Hit & Run

Climategate Researchers Agree to Release Data


The Telegraph is reporting that the "climategate" researchers at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit have agreed to release all of their temperature data to the public where it can be scrutinized by other researchers. According to the Telegraph:

Professor Trevor Davies, the university's Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement, said yesterday: "CRU's full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

"We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data."

That's certainly a (way too delayed and begrudging) step in the right direction, but it surely shouldn't take months for data on which the world is relying to guide vast economic and political decisions to be made publicly available.

And there is the nagging thought that their "conclusions correlate well" with other temperature data sets because they all may be making a similar set of errors when compiling their figures.

Whole Telegraph report here.

NEXT: Does Oregon Prove the Viability of a Public Option in Health Care?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It takes months to scrub the data clean and make it fall in line. They are lion towers.

      1. It's not polite to make fun of the retarded kid.

  2. Is this the data they previously had claimed to be lost, then got caught emailing that they'd delete it before turning over? Odd how that data mysteriously reappeared.....

    We'll see if they give us enough info to use that data to reproduce their calcs, or if it will be a raw data dump w/ no indication of what was massaged or just not used.

  3. Of course the real data has been destroyed. They are only offering the "value added" data. I am fully convinced that this entire thing is a fraud. The original climate data, (the actual temperature readings) showed no warming. And these assholes just adjusted the data so that it did. Then convienently destroyed the data leaving only their adjusted figures behind.

    It will take decades to undo this. The only hope is to make sure all future climate data is kept in the open so that in twenty or thirty years it will become apparent what a fraud this all was.

  4. Of course, per poor Harry's notes, this may not mean a great deal, since he couldn't replicate their results out of the raw data.

    Funny though, how all the excuses for not releasing the data in the e-mail chains are now moot.

  5. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

    ...which are probably just as screwed up.

    1. See my links in the morning open thread about NASA and Dr. Hansen, and their so-called objectivity and high standards for accuracy.

      1. Hansen is the Bernie Madoff of "climate change". He and his cohorts have stolen who knows how many millions of tax dollars in multiple countries to perpetrate a fraud.

    2. My girlfriend is a senior bioligist with NOAA. This weekend vigorously interrogated her concerning this. What she knew and when she knew it.

      A good time was had by all.

      1. I hope you thooughly documented your interogation. We don't want any more of this information to fall through the cracks.

        I also hope that you have a good soundtrack added to the interrogation. The wrong choice of music can really spoil a scene...er...segment.

      2. Details, we need details! You know, for truthieness. We can't just take your word for it.

        Plus, I need book ideas.

      3. Hate to break it to you but
        a) There was no interrogation this weekend.
        b) Her participation in the naked pyramid photographs you found was entirely consensual.

  6. I know I'm (sadly, IMO) in the minority of libertarian opinion; I do think global warming is happening, and that it is caused by humans. Where I disagree with the mainstream is how to solve it; I don't think a big climate change bill is going to fix it. Taking big oil and coal off subsidies will go a long way in driving innovation into other alternative fuel sources.

    Climate, like economics, is a complex system; far too many libertarians are looking at climate the way Keynes look at economics; as an oversimplified aggregate. There is nothing to fear from the truth; it doesn't imply big government is the solution, as it usually isn't.

    Even if you disagree with me, I think that it is indispuatble that big government is never the solution to anything.

    1. I do think global warming is happening, and that it is caused by humans

      So how do you square this with the fact that the planet has been cooling for the last ten years?

      1. It's very very devilish.

      2. Just imagine how cold it would be without the human-caused global warming!

    2. Given the fact that it now appears as if much of the baseline data is suspect at best, I wonder why you still think that GW is happening and is man made.

      I would think that you should at least wait to see what the raw numbers look like.

      Regardless of the raw numbers, you are correct in positing that the best solutions to any GW issues will be non-governmental.

      Actually Reason has been a good source for this meme. There have been plenty of articles about alternative solutions to GW here (search for Bjorn Lomborg for example).

      I'm still not sure if there is a smoking gun in the data or the e-mails that will make the CRU look like the second coming of the tobacco executives, but I do know that it sure looks bad on the face of it.

      Like you said, the truth shouldn't frighten anyone. Right now, it seems as if the CRU is the one afraid of the truth, not the deniers.

    3. The problem is that the AGW crowd usually doesn't talk about numbers or models or scientific processes, they talk about peer review and consensus. Essentially, they ask us to have trust in scientific institutions and the procedures they have to protect against groupthink and misconduct; the biggest impact of Climategate for a lot of people will be to diminish trust in robustness of these institutions.

    4. I see it all the same as you do. Well, mostly. As of last week, I'm not sure about the "global warming is happening" part.

      I just assumed all of this data, and the computer models WERE already public, or nobody would have taken these guys seriously in the first place. Naive me.

  7. Original data should still be available in the sources. I reckon when the CRU finally releases it's database there will be a lot of check-ups made with the original sources.

  8. The other issue is all of the source code for their models. These guys are glorified weatherman. They are not even statisicians letalone programers. And they were trying to write some pretty heavy programs. The computer geeks are already all over their source code and talking about how bad it is. Once someone who knows what they are doing looks at their math and their programing, those models and conclusions are not going to look so air tight.

    1. When I hear the GW-ers start talking about what their models show for 2050, I always roll my eyes.

      At a minimum, before I started relying on those models too heavily, I would expect them to feed data from 1900-1980 into them and have the models make fairly accurate predictions of what 1980-2009 actually looked like.

      If the model didn't predict the warming of the 1990's followed by the leveling off of 2000-2009, why should I expect it to be any more accurate for 2010-2050?

      Feel free to adjust the dates to match your own personal preferences. The basic idea is that any accurate model should be fairly predictive if you plug in a known series of data and compare it with reality.

      The basic problem with all models is that a) there are lots and lots of variables (mostly interconnected) and b) most of the climate processes aren't fully understood. Even the best programmers aren't going to succeed given those constraints.

      1. There are some e-mails about that very subject. They can't get their models to match up with known datasets in the manner you describe. Their sollution? There must be something wrong with the observation methods that collect the temperature data. No kidding.

  9. CRU's full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements

    I hope that one of the things that will shake out of this is that all the data they use will have to be publicly available in raw form from the moment they acquire it. Granted, there are lots of data sources but the new rule should be: you want your data included, you have to make it public.

    Also suspicious that they're playing a delaying game in releasing the existing data.

    1. They need extra time to massage the data.

  10. CRU's full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements

    Which will happen Real Soon Now. Honest. Just keep waiting...

    1. They will be released sometime after Chris Dodd releases his Countrywide Mortgage documents.

  11. WRONG, guys!

    "Climate Data Dumped"

    I still want to know why CLimateGate is not on the main Reason front page.

    The original raw data is NOT to be included, even now. It was 'lost', so only the 'value added' (i.e. massaged) data is top be released.

    It's BS -- making adjustments is sometimes necessary, but you ALWAYS keep the raw data AND kepp a detailed explanation of yor adjustments.

    1. They say "dumped to make space when they moved to a new location"! Are they ")/&YT;$ liars or are they */&T$? nuts?

      I cannot assume they are so stupid, dumping raw data that must have cost a fortune to gather together, and then not be able to convert it or scan it to disk before moving.

      Remains the first hypothesis: they are /$Y(*&/T* liars.

      1. 80% of people are not good at their jobs.

        They are ok or suck at them.

        These fuckbags suck at science.

  12. I still want to know why CLimateGate is not on the main Reason front page.

    Ron still believes in AGW.

    1. Seriously, guys;

      Ron has done a good job covering all this, and cannot be accused of bias: he used to be non-AGW. Now, leave the time to Reason to sort out the data and give their reader a good paper, just like they did very well when the financial crisis broke out in Fall 2008.

    2. You have to feel sorry for Bailey. He became an AGW convert just in time for the wheels to come off of the bandwagon. Talk about a talent for being in the wrong place at the wrong time!

      1. This can be traced back to the Bush administration.

  13. "when we have the necessary agreements" sounds like a microsoftian "shared source" as opposed to open source.

  14. The entire idea that you can look at only one variable and make any kind of reliable prediction is ridiculous.

  15. Imagine President Gore had gotten anti-AGW legislation in 2001 or 2002. Imagine the crowing about the currently 'inexplicable' pause in warming, how it proved them right, how they Saved Us All, and how everything we have we owe to them for saving us, because the warming stopped after their laws were passed.

    1. Good point. Kind of like how they are saying the bailout was the only thing that kept all of us from eating dirt now.

      1. And how the environmental movement saved the whales.

    2. Johnny Longtorso|11.30.09 @ 11:45AM

      I've often thought about that and its scary. Even Copenhagen could have resulted in that "see we saved the planet" mentality ten years from now...

  16. Ron still believes in AGW.

    Though we can mock Bailey to his grave for that, and I hope we do, because it's hilarious shit, it's not his fault. Reason, in sum, is a believer.

    Worse, a convert.

    1. They will just ignore that little fact in the future. I predict within ten years or so, no one will admit to being taken in by this scam. A few people like Al Gore will have been so public they won't be able to deny it. But every other believer will swear it was everyone else who was taken in.

      1. It won't matter. Just look at how many people still think Paul Ehrlich is some sort of guru.

        1. I agree with Spartacus: no matter how often Ehrlich was proven wrong, he is the one who won a McArthy Genius Award and is still a reference today.

    2. Last week when this story broke, I asked Ron in another thread what he thought about these relevations and if he had rethought his positions.

      Does anyone know if he has made any statements about this scandal?

      1. I believe Ron's conversion came after updated satellite findings that indicated an actual warming for some specific set of start/end dates.

        I don't think the Brits had anything to do with it.

        1. You mean the NASA satellite data? See the links at the top of today's morning link/open thread.

  17. CRU's full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements

    ... concerning our immunity from prosecution.

  18. From what I have read, it appears that CRU doesn't even have much of the raw data anymore. Short of spending years and millions more dollars to re-acquire the raw data from the original sources, it may be simply impossible to credibly determine the temperature history of the past 100 years. Of course, spending a few years and millions more dollars is MUCH better than spending billions or trillions to remedy a problem that is most-likely minor (if it exists at all).

    Remember: the question is not whether CO2 emissions warm the climate to some non-zero degree, but whether they cause enough warming that we should worry about it. Since even the massaged CRU data show cooling over the past several years, catastrophic AGW is looking less and less likely.

    1. The debate has been shifting from being about "global warming" to being about climate change.

      In general that's been a change for the better, prompted at least partially by those darn climate deniers asking the climate alarmists to be more specific about what harm they believe is going to come from the global temperature going up.

      If it turns out that all the data has to be recollected from scratch, maybe the alarmists will realize that they never established why it was so important to crank out a single aggregate number for the global temperature in the first place.

      1. I don't see how that's better, since as I see it the change in nomenclature was intended to (a) make anything environmentalists say non-falsifiable and (b) disguise the distortions and outright lies of the environmentalist movement.

        1. I guess. Seems like there were plenty of non-falsifiable claims made about both global warming AND climate change.

          1. My point was that they started using "climate change" when it became obvious "warming" wasn't happening. Then no matter what happens to the climate they can proclaim it a disaster. That's not an improvement in my opinion, because it disguises the true nature of their agenda.

  19. Remember: the question is not whether CO2 emissions warm the climate to some non-zero degree . . . . Since even the massaged CRU data show cooling over the past several years

    Doesn't the second point call the first into question? Of course, in a simple system, more CO2 = more warminess, but perhaps there are feedback loops that mean, in climate systems, it ain't that simple?

  20. Just imagine how cold it would be without the human-caused global warming!

    Funny. And not beyond the realm of possible truth.

    For the past few years I have been in the "There seems to be something to the global warming bit, but we don't really know how much, nor how much is our fault, nor what we ought to do about it." camp.

    Because I assumed that data was honest even if the analysis was agenda driven. Climategate forces me to put that assumption on hold for the time being.

  21. What a wonderful day for humanity !

    The hoax is over, the kids can go back to playing and stop worrying about the polar bears and the criminals who brought this scam upon the world will now be put on trial. The "green" movement was hijacked by socialist progressives and used as a weapon to scare the world into their "vision" of behavior and tax us into oblivion. Now it is over and the revolt back to common sense is on !

    This movement cost people, economies and businesses billions, maybe trillions. Not to mention brainwashing a whole generation of kids and young adults with a story based on fabricated data and faulty science. This is without a doubt the greatest scientific scandal of the modern era ? spinning the natural warming/cooling cycles of the earth into a fairy tale of catastrophe climate alarmism to support their far left agenda.

    As a worldwide Ponzi scheme, it makes Bernie Madoff look like a kid in a sandbox. With all the time, money and effort wasted on AGW, we could have really done some good in the world ? I wonder how the bleeding hearts on the left feel about THAT !

    Wake-up everyone, time to use that energy on real problems?

  22. hi,
    everybody, take your time and a little bit.fghdfgjj

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.