST be based on accurate science, not on runaway scaremongering and groupthink

Thanks for the most excellent demonstration of #4 symptom of groupthink

With all respect, Turbo, maybe you should take note of the phenomenon group think

I can continue but I think the points been made. As well this isn't the only stereotype you have applied to proponents of AGW.

6 Self-Censorship: I can't say this one has been commited by you, since as far as I know, you are not part of a group. However you did admit in one of the threads, the one on the CRU, I believe, that skeptics were engaging in this type of behaviour.

7 Illusion of Unanimity: You continue to go on and on and on about 'there is no consensus'... This fulfills this step doesn't it?So please stop with this pointless 'groupthinking' statement you continously throw around.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I thought you were interested in researching this topic further, to answer your questions?

I am not in the least interested in researching. And the general public isn't either. They know that you can tell them the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the earth. And they know that Johnny Carson can tell them how hot it is. So they wonder why you can't tell them how many degrees hotter is now than it was before. It's a number, it kills debate.

 

[Sorry!]

What bash. I have been asking the same question over and over again. I thought that the reason I got no answer is that no one knew. How do you expect me to bash climate science when no one was willing to impart the least bit of it to me so I could bash it?

I have told you over and over again, if you are truly interested head to the Earth Sciences forums. Instead you sit here assuming that the answers are not known and attack base on that.

 

[Sorry!]

It's a number, it kills debate.

Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C).

I would suggest to you that you head on over to the Earth Sciences forum before yet another thread in the politics forum gets locked for involving science.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I am not in the least interested in researching. And the general public isn't either. They know that you can tell them the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the earth. And they know that Johnny Carson can tell them how hot it is. So they wonder why you can't tell them how many degrees hotter is now than it was before. It's a number, it kills debate.

The Earth has warmed about 0.8c from 1800 to now.
It's warmed approx 0.5c from 1950.

There is no debate over this ^_^, the sharper rise correlates with larger human output of CO2. So it's a pretty good indicator that we are having an effect, there is no debate over this either.

There IS debate in the scientific community about the EXTENT humans are affecting the global temperature. There is also debate over how much of an effect this will have.However: If people like yourself cannot be bothered to find this information out yourself, and just be told something and believe or dismiss it out of hand because thinking is just too hard. You can all sit in ignorance, makes no odds to me.don't bash stuff you can't be bothered reading up on first.

 

[Sorry!]

The Earth has warmed about 0.8c from 1800 to now.
It's warmed approx 0.5c from 1950.

There is no debate over this, the sharper rise correlates with larger human output of CO2. So it's a pretty good indicator that we are having an effect.

Man is doing something, but there simply isn't enough data to tell how bad out contibution is. This is why people will not say a number.

Ther IS debate in the scientific community about how much we are affecting the global temperature. There is also debate over how much of an effect this will have.

Somewhat true, the reason the debate over how much humans have effected it has to do mostly with what data we decide to include... I have seen some reports saying as low as 0.28% and others say 5%(from skeptics)... Here is a good article on what's occurring and it's broken down so it's quite easy to understand, even if you don't like the numbers:

Over the last 40 or so years, natural drivers would have caused cooling, and so the warming there has been … is caused by a combination of human drivers and some degree of internal variability. I would judge the maximum amplitude of the internal variability to be roughly 0.1 deg C over that time period, and so given the warming of ~0.5 deg C, I’d say somewhere between 80 to 120% of the warming. Slightly larger range if you want a large range for the internal stuff.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/02/realclimate-gavin-schmidit-what-fraction-of-global-warming-is-due-to-human-causes-vs-natural-causes/

I don't really want to post this here since all the mess that posting data in the politics forums caused before however I feel that jimmy is probably not going to go over to the Earth sciences forum and will post his question, yet again, in here...

 

[xxChrisxx]

Somewhat true, the reason the debate over how much humans have effected it has to do mostly with what data we decide to include... I have seen some reports saying as low as 0.28% and others say 5%(from skeptics)... Here is a good article on what's occurring and it's broken down so it's quite easy to understand, even if you don't like the numbers:

The only reason I (and most scientists/engineers) am reluctant to say hard numbers without having it backed up first, is that even if you say this is really unrealiable data we are basing the numbers on. People will come back and kick you that the number is wrong, and rub it in your face. Even though you explicitly stated it's unreliable.

It's best to to say nothing, that way no one can comeback out of context and try to smear you to the uneducated.

 

[Mark44]

Of course not. Anyone can read and understand something.

But can this "anyone" read and understand the chemistry, physics, statistics, and so on that back up the study? I doubt this very much, even if limited to college graduates.

But when you want an informed opinion on something, you go to an expert.

That's true in general, but it doesn't take an expert in climatology to tell when an expert is using questionable or invalid methodologies. Climate science is such a broad field that even the experts can't be counted on. For example, the statistical methodology behind Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph of 1998 (an adaptation of work done by Lonnie Thompson) was so flawed that it has been completely discredited in most quarters. McIntyre and McKitrick and

Basically the less you kow about the subject you are more likely to be wrong.

That 'petition' was just of general people with a degree and should not be held as evidence that there is no generally accepted view amogst climate scientists beucase of it. I'm sure you can find just as many people with a general degree that are proponents of AGW.

So should we just take a vote? That's not the way science works. If an "expert" publishes a paper and a non-expert raises a genuine concern about the validity of the result, the concern should be addressed at face value. If the criticism is valid, it should be immaterial that the critic has or doesn't have a degree in that field, or recent papers, or gets grants from a government or private enterprise, or whatever.

However! That 'petition' had less than 12% of people who's degrees are in a relevant subject and are therefore likely to be in active research of the climate (incidentally only 0.01% of the people on the list are climatologists). Other links and polls have show far more climate scientists who are proponents of global warming.

Many of the links shouw that 97% of people actively engaged in climate change research are proponents of AGW.

A possible reason is that a large share of those folks are getting grants from government entities that are anxious to show results consistent with AGW to continue getting grants...

 

[Sorry!]

Mark44, I have been requesting these reports ad naseum. No one has produced them people seem to be highly convinced they do exist however (by skeptics showing geniuine concerns which are valid.); I have read many, many skeptic papers and I have to say they either address a small portion of GW (for the 'real' skeptics) or they are just so blatantly wrong that they do not even deserve to be addressed.

However if you have a paper in mind please... enlighten.

 

[Andre]

Maybe try this thread

 

[Bystander]

Leaving aside the actual specifics of the argument pro and anti agw, i was wondering how face will be saved (by politcians and scientists) in the event that agw is falsified or shown to have been highly exagerrated?

Politicians? "We just listened to what the scientific community told us. You can't blame us if they don't know what they're doing."

Scientists? "I'm not a climatologist; how am I supposed to know they had no clue what they were talking about?" (Lot of that in the thread)

Is the public going to buy the "not my department" excuse? Depends on the nature of the hypothetical errors exposed in the hypothetical situation you're pondering; bad physics, sloppy use of the meteorological record, and excessive appeals to unknown factors that should be caught in any general check of physical consistency of the GW conjectures are probably going to reflect very poorly on the scientific community at large.

IF agw is shown to be wrong then there are going to be a lot of "told you so" and serious recriminations are going to take place across the political and scientific specturm.

Political venue? Under the rug with a minimum of fuss --- a few public disavowals from the more vocal types.

Scientific community? Management will evade the chopping block --- people in the labs who made honest efforts to report their measurements and not overstate the significance or consequence of those findings? May God have mercy on their souls. It's so damned difficult to assign responsibility for wild claims made in executive summaries.

I wonder if the more vehement agw community has thought through the implications and possible consequences of labelleing all sceptics (including many scientific colleagues) as "flat-earthers" or "denialists".

But i think the worst consequences if agw is proved without merit will be a huge luddite backlash against science in general. That would be a tragedy.

"Luddite?" Nah --- John Q. is going to react in proportion to the quantity of tax money squandered on demonstrably hopeless alternate energy schemes, cost of living increases due to cap and trade, and overall decline in standard of living by chopping off the people who are most obviously (to him in the hypothetical circumstance) lying to him --- the scientists (Them as had credibility and now don't look much worse than those who never had credibility --- the politicians).

 

[Sorry!]

Maybe try this thread

Still sticking to the wegman report huh?

 

[Andre]

as I stick to the fact that water boils at 100 degrees celsius. Just read the thread.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Global Warming
A half-act play by Jimmy Snyder
The part of science is played by xxChrisxx, the part of the Public is played by Clint Eastwood. The part of Jimmy's wife is played by Meryl Streep. Jimmy Snyder plays himself.

Scene I
Jimmy gives his wife a toe-curling kiss and heads off to work.

Scene II
Science turns the door handle of the Public's house.
Public: Don't try it till you've knocked it.
Science knocks on the door.
Public: What do you want punk? I was taking a nap but now my mood is down 3 points out of 10 and its 90% because of you.
Science: You have to turn down your thermostat.
Public: Why? I keep it at just the temperature that I like.
Science: If you don't turn it down you'll die.
Public: If I turn it down 10 degrees, there's a 30% chance I'll freeze to death.
Science: But 141 climatologists have voted on it.
Public: Voted on what?
Science: Global warming.
Public: Never heard of it. What is it?
Science: The globe has been warming since before the 1800s and it's partly your fault.
Public: How much warmer?
Science: Stop bashing science.
Public: How much warmer?
Science: Well I don't mean to insult you, but if you know this little about it then why am I even bothering to deal with you?
Public: How much warmer?
Science: You can research it yourself.
Public: How much warmer?
Science: Why should I do your legwork for you?
Public: How much warmer?
Science: .8 degree days.
Public: How much my fault?
Science: Actually, we haven't the slightest idea.
Public: Well, a man's got to know his limitations.
Science: We don't need to convince you of anything. You live in a country where the politicians do as they please with no concern for your opinion. We'll push this through somehow.
Public: Make my day.

Scene III
Jimmy returns from work and gives his wife a toe-curling kiss.

 

[xxChrisxx]

But can this "anyone" read and understand the chemistry, physics, statistics, and so on that back up the study? I doubt this very much, even if limited to college graduates.
That's true in general, but it doesn't take an expert in climatology to tell when an expert is using questionable or invalid methodologies. Climate science is such a broad field that even the experts can't be counted on. For example, the statistical methodology behind Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph of 1998 (an adaptation of work done by Lonnie Thompson) was so flawed that it has been completely discredited in most quarters. McIntyre and McKitrick and

So should we just take a vote? That's not the way science works. If an "expert" publishes a paper and a non-expert raises a genuine concern about the validity of the result, the concern should be addressed at face value. If the criticism is valid, it should be immaterial that the critic has or doesn't have a degree in that field, or recent papers, or gets grants from a government or private enterprise, or whatever.

You raise valid points. If you've read all my posts I've said you should not blindly eccept what people tell you. Checks and balances should be done, anyone found to be dishonest should be strung up by their nutsack.

However two scientists from different backgrounds both look at the same data, and come to different conclusions, (after checks that nothing malicious or unintentional errors have been makde on both sides) Who's conclusion do you trust?

It's most sensible to trust the conclusion of the person who is the most expert in the field.

At some point along the line, you have to just accept something and trust someone. Otherwise it becomes impractical to do anything new. This is what the process of peer review is for, to make sure people aren't getting dishonest/poor material through. It also allows a forum that corrections can be made for erroneous data. There was a correction paper to Michael Mann et al's work.

A possible reason is that a large share of those folks are getting grants from government entities that are anxious to show results consistent with AGW to continue getting grants...

You are making it sound like a conspiricy. That they are out do be on the gravy train and nothing else. Some may be, but 97% of climate scientists are unlikely to be ALL dishonest and trying to dupe the ENTIRE world. It's a massive amount of people to keep hushed up purely to get some research money.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Global Warming
A half-act play by Jimmy Snyder
The part of science is played by xxChrisxx, the part of the Public is played by Clint Eastwood. The part of Jimmy's wife is played by Meryl Streep. Jimmy Snyder plays himself.

Scene I
Jimmy gives his wife a toe-curling kiss and heads off to work.

Scene II
Science turns the door handle of the Public's house.
Public: Don't try it till you've knocked it.
Science knocks on the door.
Public: What do you want punk? I was taking a nap but now my mood is down 3 points out of 10 and its 90% because of you.
Science: You have to turn down your thermostat.
Public: Why? I keep it at just the temperature that I like.
Science: If you don't turn it down you'll die.
Public: If I turn it down 10 degrees, there's a 30% chance I'll freeze to death.
Science: But 141 climatologists have voted on it.
Public: Voted on what?
Science: Global warming.
Public: Never heard of it. What is it?
Science: The globe has been warming since before the 1800s and it's partly your fault.
Public: How much warmer?
Science: Stop bashing science.
Public: How much warmer?
Science: Well I don't mean to insult you, but if you know this little about it then why am I even bothering to deal with you?
Public: How much warmer?
Science: You can research it yourself.
Public: How much warmer?
Science: Why should I do your legwork for you?
Public: How much warmer?
Science: .8 degree days.
Public: How much my fault?
Science: Actually, we haven't the slightest idea.
Public: Well, a man's got to know his limitations.
Science: We don't need to convince you of anything. You live in a country where the politicians do as they please with no concern for your opinion. We'll push this through somehow.
Public: Make my day.

Scene III
Jimmy returns from work and gives his wife a toe-curling kiss.

Very creative. Well done.

 

[xxChrisxx]

as I stick to the fact that water boils at 100 degrees celsius. Just read the thread.

Not always :P

I've not read a paper relating this to GW (i assume its that report you linked in the thread, not read that yet), but I can think of 2 conditions where water won't boil at 100c.

They probably won't be related to the link, but just as a note that water doesn't always boil at 100c.

 

[Sorry!]

Would it be bad if I called people on the forum 'idiots'?

 

[Andre]

Not always :P

Anyway, if you read the thread you will notice that the AGW mindguards go to a great length to discredit Wegman with the most impossible insinuations whereas North, the chair of the NAS panel actually admitted in the congress hearing to have found the same 'misgivings' as Wegman. Yet Sorry! tried again.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Anyway, if you read the thread you will notice that the AGW mindguards go to a great length to discredit Wegman with the most impossible insinuations whereas North, the chair of the NAS panel actually admitted in the congress hearing to have found the same 'misgivings' as Wegman. Yet Sorry! tried again.

So are you saying that water always boils at 100c? Yes or no?

EDIT: removed needless insults to some posts in other thread.

 

[Andre]

Why always the strawman attempts, but if that's the best you can do.

 

[Sorry!]

Anyway, if you read the thread you will notice that the AGW mindguards go to a great length to discredit Wegman with the most impossible insinuations whereas North, the chair of the NAS panel actually admitted in the congress hearing to have found the same 'misgivings' as Wegman. Yet Sorry! tried again.

How come when you or other 'skeptics' request information on here I give direct data results and when I request information the only person to post anything is you and it's to the wegman report?

Like look at jimmys post... what value do they have? He completely skipped over my posts addressed to him and went off on his own making random jokes, which I personally didn't even find remotely funny... The reason I didn't post results to you jimmy was because I asked you multiple times to go to the Earth sciences forum, are you too arrogant to comply like really, threads have already been locked because of posting of science in the politics forum. Just live with it, there are answers out there, you're not the slightest bit interested in getting them, you just want to come on here and needlessly make jokes and bash... Here I thought this was an academic forum.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Why always the strawman attempts, but if that's the best you can do.

It's not a strawman as I am not making about point about this thread or global warming with the question, simply interested (on an unrelated note) if you believe that water always boils at 100c?You are quick to try and point out fallicies (falsely in this case), yet are massively guity of them yourself. The worst being constantly moving the goalposts. Also you still haven't responded to the pact we acutally posted names of real and proper scientists who are proponents of global warming.

You constuct pathetically feeble arguments backed up with dubious and/or non scientific links, based on stubborness and possibly even ignorance, then ignore any credible and evidence backed responce. But immediately repond with a 'clever' (or so you think) retort to stuff that is benign or easy to dispute.

When you are confornted with a well reasoned responce, you repond with insults, and sweeping generalisations that make you guilty of the very 'groupthink' you seem to hold so dear.

 

[Mark44]

You raise valid points. If you've read all my posts I've said you should not blindly eccept what people tell you. Checks and balances should be done, anyone found to be dishonest should be strung up by their nutsack.

However two scientists from different backgrounds both look at the same data, and come to different conclusions, (after checks that nothing malicious or unintentional errors have been makde on both sides) Who's conclusion do you trust?

Whose conclusion do I trust? Maybe neither. If both are looking at the same data, and yet reach different conclusions, then at least one of them is wrong.

It's most sensible to trust the conclusion of the person who is the most expert in the field.

This is generally true, but not always. Galileo comes to mind as someone who wasn't willing to accept on blind faith the experts in the field of astronomy.

At some point along the line, you have to just accept something and trust someone. Otherwise it becomes impractical to do anything new. This is what the process of peer review is for, to make sure people aren't getting dishonest/poor material through. It also allows a forum that corrections can be made for erroneous data. There was a correction paper to Michael Mann et al's work.

I'm aware of the correction to Mann's work, which likely wouldn't have happened without the interloping by McKitrick and McIntyre, who you would probably call non-experts, being merely a mathematician and economist.

I agree on the purpose of peer review, but with a field so heavily politicized as climate studies, we are starting to see some evidence of pressuring journals to not publish papers that don't go along with the current received wisdom - I'm referring to comments by Phil Jones, erstwhile director of CRU East Anglia. And no, I don't believe his comments were "taken out of context."

You are making it sound like a conspiricy. That they are out do be on the gravy train and nothing else. Some may be, but 97% of climate scientists are unlikely to be ALL dishonest and trying to dupe the ENTIRE world. It's a massive amount of people to keep hushed up purely to get some research money.

First off, I don't believe your figure of 97%. Can you justify it for me? Second, if your livelihood comes from getting grant money to keep working, there are a lot of people whose (BTW who's is a contraction of who is) moral scruples might be strong, but not quite strong enough to take the place of a steady paycheck. It has happened before - Trofim Lysenko, director of Soviet biology under Stalin. Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics. How many Soviet biologists were willing to call BS?

When the director of what is probably the dominant climate research facility for IPCC reports talks about exerting pressure on journals to freeze out researchers with contrary opinions, and marginalizing "nonbelievers" by calling them "deniers" in a not-so-subtle attempt to equate them with Holocaust deniers, that does start to sound like a conspiracy to me. Add to that the destruction of data underlying papers, the refusal to release data three years after FoI requests, and fudging the data, including a case where James Hansen at NASA GISS replaced an entire set of October temp data with the data from September to show how hot it was getting.

 

[xxChrisxx]

First off, I don't believe your figure of 97%. Can you justify it for me?

Read the thread.
Check the links.
It's[STRIKE] like spoonfeeding a bloody baby [/STRIKE] a tad annoying having to constantly repost links and evidence because people won't do the above.

PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL THAT IS BEING CLAIMED BY THE 97% IS THAT THE WORLD IS WARMING. THERE IS DEBATE AND THEREFORE ALTERING NUMBERS ON THE EFFECT THAT HUMANS HAVE. This is typically 75%+ among climate scientist.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news...racks-scientists-growing-climate-concern.htmlOf course you can just say that they are saying it to get funding, but that is merely conjecture, and there is no responce to it.

 

[sylas]

When the director of what is probably the dominant climate research facility for IPCC reports talks about exerting pressure on journals to freeze out researchers with contrary opinions, and marginalizing "nonbelievers" by calling them "deniers" in a not-so-subtle attempt to equate them with Holocaust deniers, that does start to sound like a conspiracy to me. Add to that the destruction of data underlying papers, the refusal to release data three years after FoI requests, and fudging the data, including a case where James Hansen at NASA GISS replaced an entire set of October temp data with the data from September to show how hot it was getting.

Each of these points would be worth an entire thread in itself, but for what it is worth here's what I think you are referring to.

• The journals issue was not about freezing out contrary views as such; but addressing problems with the peer review process. The issue is real; and acknowledged by editors of the journal in question -- depending on which case you mean. The emails mention one journal that some of the scientists thought was subverted, and they spoke of encouraging their colleagues not to publish there. There's good reason for that. The seed of the email discussion blew up shortly afterwards with about half the editorial board resigning over the way review was being managed and the chief editor recognized the need to fix shoddy review practice. So another way to look at it is a small journal being subverted to get papers published that would not pass a legitimate review on their own merits. Working through all the ins and outs would take a while, and such discussions in web forums often generate more heat than light as everyone piles on with an opinion based not so much on the specifics of the journal and its editorial practice as preconceived ideas about what you think of climate science in general.
• Data was not destroyed. Some of the records provided to the CRU were discarded after being incorporated into a large master database of underlying data; they were not originals. The original date remains as always curated by the various international meteorological bodies who own it, and made data available to the CRU. This is not actually unusual, and in fact it is sometimes required. See, for example, http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/surface/met-nerc_agreement.html. The literature record shows that the CRU has done a number of repeats of the calculations from the underlying data, and a number of other groups have replicated and confirmed their results in the conventional scientific sense of the work, by obtaining raw data for themselves and repeating an independent analysis.
• The data that was refused under FOI requests was not legally ABLE to be given under FOI or anything else. It remains not released today. This is basically a small proportion of the underlying data from weather stations that is owned by other bodies and subject to binding non disclosure agreements. You don't need FOI to get enough raw data to replicate the basic result independently; it is freely available and has been for years.
• The claims that anyone replaced October data by September in order to show how hot is was getting is ridiculous. What actually happened is that there was an error in data given to NASA by NOAA. The errors occurred in the generation of the raw data files used by NASA, not in the analysis by the NASA group. The incorrect results were up less than 24 hours; and the correction required was for NOAA to generate a new file of raw data. Hansen's group at NASA didn't introduce the error and didn't fix it either. All their stuff worked; they just had to wait a bit while NOAA corrected a snafu in how data was accumulated from all the national meteorological bodies. More detail at Mountains and molehills by Gavin Schmidt.