PDA

View Full Version : Wheres the data? Right here..



wilbur
11-30-2009, 11:47 AM
In the wake of the psuedo-"scandal", people are erronesouly claiming that all the data used to extrapolate AGW is missing or deleted. But thats not the end of the story...



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/

Where’s the data?

Much of the discussion in recent days has been motivated by the idea that climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw data upon which scientific conclusions are based. This is a powerful meme and one that has clear resonance far beyond the people who are actually interested in analysing data themselves. However, many of the people raising this issue are not aware of what and how much data is actually available.

Therefore, we have set up a page of data links to sources of temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, model outputs, model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes involved in reconstructions etc. We have made a start on this on a new Data Sources page, but if anyone has other links that we’ve missed, note them in the comments and we’ll update accordingly.

The climate science community fully understands how important it is that data sources are made as open and transparent as possible, for research purposes as well as for other interested parties, and is actively working to increase accessibility and usability of the data. We encourage people to investigate the various graphical portals to get a feel for the data and what can be done with it. The providers of these online resources are very interested in getting feedback on any of these sites and so don’t hesitate to contact them if you want to see improvements.


Link to the index RC has compiled: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/. So, you want data, and are too lazy to use google? There it is.

BadCat
11-30-2009, 12:18 PM
Realclimate.org huh?


Realclimate.org is funded by Environmental Media Services, founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign.

EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications.

Fenton Communications client list includes organizations associated with a diverse array of social issues, but they are most known for their work with liberal causes such as MoveOn.org and Greenpeace.

FlaGator
11-30-2009, 12:19 PM
In the wake of the psuedo-"scandal", people are erronesouly claiming that all the data used to extrapolate AGW is missing or deleted. But thats not the end of the story...



Link to the index RC has compiled: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/. So, you want data, and are too lazy to use google? There it is.


This is really killing you isn't it? Psuedo-"scandal" - that's a good one. Missing data from the horse's mouth



SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)

Now it seems that if the missing data was able to be searched for then the scientist making the above statement would have known that.

It's really nice to see that it is being proven true what has long been suspected, man made global warmng adherents have been fudging the data all along and then trying to coverup the fudging when their calculations seem sketchy. We've been in a ten your period of no climate change, the polar bears populations are at record levels and the glaciers aren't melting at the pace predicted. But you just keep holding on to the belief of man made global warming even though the evidence seems contrary to you opinion. That's absolutely no reason to rethink things.

FlaGator
11-30-2009, 12:20 PM
Realclimate.org huh?

Now his facepalm avatar makes sense ;)

Constitutionally Speaking
11-30-2009, 12:30 PM
This is really killing you isn't it? Psuedo-"scandal" - that's a good one. Missing data from the horse's mouth



Now it seems that if the missing data base able to be searched for then the scientist making the above statement would have known that.

It's really nice to see that it is being proven true what has long been suspected, man made global warmng adherents have been fudging the data all along and then trying to coverup the fudging when their calculations seem sketchy. We've been in a ten your period of no climate change, the polar bears populations are at record levels and the glaciers aren't melting at the pace predicted. But you just keep holding on to the belief of man made global warming even though the evidence seems contrary to you opinion. That's absolutely no reason to rethink things.


And Wilbur says he isn't religious!!!! Talk about irrational!

wilbur
11-30-2009, 10:41 PM
This is really killing you isn't it? Psuedo-"scandal" - that's a good one. Missing data from the horse's mouth


Not really, no. For all the bluster, the AGW skeptics have yet to show a single conclusive case of fudged or faked data, that isnt easily attributed to approaching out of context material with an insatiable desire to interpret it in the worst possible light, with as little understanding as possible.



Now it seems that if the missing data was able to be searched for then the scientist making the above statement would have known that.


Scientists are only trust worthy when they agree with you? Funny how that works.



It's really nice to see that it is being proven true what has long been suspected, man made global warmng adherents have been fudging the data all along and then trying to coverup the fudging when their calculations seem sketchy.

Oh I know, you are dancing for joy. Your initial post on this topic managed about two or three words of pretend skepticism and reticence before throwing it all to the wind and giving into that ol' uncontrollable, insatiable AGW denialist lust. Again the double standard of the AGW hyper-skeptics is made clear, where skepticism is only a one way street.

I have yet to see any demonstrable proof of any fudging of data. Perhaps give us your take on some of the more "questionable" emails that you think makes a case for fudging data. Be sure to include a summary of what the significance of the data is, and why the manipulations of the scientists are underhanded. If you can demonstrate some competence on the topic, I'll take you seriously.



We've been in a ten your period of no climate change, the polar bears populations are at record levels and the glaciers aren't melting at the pace predicted. But you just keep holding on to the belief of man made global warming even though the evidence seems contrary to you opinion. That's absolutely no reason to rethink things.

Monumental, but typical, straw-men. You might as well say evolution didn't happen because you've never seen a monkey give birth to a human. Seriously, make an effort to reach a level of basic competence and understanding on the topic.

Big Guy
11-30-2009, 10:56 PM
In the wake of the psuedo-"scandal", people are erronesouly claiming that all the data used to extrapolate AGW is missing or deleted. But thats not the end of the story...



Link to the index RC has compiled: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/. So, you want data, and are too lazy to use google? There it is.

SELECTED STATION:-


ARCTOWSKI 62 09S 301 02E (89052)

J F M A M J J A S O N D MEAN

1977 00.0 -02.3 -04.7 -08.1 -08.0 -06.5 -02.7 00.5 01.2
1978 02.1 02.4 00.9 -00.4 00.0 -05.1 -11.6 -07.0 -02.3 -01.2 -01.1 01.0 -1.9
1979 03.3 02.4 02.1 00.6 -02.8 -04.9 -03.8 -04.9 -02.4 -02.0 -00.4 01.7 -0.9
1980 02.3 01.8 00.2 -04.7 -03.0 -06.5 -12.2 -11.2 -07.5 -02.2 -02.2 01.5 -3.6
1981 01.7 02.5 00.4 00.0 -03.5 -03.6 -04.2 -09.3 -04.7 -03.7 -00.5 01.3 -2.0
1982 03.6 02.6 01.5 00.7 -00.4 -02.2 -07.3 -05.4 -03.4 -02.7 -01.3 01.5 -1.1
1983 01.9 01.4 01.1 00.3 -03.1 -04.8 -04.5 -02.1 -03.7 -01.6 00.7 01.8 -1.0
1984 01.2 02.4 01.8 -01.4 -06.3 -04.5 -03.7 -02.7 -00.4 -02.6 00.4 02.0 -1.1
1985 02.9 02.3 -00.4 -00.3 -03.8 -04.0 -02.1 -02.9 -00.7 -00.4 01.0 01.8 -0.6
1986 01.7 01.5 01.8 -01.4 -07.8 -07.7 -08.1 -06.7 -05.0 -01.4 -01.7 00.8 -2.8
1987 01.6 01.8 01.3 -02.6 -05.3 -07.5 -13.2 -04.1 -05.6 -01.5 01.0 02.1 -2.7
1988 01.5 03.4 00.8 -00.7 -01.4 -07.1 -05.4 -08.3 -03.1 -02.8 -01.3 00.5 -2.0
1989 02.2 03.2 03.2 -04.6 00.1 -01.5 00.5 -01.5 -02.3 00.0 00.7 01.5 0.1
1990 02.7 -05.3 -06.0 -05.3 -06.5 -06.1 -02.9 -02.0 -01.2 00.3
1991
1992 03.0 01.5 -01.0 -00.6 -08.5 -08.5 -06.7 -03.6 -01.9 -02.6 00.8 03.4 -2.1
1993
1994 02.3
1995 03.8 03.2 00.5 -01.1 -02.0 -06.4 -13.0 -11.0 -05.8 -00.4 00.1 02.1 -2.5
1996 02.4 03.4 02.0 -01.1 -02.3 -04.9 -03.1 -03.4 -01.0 -00.9 00.3 01.7 -0.6

MEAN 2.4 2.4 1.1 -1.3 -3.4 -5.2 -6.6 -5.8 -3.5 -1.8 -0.2 1.6 -1.6




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Created by: A.B.Giles Last Modified: 17 May, 2003


Wonder why there is so much missing data in 1991, 1993, and 1994 did their thermometer over heat?

Got this from the site you provided.

FlaGator
11-30-2009, 11:14 PM
Not really, no. For all the bluster, the AGW skeptics have yet to show a single conclusive case of fudged or faked data, that isnt easily attributed to approaching out of context material with an insatiable desire to interpret it in the worst possible light, with as little understanding as possible.



Scientists are only trust worthy when they agree with you? Funny how that works.
Pot - Kettle? You don't find the scientists who disagree with man made global warming credible. You state that they are biased by... whatever it is you think they're biased by. Now you are forced to face the fact that the scientists you do believe are admitted liars and potentially frauds as they seemingly have done much to shut down disagreement, even going so far as to threaten to change the peer review process so dissenters couldn't claim they had a peer reviewed paper. That is a fact expressed in these emails. What were they so afraid of that they had to be concerned about releasing data through a freedom of information act and how to get around such a request. Also mentioned in the emails. So much for the clarity of the scientific method they men and women claimed to up hold as men of science. What they have done is ruined the trust people have for scientist as people now realize what these people are driving by the same self interest as a standard conman. In the feature some real research is going to be ignored and questioned because of the fraud that has been exposed.



Oh I know, you are dancing for joy. Your initial post on this topic managed about two or three words of pretend skepticism and reticence before throwing it all to the wind and giving into that ol' uncontrollable, insatiable AGW denialist lust. Again the double standard of the AGW hyper-skeptics is made clear, where skepticism is only a one way street.

I have yet to see any demonstrable proof of any fudging of data. Perhaps give us your take on some of the more "questionable" emails that you think makes a case for fudging data. Be sure to include a summary of what the significance of the data is, and why the manipulations of the scientists are underhanded. If you can demonstrate some competence on the topic, I'll take you seriously.



Monumental, but typical, straw-men. You might as well say evolution didn't happen because you've never seen a monkey give birth to a human. Seriously, make an effort to reach a level of basic competence and understanding on the topic.I was skeptical at first but when the scientists started verifying that the emails were real I then lost my skepticism. But to be honest I am enjoying watching you spin this because one of your sacred cows is being tipped. Straw-man? A bunch of scientist conspired to hide data from the public to such a degree that they deleted it and now they results can't be verified? That is a straw-man? Only in your mind.

You don't have to take me seriously, but that doesn't change the fact that the people you admire and cited to back your opinion are now being shown to be liars and cheats. You know what's even funnier. Your beloved MGW scientists have now opened the door to people wanting to reexamine evolution data. Your buddies have given legitimacy to the Intelligent Design scientists that believe that they are being locked out of the arena of ideas because some "reputable" scientists don't want to face a challenge. The questions will arise and a lot of people will want to know what the evolution scientists have to hide? They will remember the charlatans of MGW and wonder if they aren't seeing the same thing.

Enjoy, my friend, enjoy.

wilbur
11-30-2009, 11:27 PM
Pot - Kettle? You don't find the scientists who disagree with man made global warming credible. You state that they are biased by... whatever it is you think they're biased by. Now you are forced to face the fact that the scientists you do believe are admitted liars and potentially frauds as they seemingly have done much to shut down disagreement, even going so far as to threaten to change the peer review process so dissenters couldn't claim they had a peer reviewed paper. That is a fact expressed in these emails. What were they so afraid of that they had to be concerned about releasing data through a freedom of information act and how to get around such a request. Also mentioned in the emails. So much for the clarity of the scientific method they men and women claimed to up hold as men of science. What they have done is ruined the trust people have for scientist as people now realize what these people are driving by the same self interest as a standard conman. In the feature some real research is going to be ignored and questioned because of the fraud that has been exposed.

I was skeptical at first but when the scientists started verifying that the emails were real I then lost my skepticism. But to be honest I am enjoying watching you spin this because one of your sacred cows is being tipped. Straw-man? A bunch of scientist conspired to hide data from the public to such a degree that they deleted it and now they results can't be verified? That is a straw-man? Only in your mind.

You don't have to take me seriously, but that doesn't change the fact that the people you admire and cited to back your opinion are now being shown to be liars and cheats. You know what's even funnier. Your beloved MGW scientists have now opened the door to people wanting to reexamine evolution data. Your buddies have given legitimacy to the Intelligent Design scientist that they are being locked out of the arena of idea because some reputable scientists don't want to face a challenge. The questions will arise and alot of people will want to know what the evolution scientists have to hide? They will remember the charlatans of MGW and wonder if they aren't seeing the same thing.


I'll take this as an admission that you cannot find, or competently demonstrate any fraudulent data manipulation in the emails. The way you have been going on about, I would think it would be easy.


Enjoy, my friend, enjoy.

Don't forget your torch and your pitchfork.

FlaGator
11-30-2009, 11:33 PM
I'll take this as an admission that you cannot find, or competently demonstrate any fraudulent data manipulation in the emails. The way you have been going on about, I would think it would be easy.



Don't forget your torch and your pitchfork.

I admit nothing, but believe what you like. As you have pointed out, I am not an expert in this field so I will let the experts sift through the data and make the case for me. As for the torch and pitchfork, I wouldn't want to try and take them from the GW scientists. I'm sure they still have a few more dissenters harass.

wilbur
11-30-2009, 11:41 PM
I admit nothing, but believe what you like. As you have pointed out, I am not an expert in this field so I will let the experts sift through the data and make the case for me. As for the torch and pitchfork, I wouldn't want to try and take them from the GW scientists. I'm sure they still have a few more dissenters harass.

Priceless! You'll let the experts make the case for you, as long as they don't make a case for AGW.

FlaGator
11-30-2009, 11:54 PM
Priceless! You'll let the experts make the case for you, as long as they don't make a case for AGW.

If they do I'll accept it. Do you want to know something amusing. If you would have came in here wanting to know what these scientist thought they were doing, some here, me included, would have commiserated with you and maybe discussed why this happened. Instead you came in here defending these people and in your usual condescending fashion tried to tell us that we didn't understand.

These guys have obviously done things that are not above board and you defend them and want people to believe that this is no big deal. Wrong. It is a big deal for reasons that I have pointed out in other posts and some that will occur to you later. It would be like me defending the Catholic priests who were pedophiles. Both examples have violated what they professed to uphold. I expected you to stand by your views on GW, but I didn't expect you to defend that which can not be defended. Whether GW is true or not what these people have done has torn open the core of scientific inquiry. That is what I find hard to believe that you are defending.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-01-2009, 04:35 AM
I'll take this as an admission that you cannot find, or competently demonstrate any fraudulent data manipulation in the emails. The way you have been going on about, I would think it would be easy.



Don't forget your torch and your pitchfork.


I guess the ADMISSION OF GUILT does not count????