« New MPs sleaze scandal ? | Main | Boris' Bike flop? »

November 29, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

HuwOS

"No, it hasn't. That's what the FOI requests were to obtain. In fact, the CRU now claims that no-one has the raw data: that it was deleted in the early '90s (an act either of supreme vandalism or incompetence, I'm not sure which)."

No KayTie my understanding is that the FOI requests were about which specific sites from all those available were used when and for how long.
The raw data from all sites was always available.

"Datasets named ds564.0 and ds570.0 can be found at The Climate & Global Dynamics Division (CGD) page of the Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory (ESSL) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) site at: http://www.cgd. ucar.edu/ cas/tn404/

Between them, these two datasets have the data which the UEA Climate Research Unit (CRU) uses to derive the HadCRUT3 analysis. The latter, NCAR site holds the raw station data (including temperature, but other variables as well). The GHCN would give their set of station data (with adjustments for all the numerous problems)."
Responded to with clarity that the specific details of which ones were used.
"I had asked for a list of the sites actually used."

So all of the Raw Data was available and if someone was doing their own research they could certainly work from that, if however all they wished to do apparently working to an agenda was to pick holes in the work done by others then it would not be enough.

If it is believed that the algorithms or the choices made were wrong, while one way to come at it would be to look specifically at them the other is to do your own.

Now you might argue that they should make everything they have done available to everyone, but it still seems to me that when the other person is doing no work of their own but is simply interested in finding real or imagined faults in theirs then the FOI requests are much more along the lines of being timewasting harrassment that the UEA CRU obviously perceived them to be.

dave

bit of news from copenhagen

GROPENHAGEN

Copenhagen Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards to city hotels warning summit guests not to patronize Danish sex workers during the upcoming conference. Now, the prostitutes have struck back, offering free sex to anyone who produces one of the warnings.

Copenhagen's city council in conjunction with Lord Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards out to 160 Copenhagen hotels urging COP15 guests and delegates to 'Be sustainable - don't buy sex'.

"Dear hotel owner, we would like to urge you not to arrange contacts between hotel guests and prostitutes," the approach to hotels says.

Now, Copenhagen prostitutes are up in arms, saying that the council has no business meddling in their affairs. They have now offered free sex to anyone who can produce one of the offending postcards and their COP15 identity card.

the move has been organized by the Sex Workers Interest Group (SIO).

"This is sheer discrimination. Ritt Bjerregaard is abusing her position as Lord Mayor in using her power to prevent us carrying out our perfectly legal job. I don't understand how she can be allowed to contact people in this way," SIO Spokeswoman Susanne Møller said.

Kay Tie

"The entirety of raw data has always been available KayTie."

No, it hasn't. That's what the FOI requests were to obtain. In fact, the CRU now claims that no-one has the raw data: that it was deleted in the early '90s (an act either of supreme vandalism or incompetence, I'm not sure which).

"there is nothing stopping anybody from taking the raw data, processing it how they wish, to try to determine what can be shown from it and publishing."

Apart from the fact that the CRU team refused to publish the raw data and refused to publish the algorithms they used to process the raw data to get their results. Have a look at the source code: it's littered with code that embeds magic numbers in it to make the results "work".

If you haven't read the emails, or the comments in the source code, I suggest you go and have a look for yourself. To reiterate: this is all information that the CRU fought tooth-and-nail to not disclose (and there is prima facie evidence of the deliberate destruction of emails to frustrate an FOI request - a criminal offence).

"I believe it is revealing that the person they considered to be effectively wasting their time with FOI requests was uninterested in doing so"

There were many people asking for the data. One of them was an academic who was making his career replicating (or attempting to replicate) the results of others. That's a very valuable thing to do. But the groupthink pervading CRU (which is quite clear in the emails) sought to second-guess his motives and deny him the opportunity to gain access to the data - then tried to nobble the journals that dared to consider his papers for publication. Again, you should read the emails first hand and see it for yourself. In my opinion, it's disgusting behaviour every bit as corrupt as the Dodgy Dossier (albeit with fewer people killed as a result).

"there seem to be a lot of people with lots of pointed questions but very little overall knowledge or understanding behind them."

Yes, but that's true of many topics. Very few people pontificating about the banking crisis would even know the different between an index-linked gilt running yield and a long-dated gilt gross redemption yield. It's why I safely ignore so much comment in this field (e.g. Will Hutton and Saint Vince of Cable).

"Which leaves the best place to debate the science with other people who have the expertise, challenging non scientists on specific details is surely you will admit, pointless."

Well, yes and no. Challenging morons about immigration misconceptions (apparently all immigrants get free plasma TVs, cars and houses donchyaknow?) is similarly futile. But I regard it as missionary work to try and stamp out myths and let a few facts intrude. It might make the next BNP candidate knocking on the door get a harder ride.

Huw

The entirety of raw data has always been available KayTie.
Fair enough the software etc was not but then there is nothing stopping anybody from taking the raw data, processing it how they wish, to try to determine what can be shown from it and publishing.
I believe it is revealing that the person they considered to be effectively wasting their time with FOI requests was uninterested in doing so, anytime I see people trying to pick apart other peoples work without any work of their own to offer as alternate theory, no point of divergence just outright denial, I suspect they are on the same level as those who do similar with evolution.

I do agree there is nothing stopping people learning as much as they wish to about a topic and then debating that issue with others who also have a detailed knowledge, in this issue however as with evolution, there seem to be a lot of people with lots of pointed questions but very little overall knowledge or understanding behind them.

Which leaves the best place to debate the science with other people who have the expertise, challenging non scientists on specific details is surely you will admit, pointless.

Kay Tie

"If someone really wants to argue the science, it makes sense to do it with those who have the evidence and expertise otherwise its just ego boosting public masturbation."

Yes and no. One doesn't need to be a climate scientist to argue with the 'scientists' at CRU. Anyone with a decent science/engineering degree can pick through what they've done (now that the source code and raw data is available). I have a degree in science and a doctorate in engineering, and I can see that the software they've written is rubbish. It's no wonder they tried to keep it all secret.

The same happened at NICE when they were asked to publish their Excel spreadsheet they used to calculate the cost/benefit tradeoffs of new drugs and procedures. People want to see if there are bugs and mistakes, and the public at large contains experts who are quite capable of deconstructing a complex spreadsheet of piece of software and finding errors. Hence the terror of NICE and CRU at the prospect of true peer review: someone else peering very closely at your work.

Kay Tie

"as i said earlier there is a 0.6c rise in temp so global warming is happening"

Not sure I even believe that. We've only been systematically recording temperatures since the middle 19th century, and only in certain places. Many of these places suffer from urbanisation which massively distorts the data (and has to be 'corrected' - by mysterious algorithms that the CRU and others refuse to disclose). Older temperatures are inferred from tree ring data and other methods, and again need to be calibrated - by algorithms and methods that are not disclosed in detail (Queen's University Belfast have been particularly reluctant to even disclose the raw tree ring data).

So, no, I don't believe the temperature rises quoted. I don't disbelieve them either. I'm just highly sceptical that what we're being sold is actually science. It whiffs of ideology and politics (a global version of the policy-based-evidence that New Labour has perfected).

DG

I bet that produces a lot of CO2 as well...

HuwOS

>>you said:
if you wish to argue GW go and argue with the scientific community.<<
"is this your site? no, so dont tell me what i should do. " - dave

You can of course do what you like, but non scientists/experts arguing the science with other non scientists/experts is a rather pointless exercise.
If someone really wants to argue the science, it makes sense to do it with those who have the evidence and expertise otherwise its just ego boosting public masturbation.

dave

i didnt say i was an expert kaytie but al gore puts himself up as an expert.
you hit the nail on the head when you talk about the conflicting info from both sides.
as i said earlier there is a 0.6c rise in temp so global warming is happening,but are we the cause.
the email thing is being investigated by the un.so that is one good thing.
i just feel terrorism ,the enviroment and financial collapse are seen by certain people in politics and global companies as an ideal time to bring in such things as the new world order.
all the main politicians keep chanting its time for a new world order ,what is that?

obamas white house cheif of staff rhama emanuel said they cannot let this crisis go to waste you never want a serious crisis to go to waste ,"what i mean is you can do things you never thought possible before".
henry kissinger said on national tv "this economic collapse was a perfect time to bring in the new world order".

thanks patrick for the links,i am open minded and will listen to all sides.

 Patrick

dave
Quite an interesting article with reference to the above comments.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-i-wish-that-the-global-warming-deniers-were-right-1833728.html

Kay Tie

"oh and al gore is a lawyer that got c's and d's in natural science at the college washington.he's no expert."

Yeah, but neither are you. Your assertions are no more credible than Al Gore's assertions. The trouble is, we can't now trust the experts until there's been a proper investigation and some sunlight thrown on the murkiness and secrecy.

dave

huw how do you know what i think?

what are you paul flynns spokesperson.
i think paul is more capeable than you of speaking for himself.

i have looked at both sides of the arguement.
i dont believe the GW theory.
i do know the earth is warming 0.6c according to the ipcc but the earth has always changed its climate over the millions of years with highs and lows.

the ipcc could not say that man was the cause of global warming.

i believe we are being duped with false science that will end up us all having less freedoms and higher taxes.

explain greenland huw
Scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said that the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of trees, plants and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. That view contrasts sharply with the prevailing one that a lush forest of this kind could not have existed in Greenland any later than 2.4 million years ago. These DNA samples suggest that the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer and -17 °C (1 °F) in the winter. They also indicate that during the last interglacial period, 130,000–116,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 °C (9 °F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.

you said:
if you wish to argue GW go and argue with the scientific community.
is this your site? no, so dont tell me what i should do.

my solution would be to keep studying global warming, let the science develop and adjust to it if it happens, rather than wreck life as we know it by trying to stop it.

i have heard scientists even say we need to sterilise women in third world countries and only allow parents to have 1 child like china to help save the planet.
one such looney was on the bbc1 news today.

these GW scientists are losing the plot and scaring people with theories that have no facts.science doesnt stand still its always evolving like the planet huw.

how far will it go if not questioned.

warmer maybe better ,more people die in cold waves that heat waves.

oh and al gore is a lawyer that got c's and d's in natural science at the college washington.he's no expert.

Gareth Hywel

"It wouldn't suprise me if Tesco formed a political party "

Until Hereditary peers were gotten rid of there was an unwritten Sainsbury party in the HofL, there being about six members of it who were part of the retailer's tribe!

Still there are half a dozen called Howe or Howell,(Mostyn and Walsh too) and they are still there, so there's no complaining!

Kay Tie

"They are a tiny part of an overwhelming consensus from people who really have nothing to gain by claiming GW, if they weren't researching that there would be plenty of other things for them to be doing."

Alas their tainted science has been fed into the community and used by others. There are similar concerns about the NASA Goddard data, and many other groups are as reluctant as the CRU to release data (I've just read a scandalous account of how Queen's University Belfast evaded the FOIA regulations and refused to release their tree ring data).

I don't suggest a conspiracy but I do suspect that the tainted science is widespread.

Huw

I have no doubt KayTie that there are indeed questions to be answered there, although some are simply private emails of private conversations and feelings which were not written for the public and do not represent policy or desire. We may feel some were in bad taste, but taste is in the eye of the beholder and those kind of comments were not intended for us.
But and it really is an important but, the evidence for GW is not resting on the shoulders of the University of East Anglia. They are a tiny part of an overwhelming consensus from people who really have nothing to gain by claiming GW, if they weren't researching that there would be plenty of other things for them to be doing.

Kay Tie

"The ones who disagree are a tiny minority and almost entirely batting for vested interests. "

If you haven't read any of the UEA CRU emails yourself, I suggest you do. 90% are boring but what comes across is a contempt for those who dare to even attempt to verify the science, let alone disagree. In one email I saw they were celebrating the death of a scientist from an opposing camp.

What was going on at UEA was not science, it was at best tribalism. Much of science is infected with this, but it's not acceptable, particularly when the stakes are so high.

HuwOS

For people like you Dave, nothing anyone can say would convince you of anything.
If people say we need to invest in green energy you'd say put your money where your mouth is. If they do, then they are profiting from the green myth, if they do not then they clearly don't believe a word they are saying about global warming.

Paul did not plead poverty, he simply said he did not have sums to invest, I have never once noticed any statement from Paul that said or implied he did not have enough money, many of his comments have been related to reducing the benefits to politicians.
You are right that Paul certainly is removed from other people's realities, most people his age are retired and receiving whatever pension they are entitled to, in his case, he has been paying into as you know a very decent pension scheme and would do very well indeed thank you if he stopped working.

Not everyone who disagrees with him is a conspiracy theorist or an idiot, but that does not mean that many are not either or both, if you cannot see how the anti GW side looks, acts and behaves like conspiracy theorists (not to mention creationists) then you are failing to take any kind of objective view on the matter.

It takes a very american, and that does mean stupid, view of politics to think that politicians are all pushing GW as an excuse to raise taxes as if that is why politicians get into the job, to pointlessly raise taxes. Mostly politicians have plans that require money, improving education, healthcare, infrastructure, social justice, law and order etc. the very last thing any politician wants is to have to divert monies to or worse yet raise even more monies for some other issue, but with climate change there is unfortunately no choice and in the capitalist west there is no way to address the issue without letting people make money off the back of it.

Raising taxes is always unpopular, politicians like the easy fixes of only doing popular things unfortunately for them and you sometimes doing the easiest thing of lowering taxes is not an option to anyone with intelligence and an awareness of the responsibilities that they hold.

If you wish to argue GW go discuss it with the scientific community, most people and most politicians are not scientists whose fields related to climate change, which is why they set up the IPCC for example. Both the bodies set up to advise on the issues and the vast bulk of other scientific advice says our activities are having an impact on the environment and are contributing to climate change. The ones who disagree are a tiny minority and almost entirely batting for vested interests.
The way people like you who are not scientists in forums with other people who are not scientists pull at this tiny bit of evidence or that tiny bit of evidence comes across exactly as being in the same style and manner as US lunatic arguments against evolution.
It may sound good to people who don't know much about it but invariably does not mean what the proponents imply they do.

dave

pleading the poverty card now are you, your probably due a self imposed pay rise arent you soon.
paul you earn 4 times what i earn.
you've had your homes furnished,decorated,flooring,building work,carpets cleaned a new bathroom,kitchen,tv's,computers etc,oh and dont forget the soap holder. paid for by people that earn a fraction of what you do.
but you think you deserve it.you dont

everyones a conspiracy theorist or idiot if they dont agree with you,which is ironic when your seen as a mad maverick thats only interested in legalising dope and stopping the wars by whinging from the side lines.

i would love to know what feel you have done to bring jobs to newport or help sort this cities mess out.

your so far from normal peoples reality you have lost touch with grass roots people struggling.

recession is a word in the dictionary ,not something you have to live with.

none of you politicians are in it for the people ,self self self

we have this du-opoly in politics ,like pepsi/coca-cola,burger king/mcdonalds .
they just move from one side of the floor to the other.maybe if they had a pay cut if they lost they would actually do something for their electorate.

blame the cllrs but your there to serve us not your own agendas like legalising dope.

please tell us how you feel you have improved our lives while supposedly serving us.

algore couldnt be playing the system and earning from the so called global warming lie , could he?.doh

your governments lies have been uncovered by hackers and they havent denied the emails they sent .have you read the emails.there online for all to see.


patrick

I agree DG on most of what you say above but one phrase i am sick of hearing is 'save the planet'.

It is only the species that habituate the planet that are in danger. The planet is not in any jeopardy at all.

We are a greedy ,destructive ,self-centered species and this planet would only benefit from our total removal.

Should another planet be unfortunate enough for us to inhabit then no doubt we will empty and poison the sea's, destroy any forests, reduce biodiversity in large area's to a lamp post all in the good name of cash.

DG

It's impossible for anyone without a degree in a geophysics-related discipline to form an independent opinion about global warming. Whether you believe the sceptics or the proponents is essentially a faith position either way. But I can deduce this myself - fossil fuel emissions are smelly and disgusting; windmills and solar panels are not. I don't know if the rush for environmentally friendly technologies will save the planet or not, but if it cleans up the air, that can't be a bad thing.

Paul Flynn

If I had money to invest, (which I don't) I would certainly invest it in enviromentally benign companies. That's what Al Gore did. What's the problem Dave?

Taking this conspiracy theory a bit far?

dave

why havent we had any debates or information from both sides of the global warming argument.
the media wont put anyone on the air that doesnt agree with the global warming theory.as shown in the hacked emails from the university of anglia they black list anyone that disagrees with their argument and make them out to be crazy by spreading lies about them.

look at al gore who is a shareholder in kliener perkins caufield & byers which have invested $1billion dollars in around 40 companies that will benefit from cap and trade legislation in the usa.

one of those companies he has invested and is a partner in is silver spring networks
his deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the USA Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

al Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

its a scam where they will make billions investing in things like carbon trading markets, solar cells and waterless urinals.

if they can pull the wool over politicians heads regards the aghanistan/iraq wars for the security of the planet.
if they can fool them over banking by getting them to relax banking regulations,the enviroment scam will be easy.

all the un's data has been found to be lies cooked up by sick enviromentalists funded by globalists who will make fortunes from laws brought in to save the planet,lol

all part of the new world order plan

if you look at the companies making big money from the afghan/iraq wars and the banking crisis you will find its the same faces pushing the global warming argument.

dont believe the hype research for yourself.
public info is ousting these globalists liars

DG

You make good points Huw, but sadly in reality most people don't have the time, money or connections to form their own nation-wide political party and reach out to non-voters. Even if you did mange to break through the disillusionment and "get proles to the polls", you'd then be up against the professional PR machines of the big parties. The average Joe wouldn't last 2 mins against the Mandelsons and Campbells of the world if they decided to take him down.

I do hope this will change in the future - as more people get internet access and hook up to networking sites, it should be increasingly cheaper and easier to get a message across directly - but I don't think we're there yet.

Huw

So far as you go DG, you are correct.
The people of Newport West can vote in whoever they want and that meaning only 1 seat in Parliament out of (currently) 646, the choice of the people of Newport West will have little effect on the government.
If people believe that the only thing they need to do is vote, that indeed would be it.
Voting is of course the strongest and most direct action that can be taken, the more votes an elected representative has the more authority he or she carries with them but one person is still just one person.
But democracy does not limit you to just voting, if a major change is what is needed people need to reach out to other people in other constituencies and talk to them, convince them of the need for change.
Some of the talking might be to the extremely large percentage of people in all constituencies who do not vote at all.
You need convince no tory voters, no labour voters, no libdem voters, no plaid, snp or independent voters of anything to effect major change.

If non voters could be persuaded, and it is a very big ask, but if they could be all persuaded to exercise their right and their duty to vote, and they all as a test of the real power of democracy voted for one party, a brand new party, one that never existed before, it would have the majority in parliament and form the next government.

In 2005 38-39% of the electorate did not vote, the labour party won their third term with 356 seats on 35% of the vote.

The great thing with democracy is that you can keep your involvement anywhere from merely complaining about the government or all bloody politicians through just voting on election day, on through talking to and hopefully convincing people of the need for the changes you believe in right up to forming your own nationwide political party, if you really want to think big you might even choose to go international.

But the danger is, people sit down waiting for the right grouping to come and find them, it's certainly easier, less time consuming, less costly both in financial and personal terms, but when people say someone should do something, the appropriate response is "why can't that someone be you".

DG

"It is a shame DG , but if enough of the 'stupid plebs' had voted then we might not have had either of the two right wing parties in power."

I think you missed my point. Point was that Newport West voted for a candidate that reflected my values (close enough). And it made no difference. There's no benefit to people in Newport West forming their own political party etc because the most they could achieve is getting an MP that reflects their views - which I think we already have.

I can't see any political party that isn't controlled at the top by the self-proclaimed Best People who've spent their lives moving in The Right Circles.

 Patrick

Kay Tie
My apparent "disdain for democracy" and "1930's viewpoint" extends to wishing more people would exercise their democratic rights.

As usual you pick on a few words then with a tick from your (yet scientifically diagnosed) old trot syndrome combined with a sprinkling of moral outrage you somehow manage to express a totally delusional point of view.

The only logical conclusion in your case is
Outside noisy inside empty!

Huw

I knew it would be pointless to ask.
The truly sad thing about your response KayTie is the possibility that you may very well think you are making any kind of sense.

You seem to be confusing easily purchased non thinking, non contributing often non participating members of the electorate who have no notion of the responsibilities that they have nor interest in the effects of their choices, with democracy.
You are often disparaging enough about people who don't follow your own selfish leanings but presumably do not feel that you are disdaining democracy when you disparage those who do not hold your views as evil socialists or embittered old trots.
I would suggest you have double standards if it was not already clear that you have none at all.

Kay Tie

"where in patrick's comment does she detect a disdain for democracy"

The bit about the electorate being charmed by Tesco points.

Huw

I should know better, but KayTie begs the question, where in patrick's comment does she detect a disdain for democracy, we can ignore the "Very 1930s socialist viewpoint (something in common with the fascists of the 1930s too)" as being typical KayTie disdain for reason and rationality.

A statement that the accountability for the decisions made by the electorate (the people they vote into power and their actions) is with the electorate; is not an anti-, un- or non-democratic view it is a statement of the fundamental basis and point of democracy.
The buck stops with the boss and in a democracy, that's the electorate.

A link to a Guardian Europhobic piece expressing the deep upset that the new posts of EU president and EU high representative on foreign affairs and security policy were selected by consensus of all the EU member states elected governments and are clearly not an indication of the EU taking over all important aspects of British government does not help to explain KayTie's position on what was actually being discussed, or indeed anything else.

Kay Tie

"If we the public have little interest in either joining traditional parties, forming new ones , or even voting then who else can we blame?"

I detect a disdain for democracy. Very 1930s socialist viewpoint (something in common with the fascists of the 1930s too).

Better to get behind democracy. Try reading this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/20/eu-stitch-up-demeans-democracy

 Patrick

It is a shame DG , but if enough of the 'stupid plebs' had voted then we might not have had either of the two right wing parties in power.

It wouldn't suprise me if Tesco formed a political party . All they would have to do is offer points for votes ,25p off a pack of fags , or a six pack for a fiver and Bingo!

The public are more interested in voting on X-factor.

If we the public have little interest in either joining traditional parties, forming new ones , or even voting then who else can we blame?


DG

"Public confidence in politics would be restored if the public saw more of Tony Wright"

Well, the public *would* have seen more of Tony Wright if his career hadn't been held back by his propensity to "think too much" and "speak out."

The public's perception of MPs is largely based on the behaviour of the most high-profile ones - Mandelson, for example. Oh, wait - he's not an MP anymore, is he? He's an unelected, unpopular spin-doctor that for some reason gets to vote on legislation that the rest of us must live by.

Shame on the stupid plebs for being cynical of politics, eh?

The comments to this entry are closed.