Comments on: Why does CRU have a confidentiality agreement with Germany?

By: A First Look at the CRU Station List « Climate Audit

A First Look at the CRU Station List « Climate Audit — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:12:51 +0000

[...] but that has taken another 6 months. In connection with the supposed confidentiality agreements, as reported previously, Doug Keenan asked for the countries with which there were confidentiality agreements that [...]

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:25:57 +0000

#94. I only partly agree. Obviously I think that the data and methods need to be scrutinized. And I think that the funding agencies should require non-compliant scientists to archive data and methods in a proefessional manner or lose their funding.

Having said that, as I’ve said many times, I think that it’s reasonable for politicians to proceed on the information that they have, imperfect as it may be. Decision-makers do that all the time. If I had a big policy job, I would not be guided by very minority views but by the views expressed by organizations such as IPCC. But that’s not a reason to closely examine all the steps in the logic. It is surprising just how much hair there tends to be on the individual steps in the logical argument though. OF course, realclimate and their ilk are quick to say that problems in any individual step don’t “matter” because either they’ve “moved on” or more often because of GCM results. An engineering level analysis of GCMs is beyond my resources and there doesn’t seem to be any interest in a properly funded (multi-million dollar) engineering-calibre study of the “best” GCM.

By: Joe Bowles

Joe Bowles — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:03:53 +0000

I am not a scientist, but it seems to me that most of the issues raised on this website fall under first principles:
1. Establishing that the raw data from which everything else follows is available for scrutiny without any alteration;
2. Establishing the data used has been collected in a consistent fashion so that the data is in fact proper for use. (The problem with weather stations comes to mind)
3. Establishment of criteria by which research is either accepted or rejected, i.e. the methodology by which the data is processes is defined, the statistics verified by statisticians, and peer review is extended to the areas of expertise used in the study, not just to other peers in a subspecialty.
I am an agnostic on global warming. I think it is reasonable to conclude it is happening, but the system is too poorly understood to draw the conclusion that it is man-driven, especially when the alternative hypotheses do not appear to have been adequately researched.
I do find it hard to understand why we have jumped to building alarmist reports almost daily before we tackle the issues of the quality of our data. I also have a hard time understanding why so many in the climate world work so hard to avoid having independent analysis. If they believe their conclusions, having third party support would strengthen their position. If their position falls, then, it would either rule out poor areas of research or perhaps point to more fruitful areas to pursue.

By: jae

jae — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:17:28 +0000

88:

As I’ve said elsewhere, I do work with some climate scientists and mostly they’re interested in getting the science done well.

For the record, I don’t doubt that this is true. But there are a few famous ones out there that are spoiling things for the majority.

By: Steve Milesworthy

Steve Milesworthy — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:01:45 +0000

#89
OK my last word. I do not believe that difficulty in accessing data necessarily invalidates the results presented, which is the allegation made in comments here. If it did, it would invalidate an awful lot of science including model results. (Clearly there is history between t’other Steve M and this Jones person on which I can’t comment due to lack of information).
#90
I wasn’t taking offence – I am involved in software engineering of models.

By: Steve Sadlov

Steve Sadlov — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:23:31 +0000

Don’t feed the troll. Topic focus, topic focus …..

By: Jeff Norman

Jeff Norman — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:54:44 +0000

Re:#88 Steve Milesworthy,

#85 This means I've now been threatened by both the IRS and prison in this blog.

How have you been threatened by (with?) prison? Are you a professional engineer who designs faulty refineries? I would guess no (but one never knows). I believe Stan Palmer was demonstrating that some professions have more than just a duty to perform their work in a way that is diligent and auditable. They have a legal obligation. SteveM has made the same point numerous times in referring to assays. Several of us who labour under these kinds of obligations are frequently amazed by the apparently haphazard approaches used by those seeking to prosecute the case of anthropogenic global warming/climate change. I say apparently haphazard approaches because this is how it appears to us. Attempts to follow down paths of cause and effect following bread crumb trails of data that disappear and reappear without telling a cohesive story lead to frustration and doubt. These things make us skeptical of the allegations being made against modern industrial societies, allegations made with absolutely no accounting of the myriad advantages. What is it that makes you believe that AGW/CC is a clear a present danger that needs to be addressed as a priority, a priority that should not be diffused by attempts to clarify the issue? In my opinion one of the greatest weaknesses of the IPCC and their assessment reports is the lack of direction for improvements in data collection aimed at improving the knowledge base. For example they could say temperature trend data is missing in X location and 50 years of data here would be beneficial for assessing the impacts of AGW/CC and the measures taken to mitigate these impacts. Imagine a world body actually trying to improve our knowledge of the world. This missing direction suggests they believe they have all the data they need to get the job done. Since they do not have all the data they need to close the case against AGW/CC then perhaps this is not really the job they are trying to get done.

By: MarkW

MarkW — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:04:38 +0000

Steve,

You’ve been told three times now that we are not talking about the output of the climate models.
How many times do you have to be hit over the head with reality before it sinks in?

By: Steve Milesworthy

Steve Milesworthy — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:42:48 +0000

Don’t feed trolls who are attempting to sow doubt and distraction.

Do they have mirrors where you’re from More seriously, the only way of getting a sense of this blog is by engaging fully. As I’ve said elsewhere, I do work with some climate scientists and mostly they’re interested in getting the science done well.

#85 This means I’ve now been threatened by both the IRS and prison in this blog.

#86 #87 For info, a 100 year run of a current model is typically 1.5 terabytes. A typical data archive rate of a climate research institute is about 1 terabyte per day. This should quadruple by the time we get to AR5.

By: MarkW

MarkW — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:35:42 +0000

Commercially available thumb drives hold multi-gigabytes and can be bought for $20-$40.

Can be mailed a lot cheaper than a tape reel.