ClimateGate - James Follett interviewed by Echan Deravy

[drkstrong]

How could McIntyre analyze the data if he was not given the data.

the reason why CRU did not have to give anyone the data is that under british law theya re not required to if the data is available elsewhere.

And it is: Go to NOAA NCDC and you can have all the climate data from CRU, GISS and hundreds of other national data sets. Go there now and try it. It has been available witht he analysis codes for 2 decades.

[magnusea]

@drkstrong Lots of data McIntyre analyzed of course, but since strange things happened with official data (synthesis, not raw data) he needed raw data to analyze errors or whatever... Canada okay, and data also asked for by a brit citizen but refused... This was data needed to reveal strange behavior. Official GISS and CRU not raw data either. That's okay, but they've made adjustments changing official data and don't release adjustment code. I've seen this since 2 decades. /Br, Magnus

[drkstrong]

@magnusea The raw data is available from other sources - you can get it yourself just as I said - all you need to do is ask for it as McIntrye could have done (and pay a small processing fee). Neither CRU nor GISS are required to release their codes - they are not official national data repositories. NOAA and the Met office are, they have the data available and release their codes - always have. The attempts to get data out of GISS and CRU were merely attempts to harrass them & waste their time.

[climatereview]

Thanks for the comments, gents.

"The two MMs [edit: McIntyre and McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

09:41 AM 2/2/2005 Phil Jones - Head of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit

[drkstrong]

@climatereview Fine - did he delete the file - no.

Jones was under no obligation to give them the data as he revealed in an email (which the climate gate conspiracy theorists love to forget about about) as it is available elsewhere (one of the loop holes in the UK FOIA). He was also found by several enquires to have done nothing wrong. M&M omitted critical dat to reinstate the medeival warm period.

[magnusea]

@drkstrong Standard argument which deceives the public! Yes, station's raw data is available! The problem is that analysis is completely dependent on a precise subset of stations included. Jones had the numbers only important for the global temp record but refused the FOI. You in the "alarmosphere" (including RC with Gavin Smidth, as well as Phil Jones) all use this deceiving argument, and you have deceiving arguments for any situations. But you can't deny you're deceivers.

[drkstrong]

@magnusea Actualy the analysis is not done that way - they take all the stations and do random subset analysis against a set of well calibrated reference stations. They then locate and eliminate stations that show atypical variations, noise, spikes, or offsets (in some cases they can correct for these effects) and regird the data to a uniform (in area) pixel map (a few hundred kms). See Smith and Reyonds papers (ref in NOAA NCDC). They itterate until they converge on a self consisten result.

[magnusea]

@drkstrong Btw you didn't deceive me with that argument, as you noticed. But you tried and you may deceive the public if I hadn't been very well aware of this case. (Btw I'm also happen to be a university engineer within physics.)

[drkstrong]

@magnusea No deception except perhaps in your case - self deception. BTW I happen to be a Phd in astrophyscis (with speciality in Solar Physics) who researched Sun's role in climate change

I suggest you change universities & find one that teaches you to think critically rather than conspiratorally (is that a word?!). Listen to what Follett actually says, check every word and you will find that he is the deciever. In case you did not know, he works for the energy industry - say no more, squire

[DownNWO]

@drkstrong You can be the most educated person in the world but that still doesn't mean that you are a HONEST one.

In your case, I know that you are one of the biggest shithead scums I have ever seen.

What else can I say about someone who pushes DEPOPULATION agenda.

Your company faked the Moon landing so what do you expect ?

That someone trusts you ?

Here is what you said 20 years ago:

h t t p : // tiny.cc / ei27d

So, it is not the Sun any more it is people.

Scum.

[climatereview]

@drkstrong

Agreed, the coal industry is naturally sceptical to "Global Warming"; preservation of their self-interests is perfectly understandable.

True, I do work for the energy industry and could be considered biased. However, perhaps ironically, I actually work in for the Renewables sector. I actively came to the debate 4 years ago as an unbiased observer to report back the lay of the land to the powers that be - I became sceptical through extensive research into both sides of the debate.

[drkstrong]

@climatereview I would love to know what research could lead you to be a skeptic - the real research (not blogs and YouTube rants) all points the other way.