Comments on: CRU Refuses FOI Request for Yamal Climategate Chronology

By: Punksta

Punksta — Tue, 24 May 2011 06:14:40 +0000

For climate scioence in general, if all papers that failed to provide all data and code – or had any outstanding requests (FOI or otherwise) against them – were retracted (as they should be)
- how many would be left?
- how different would the ‘consensus’ look ?

By: Climategoat: the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic CRU hacking « Shub Niggurath Climate

Sat, 21 May 2011 13:14:52 +0000

[...] recent weeks, the University has taken a stronger stance favoring withholding climate-related data from members of the public, citing commercial and [...]

By: Climastrologists in hiding…with their data | pindanpost

Climastrologists in hiding…with their data | pindanpost — Sun, 08 May 2011 03:37:59 +0000

[...] CRU Refuses FOI Request for Yamal Climategate Chronology Apr 25, 2011 – 9:30 PM [...]

By: Stacey

Stacey — Sat, 07 May 2011 18:00:23 +0000

” their ability to attract research”

The following link is to the CRU’s research grants page.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/grants.htm
Dr Briffa and others have received a grant of £266 000 for two years work on the subject of “The dendroclimatic divergence phenomenon: reassessment of causes and implications for climate reconstruction” Granted 2010

Dr Jones has re £318 000 EURO4M – European Reanalysis and Observations for Monitoring Granted 2010.

What appears interesting is that they are both being rewarded/provided grants to deal with their own past failures.

I may be wrong but it would appear that Mr McIntyre should receive some of this money.

I really would like to know what they both will deliver for half a million pounds and the remaining one million pounds?

The grants they receive is all public money.

By: JamesD

JamesD — Sat, 07 May 2011 05:39:26 +0000

They haven’t been able to keep it hidden. It has been exposed. That is what climategate was all about.

Hide the Decline.

By: Dennis Wingo

Dennis Wingo — Fri, 06 May 2011 12:25:34 +0000

If the scientific community wishes to reestablish its credibility then as a result of this refusal the following should occur.

1. Removal of all papers that directly or indirectly use the Yamal Chronologies.
2. Any derivative works, such as the IPCC’s TAR’s that use anything related to the Yamal Chronologies must include a disclaimer that there is unvalidated data and findings that cast doubt on their own findings.
3. Sanction of the scientists involved until the data is released.

Could you imagine this happening had this been test data regarding a clinical trial of a drug? There is a public duty to release this data as well as a scientific responsibility. Replication is THE core value of science, without it, the findings based upon the Yamal Chronologies is no more than the prognostications of charlatans.

By: RomanM

RomanM — Thu, 05 May 2011 16:09:22 +0000

I’m here to discuss climate science, and the breaking news about sea level rise is central to it.

You wouldn’t be the same “Mike Roddy” who only last year wrote the following about CA (I won’t give the link because I don’t wish to subject anyone to the total rant):

Most egregious lie: “I constructed a variation on the CRU data set, removing the 12 selected cores and replacing them with the 34 cores from the Schweingruber Yamal sample….” The echo chamber goes wild, but neither they nor McIntyre himself have any idea what he’s talking about, since Climate Audit is all about masturbating to numbers.

You will forgive me if I am skeptical of your motives…

By the way, I am a retired professor whose full name has been posted on CA and elsewhere on several occasions and I have done several posts on CA. I will leave it to you to figure out in what area my professional background might be.

By: Mike Roddy

Mike Roddy — Thu, 05 May 2011 14:46:11 +0000

Roman M: I am a “troll”? I use my real name- you can google me, and may find some research papers I have coauthored.

I’m here to discuss climate science, and the breaking news about sea level rise is central to it. Watts’ graph is irrelevant, because the recent studies are based on projected melt rates and increasing temperatures, not current data.

I’ve published on emissions and forests, but am not qualified to weigh in on tree ring analysis, or the details about climate scientists’ purported attempts to distort or withhold information.

Yes, I was OT, but Watts’ blog disrespects climate science, and if one is interested in a discussion McIntyre has shown interest in engagement. Maybe it’s because he realizes that if one insists on full disclosure from one group, his own blog should publish arguments that disagree with him.

Who, by the way, are you?

By: Faustino

Faustino — Thu, 05 May 2011 02:29:30 +0000

OT but generally pertinent: not “hide-the-decline,” but “lower the older CO2 data.” Steve, are you aware of the work of Zbigniew Jaborowski, who began researching glaciers in the 1960s and is an expert in assessing past CO2 levels? He found, for example, 1890 concentrations of CO2 of 328 ppm, the same level as Moauna Loa in 1973; and average 19thC levels of 335 pm. If the IPCC et al have underestimated historic CO2 concentrations and the alleged increase in CO2 did not occur, then it can not have caused any warming. Ref:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Sorry if this has come up before, I’ve just seen a link to it on Climate Etc.

By: Espen

Espen — Wed, 04 May 2011 19:18:33 +0000

As I pointed out in a comment that is still in the moderation queue, the SWIPA report from AMAP may not be as OT as it seems – I think they may be using Yamal (via Kaufman et al) to argue that temperatures are “higher than at any time in the past 2,000 years”.