The replying letter from the CRU contains an awful lot of words in refusing the FOI request when, for its part, just one would have done! It is so often the case when trying to get past officialdom. In the UK, we have the Anti-terrorist Act, which covers just about anything from from the feeding of ducks to running in the subway. Clearly, we have another and more worrying inconvenient truth to hand.
Has anyone been refused an FOI request at the CRU on the grounds that the request (for raw data,code and calibration equations from Briff and Osborn) is environmental information?
Iowahawk Geographic: The Secret Life of Climate Researchers
Our very planet depends on them. Yet they remain nature’s most elusive scientific species, inhabiting some of the world’s most delicate and daunting academic environments. But thanks to new breakthroughs in high speed cameras and email files, metascientists are finally beginning to understand their mysterious behaviors and complex social interactions. Tonight on Iowahawk Geographic: step inside the Secret Life of the Climate Researchers.
French Horn Fanfare Theme
Fast-cut montage of walrus mating with polar bear, astronomer peering through telescope into neighbor’s window, cheetahs chasing penguins on the Serengeti, scientists filling out NSF grant proposals
Dah dat dat DAAAH dat, dah daht duh dah dee-dah dee dah-dah!
In the post-MSM period, ridicule is a most effective technique.
Not sure what this email is about but it doesn’t sound very good.
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn
Subject: Re: reconstruction errors
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks
I can’t find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you’ll see that the
residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd
case–its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can’t seem to dig them
up. In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600–its pretty clear that key
predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the notably
larger uncertainties farther back…
You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files.
I can’t even remember what the other columns are!
Let me know if that helps. Thanks,
p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on
this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So
please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of
“dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try
to distort things…
Steve: Yes, I noticed that one and will post on it specifically. So much to do…
Steve the Hockey Stick is back and the story unapologetic…
This is an extract from a email sent by Phil Jones to Bejamin Santer dated Nov 12 2008. My apologies if you’ve already seen it.
At 03:57 12/11/2008, you wrote:
Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre’s twin requests under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre’s request (1), no “monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models” was “sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008″.
As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him yesterday, all of the
raw (gridded) model and observational data used in the 2008 Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr.McIntyre wishes to audit us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paperare sound, he has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit. Providing Mr.McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the very purpose of an audit.
I note that David Douglass and colleagues have already audited our calculation of
synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model data. Douglass et al. obtained “model average” trends in synthetic MSU temperatures (published in their 2007 IJoC paper) that are virtually identical to our own.
McIntyre’s request (2) demands “any correspondence concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008″. I do not know how you intend to respond this second request. You and three other NOAA co-authors on our paper (Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, and John Lanzante) probably received hundreds of emails that I sent to you in the course of ourwork on the IJoC paper. I note that this work began in December 2007, following online publication of Douglass et al. in the IJoC. I have no idea why McIntyre’s request for email correspondence has a “start date” of 2006, and thus predates publication of Douglass et al.
My personal opinion is that both FOI requests (1) and (2) are intrusive and
unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific justification or
explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre is pursuing a calculated strategy
to divert my attention and focus away from research. As the recent experiences of Mike Mann and Phil Jones have shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be followed by further requests for computer programs, additional material and
explanations, etc., etc.
Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing the serious
scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am unwilling to waste more of my
time fulfilling the intrusive and frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme
irony is that Mr. McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
Douglass et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et al. relied on a seriously flawed statistical test, and reached incorrect conclusions on the basis of
that flawed test.
I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific
discourse. He deals in the currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to
conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an “audit” by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the “derived” model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully.
I will be consulting LLNL’s Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming.
I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper, to my immediate
superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE headquarters, and to Professor Glenn McGregor (the editor who was in charge of our paper at IJoC).
I’d be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I’m sorry that the tone of
this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after today’s events, I must assume that
any email I write to you may be subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre’s “Climate Audit” website.
With best personal wishes,
Painful stuff to read. I wonder what MacIntyre said in his FOI requests to get this kind of insulting rhetoric. Perhaps someone was spreading rumors against MacIntyre to other researchers?
without the question/request these are replies to, they are not meaningful AT ALL.
It could be “did you delete data in relation to A” in case of the first reply.
It could be “did you delete data in relation to B” in case of the second reply.
You know that, it’s not that difficult. So unless these opposing replies address the same question, your post has no meaning. Do you mind filling the gap? Thanks.
Steve, not sure where to post this, but I would like some advice please!
I have been looking at several sets of data at NCDC. I have spotted a commonality in most studied so far (not many, as I have just started). The commonality appears to be data recored in early years (early 1900’s for example) have regular TMIN and TMAX information, however, the later years (1990 onwards for example) have regular info for TMAX, but not TMIN.
Can anyone give a reasonable insight as to why this would be and, if it has any effect on deriving mean temperatures?
Would you blacken up the type some, Steve?
I find it too pale to read quickly and comfortably.
Your other site, and Anthony Watts’ site being black on white are much easier to work through.
“I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific discourse. ” Benjamin Santer
Everything I have seen before and following the Hadley disclosures confirms this.
You, Mr. McIntyre, are an arse!
The segment is number 03 and the graph is about 1min 56
He cites Moberg (canny from UEA published in Nature …)
He discusses tree density from about 3:38
I take back everything I said about treemometers: they really do work as long as you look at what they really do and not “hide the decline”
I ran this down after hearing it referenced on the evening news. I can’t vouch for its accuracy, but it might be of some use to you. It appears to be programmer notes made while analyzing an undocumented system.
The Harry_Read_Me.txt file (as of December 1, 2009)
FOIA: The HARRY_READ_ME.txt file has been unavailable at
for the past two days.
The host “di2.nu” is not available per “Ping” command.
This site still works (but I can’t vouch for it):
NetWriter, Steve. “CLIMATEGATE: My analysis of the CRU files, starting with “documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt.” Blog. NeuralNetWriter, November 21, 2009.
Interview Request for Steve McIntyre.
Is it okay to send you a few questions. A few links to my articles are provided in the Website. Please advise. Thanks!
I am a french picture researcher. I would like to send you a reproduction authorization request for Seuil publisher in Paris. Would you be so kind as to let me know an e-mail adress where to contact you.
Thank you very much in advance.
Here are three abstracts of our papers rejected by JGR, Nature and EOS all journals previously published my work.
Perhaps it illustrates the closed nature of the climate community and inability to conduct fieldwork to assess problems
SST IN THREE ABSTRACTS with buckets etc
Discrepancies between two major instrumental tropical Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) datasets approximately coincided with changes in measurement methods from buckets to engine seawater intake (SWI) to satellite and buoy measurements. These data sets are important for ENSO climate trends. We report collection and analysis of hourly SST data from buckets, SWI, full meteorological data, and noon CTD profiles in central Pacific between Marquesas and Hawaiian Islands, May-June 2008. Eighteen observers simulated many archived-data observers. Related satellite, moored and drifting buoy, and Voluntary Observer Ships (VOS) data were obtained for comparison. Differences between wood, canvas and rubber bucket SSTs were insignificant for all 311 records in all conditions, day or night. No evaporative cooling was seen for canvas buckets, consistent with short sample time ~<1 minute and high humidity ~80%. SWI temperatures were 0.3oC±0.2oC cooler than bucket temperatures consistent with the ~3m intake depth, confirmed by noon CTD profiles. Buoy and VOS data were too few to be conclusive but in general agreed with bucket data. There were no differences between moored or drifting buoy data. Later OSTIA datasets including satellite data were in general agreement with bucket temperatures. A surprising weak correlation of 0.24 was observed between bucket SST and dry bulb air temperature. Some archived canvas bucket data were adjusted for evaporative cooling, and archived SWI data adjusted for engine room heating ~0.3oC-0.7oC. We conclude that neither adjustment was justified. Engine room heating is physically unlikely and unproven.
Our field work suggests that discrepancies in sea surface temperature data sets are likely to be found in seawater intake temperature data because bucket and satellite data were found to be in broad general agreement. However, we have shown engine room warming cited as a possible source of seawater intake temperature data error to be negligibly small and the cause of the statistically derived bias remains unclear.
It is reported that an abrupt temperature drop of ~0.3oC in 1945 in data sets used to monitor Earth’s climate may be due to uncorrected biases in sea the surface temperature record from engine room warming of seawater intake1. Seawater intake temperature is used in place of sea surface temperature based on a well-mixed 10m surface layer and suggested warming is based on statistical analysis of simultaneous bucket and seawater intake data 2,3,4,5,6,7. Oceanographic reports suggest engine room warming is not proven and that accuracy of measurement, depth of intake and near-surface thermocline are most important 8,9,10,11,12. Seawater intake depth was not recorded until 1995 and even then by untrained, non-scientist observers 13. Engine room warming and assumption of a 10m well-mixed ocean surface has not been tested by experiment. We show from physical and engineering principles and practical experience that engine room warming is negligible and assumption of a 10m well-mixed ocean is invalid with reported near-surface thermocline gradients ~-0.01-0.3oCm-1. Near-surface thermocline and halocline data contain valuable information and may allow computations of rates of evaporation, precipitation, runoff and ice melt but are poorly studied 14. We suggest that large discontinuities in the mid-twentieth century record may be resolved by completely removing sub-sea surface observations, and that scientists should collect and analyse detailed near-surface salinity-temperature-depth data as priority ground truth for climate change assessment and modelling.
Corrections for non-existent engine room warming of seawater intake (SWI) temperatures caused discrepancies between climate models and probably missed a major shift in sea temperatures. Multidisciplinary Eos brought the climate model problem to our attention. Vecchi et al  report US models indicate more El Niño-like conditions; UK more La Niña-like. This is attributed to transition between surface seawater temperature (SST) measurement methods from buckets to SWI to modern satellite and buoys. SWI engine room warming and evaporative cooling in buckets were suggested errors. As a retired multidisciplinary experimental geophysicist and undergraduate student interested in climate change, we applied Newtonian experimental physics. Experimental data comprising 311 hourly measurements of SST by many methods with simultaneous meteorological and oceanographic data in central Pacific between Tahiti and Hawaii were analysed. There was good agreement between all buckets and modern near-simultaneous constructed satellite-buoy datasets within the limits of monthly averages over 1 degree latitude and longitude. Evaporative cooling was absent due to humidity ~80% and less than 1min sampling times. Engine room heating is impossible with ~1second time to intake thermometers and high volumes. A thermocline depth of 5m with gradient -0.1oC per meter was found. Average correlation between SST and marine air temperature (MAT) was ~0.24. Climate models assume well-mixed ocean to 10m and substitute MAT for SST. Neither assumption was supported by field data. We suggest this arose from reliance on statistical analysis of data from non-professional observers on World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) Voluntary Observing Ships (VOS) scheme and ships’ logs, lack of ground truth and absence of communication across geophysical sciences and peer-review in narrow specialist disciplines. The depth of SWI was not recorded from 1955 to 1995 so is useless as measurement of SST. Peer-review becomes crony-review in very narrow disciplines. Thus wrong assumptions can propagate and appear in text books without challenge from close colleagues. Large numbers of authors may also inhibit challenges. We believe the solution is broad training in Newtonian physics and applied mathematics coupled with multi-disciplinary study, field and laboratory work and a return to scientific method. Theory, experiment, analysis and further refinement is essential. We cite examples of multidisciplinary education and focussed well-managed cross-disciplinary research programs. If basic misconceptions arise when we know the equations, how much more difficult it will be when tackling complex earth systems problems? Climate change is too important to be left to climatologists. We need well managed and funded, tightly-focussed multidisciplinary programs using investigators from many disciplines working cooperatively in future.
Vecchi, G. A., A. Clement, and B. J. Soden (2008), Examining the tropical Pacific’s response to global warming, EOS, 89(9), 81, 83.
Hi J. B.
While I pity any academic who has success limited by unfair reviewers, I want more from your comment.
It would be helpful if you posted some of the comments you got from the reviewers (namely the reasons for rejection). Without that sort of information it would be easy for anyone who is not your friend to discount you as a “sore loser” who is bitter about a flawed paper’s rejection. I am not saying that you are, I am only saying that your post provides insufficient information to prove your rejection was unreasonable.
Another note: Nature really? They mostly publish newsworthy breakthroughs in fields. Your work, while important, does not sound that important.
Sorry if I was to frank in this post.
No offense intended
J B Micawber your research high lights a issue i’ve always had with climate data. Until satellites and modern measuring equipment most methods seem to be arbitrary and lacking accuracy. It also seems to me that there is little regard for determining the sample size and Lat\Long locational distribution for temperature, co2 and other global measurement. Were those types of observations part of your thought process to start your research? To me to get an accurate average earth temperature measurment one would need millions of temperate readings spread around the globe. Would you further argue that maybe all global temperature measurements before satellites are simply subject too to many inconsistencies, errors and poorly and too few in quantity to be accurate enough to make strong conclusions?
I think you are absolutely right, have wondered the same thing myself. I calculate that with spacing and number similar to the US it would take at least 60K world-wide,but satellites should even things out, esp w/comfirm from ARGOS and landside stations.But when you are talking a bout 1-2 degrees C making a big diff. reliance on any global info before about 1995 has to be assumptive and is therefore by definition subject to the character of the assumer, which appears in short supply with the AGore crowd. GS
All it takes for me to determine land-based thermometers are no good for ‘climate’ determination is to ride a motorcycle across the county. *Where* is a meaningful spot to put that pesky instrument?
Since ground temperature (and ground water) reflects average, year-round temperature, why isn’t it used to determine long term changes? Most well logs note the temperature of the aquifer.
If you are studying a phenomenon in the earth’s atmosphere, it would be common sense to measure that air’s temperature. Once a tradition and convention start with measurement, who would think of making things inconsistent.
I see your point about ground temperature having some advantage but it would also bring a host of uncertainties of its own, rising and falling water tables, different soil types est..
Please look at http://www.glaciergirl.com for an offset site to AGores crumbling Greenland glacier. Some US p-38′s had to land in SE GL in 1942, and when Shoffner dug one up in 1992 they had to go down 262′ to get it. Doesn’t seem like any warming there.
snip – editorializing
First time comment, so I may be out of date, but I assume you would have seen this :
Here is the report, obscured by jargon, but with a firm conclusion. It is from
Robert H. Essenhigh Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 April 2009
As far as I can construe it, the conclusion is that while A-bomb tests in the 50s/60s increased CO2 by 1000% above normal, it had returned to normal after 16 years. (A spokes-lady on the BBC claimed that we still have the emissions of the last 200 years!)
Since CO2 lasts in the atmosphere for only 4 years, and not 100, the rise in temperature caused the rise in CO2, and not man-made smoke.
I assume too that you are aware that statements in Germany and the UK confirm that for the last 9-10 years global temperature has been on a plateau – no increase.
I can’t find where to post this – HADCRUT3 and GISTEMP data for 2009 has been added to the model / temp comparison chart at realclimate:
This gives 4 years in a row below the prediction, an unlikely result if the models were predictive. Note that the 2009 data only goes through November!
Subject: The Four Major Rivers Restoration Project in Korea.
Dear Steve McIntyre
Greetings, I am a PR Manager for the Office of National River Restoration, Korea. I have known your blog for a while and very impressed about your efforts in articles and posts related in climate change. It is no doubt that climate change is one of the most urgent agenda nowadays. From this respect, I would like to introduce our governmental green growth initiative – The Four Major River Restoration Project.
On 15 August 2008, at a national address on the 60th anniversary of the Republic of Korea, President Lee Myung-Bak announced a “low-carbon, green growth” strategy as a new vision to guide the nation’s long-term development. Six months later, in January 2009, the Government of the Republic of Korea responded to the deepening recession with an economic stimulus package equivalent to US$ 38.1 billion of which 80 per cent (the highest ratio among comparable packages from other G20 governments) was allocated to environmental themes such as fresh-water, waste, energy-efficient buildings, renewable energies, low-carbon vehicles, and the rail network.
More recently, on 6 July 2009, the Republic of Korea announced a Five-Year Plan for Green Growth to serve as a medium-term plan for implementing the National Strategy for Green Growth over the period 2009-2013. With total funding of US$ 83.6 billion, representing 2 per cent of GDP, this Five-Year Plan intends to turn the strategy into concrete and operational policy initiatives towards achieving green growth.
The Four Major Rivers Restoration Project is one of the major initiatives for achieving the green growth and addressing climate change. In detail, the project is intended to address such water-related problems as recurring floods and droughts caused by climate change and to create riverside cultural facilities in a bid to upgrade the quality of life of residents in adjacent regions. It has begun in January 2009 and comprised an essential part of Korea’s mid-and long-term master plan for green growth including a national strategy and a five-year plan to achieve green growth.
Would it be possible if you could publish our news& information on your blog? If you are interested in knowing more about this project and/or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. We will provide additional reference materials and information.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Dear Mr. McIntyre,
I intend to submit my own book on the climate issue and related affairs to my publisher tomorrow.
Also, I would like to send you an advance copy (as pdf file), for a possible endorsement.
If there is any interest, please confirm by email and a copy will be sent asap. In that case, please also provide your mailing address.
With best regards,
Klaus L.E. Kaiser, Ph.D.
Dear Mr Mcintyre.
I think this should be brought to your attention. It is an article about finance of people arguing against AGW. Seeing as they actually include your picture and website they are saying you are in the pay of Exxon at least that is how I read it.
Agree that financial conflict of interest is a concern. His allies would argue that you should judge him by the quality of his arguments and data rather than his sponsors. This poses a problem since only a minuscule percentage of people have the expertise to fully understand the complexity of this science, let alone figure out why Mac’s arguments may be flawed or correct.
I respect MacIntyre for his successes though.
Hello, I am responding to “your” Facebook site.
Judging from the contents I doubt you even know you have one. While it is great that you have a following on Facebook, I want your position on the global warming issue to be represented accurately.
I agree with Terrence. There are a lot of sources that try to establish an individuals views from one out of context quote. Without a clear, short, freely available online statement you cannot clear confusion easily.
I saw this article on peer review simulations – a pretty good argument for considering overhauling peer review:
nothing new. But their recommendations sound like a replica of the old system. The article did not specify whether the model led to a bias toward accepting weak papers or rejection good ones. If I was judging based on what I have seen published, flawed papers can fly right past a lazy or inattentive reviewer.
In my field authors submit a list of peer reviewers who they want to review their work and the editors normally honor those requests. One would naturally pick reviewers to maximize odds of acceptance. I was under the impression that all fields of science do it that way.
I’d like you to consider posting my blog explaining how greenhouse gases cause the stratosphere to cool on your site. See:
Dudes – how do I contact you? There is no contact info on the blog!
Steve, I don’t seem to be able to post to CA any longer. I’ve tried different browser and different computers, byu8t every time, my comments simply disappear. The only explanation I can come up with is that I’m on a blocked list for your WordPress account. Could this be the case?
Well done, folks. I’m not a scientist but I do have more than two neurons to rub together, and it has been long getting on my nerves being force fed global warming then when that didn’t work, climate change and the related hysteria.
Rarely is any data presented, in pre-massaged form…just as conclusions. Then,using this, I’m told from voices high up atop the soap box, that if I don’t believe in the new messiah, I’m not just dooming myself, but the entire globe.
All I ask from them is to make it make sense. If they’re so damned smart, they must be able to figure out a way to explain their position in such a way as to make it inevitable that I believe it and willingly sip the kool-aid.
I can only conclude they haven’t because they can’t. I hear demands that I believe and dire predictions and warnings if I don’t.
This ain’t my first rodeo…if you lay it down, and it adds up, I’ll get it.
So thanks again, folks…introducing logic, reason and data that makes sense. I’ve been burned as a witch before so continuing my pariah-hood ain’t no thang.
Steve, don’t know if it’s important or not, but Firefox is giving me an “Invalid Security Certificate” for Climate Audit, and I’ve never gotten that message before. I was accessing from a link within a WordPress automated email (I had subscribed to updates on a thread). Perhaps something needs to be renewed or corrected with the site certificate…..
Steve, Skiphil’s comment also happens to me. Is there any way to solve this? Or is it with Firefox only?
AT ARM’S LENGTH or
THE CONSENSUS ON THE CONSENSUS
I found last night this amazing gem, in an obscure Doha newspaper
Climate Change panel chief says ‘not invited to COP18’
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will not be attending the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP18/CMP8) in Doha, chairman Dr Rajendra K Pachauri has said.
“For the first time in the 18 years of COP, the IPCC will not be attending, because we have not been invited,” he told Gulf Times in Doha.
COP18 is to be held from November 26 to December 7.
This was a nice article.
I’d love to see your comments.
Based solely on year-over-year changes in surface temperatures, the net increase since 1881 is fully explainable as a non-independent random walk with no trend.
Hi Steve! How do I contact you? I’ve already explored your website but I can’t find a way to contact you. I would like to donate and put a banner on the sidebar if it’s just okay. I thought this is the best place to tell you.
Please reply to me by email if you have the time.\
Oh I just found the contact page. Sorry for that.
Will email you now…
I tried to email this but it bounced so will post it here in case others have comments:
Environment Canada Data: How reliable is it?
Some years ago while working as an civil engineer I used EC weather and stream flow data. I started to get concerned about changes in data from year to year. Temperature and rainfall data used to be readily available and well presented. Gradually it became obfuscated. I think it is still available and probably in improved form, but only if you know how to get at it.
Doesn’t matter for me as I have been retired for 11 years but whenever I see pronouncements from EC about the change in our climate, I have doubts after having had to use their information and watch it change over the years both in content and presentation. EC seems to have become an alarmist organization.
I also note that information put out by different parts of EC doesn’t always agree. They couch their presentations with modifiers that make the data almost meaningless.
They say winters have warmed 3.2, 3.6, 4.9 degrees C over the last 65 years (depending on source or adjectives used). Some of this may be due to media interpretation and spin, though they claim they are quoting EC staff.
Now, from an engineering perspective, much of their alarmist data is meaningless as we are more interested in 50, 100, 200, 500, or 1000 year events along with a cost analysis of differences so annual variations don’t mean a lot, nor do short term trends.
However, having seen odd changes in the base data over the years and having tromped about the woods looking at physical evidence to verify design decisions as I am sure you have, I worry that EC data is suspect.
Have you had any experience comparing their published information with raw data?
By the way, thank you so much for all your work in demonstrating the difference between sound science and sloppy science.
You are one of the people who have made a difference in this world.
Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 429 other followers