Joeboy

193 ms·

1921.
by Joeboy 17y ago
fwiw, for me it defaulted almost everything to "everyone", which was a bit alarming. Don't know why we'd have had different experiences. Maybe they panicked and changed it?
1922.
by Joeboy 17y ago
I thought postcode (PAF) data was owned by Royal Mail, not the OS?
1923.
Director of Climatic Research Unit standing down pending review(uea.ac.uk)
12 points by Joeboy 17y ago|1 comments
1924.
by Joeboy 17y ago
FTA: "Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s". What part of that makes it sound like this data was lost more recently than the 1980s?
1925.
by Joeboy 17y ago
> Citation please? http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6789 quotes them saying they no longer had the raw data in August. > why didn't they say as much in their statement about the loss? When exactly did they not say this? They say it
1926.
by Joeboy 17y ago
> He just conspired with his fellow scientists for 20 years to frustrate all attempts to bring that fact to light. Not as far as I know. My recollection is that CRU responded to requests for raw data in the past by saying they didn't ha
1927.
by Joeboy 17y ago
I agree with you, although I suspect most of the people criticizing the CRU aren't going to respond well to the suggestion that an extra billion dollars is required for climate research.
1928.
by Joeboy 17y ago
> How do you know? Can you provide links to some? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php I'm afraid I don't have time to document the circumstances under which they were collect
1929.
by Joeboy 17y ago
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article693... implies the loss happened long before Jones wrote that email, and not on his watch.
1930.
by Joeboy 17y ago
Thanks for that. However, the inclusion of this graph still doesn't demonstrate that the report is 'based on' the missing raw data. There are plenty of other datasets they could have chosen that would have shown the same thing.
1931.
by Joeboy 17y ago
> Apparently, you aren't supposed to know that IPCC's climate change reports are based on raw data that was lost some time in the 1980s. I honestly don't know to what extent, if any, any of the IPCC's reports rely that data, but strongl
1932.
by Joeboy 17y ago
> if permissions are truly being refused because of the "economic value of the data", then the fact that this data is unavailable is quite significant. No one would put up a fight over releasing insignificant data Its significance is th
1933.
by Joeboy 17y ago
The email you're referring to is fairly embarrassing, but not being able to supply some source data from ~25 years ago still doesn't exactly look like a smoking gun to me. Storage was much more expensive and unwieldy back then.
1934.
by Joeboy 17y ago
Ok, so it's the 1980s, climate change isn't a particularly politically hot issue, you have several cupboards full of paper and magnetic tape which nobody has touched for a couple of years because you have better, corrected data. That that d
1935.
by Joeboy 17y ago
> the lawyers could decide whether the FOI request or the license won. ...and if the FOI won you wouldn't be able to get data anymore. I don't understand what you're getting at with your second paragraph.
1936.
by Joeboy 17y ago
Last I heard they'd abandoned the raw data at some point in the '80s during an office move. Which is obviously less than ideal with hindsight but doesn't strike me as suspicious, as some seem to be suggesting. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
1937.
by Joeboy 17y ago
Does anybody know what, if any, published work this data has made it into?
1938.
by Joeboy 17y ago
Can anybody tell me what, if any, published work this data has made it into?
1939.
by Joeboy 17y ago
The data in question dates from the 1980s. You couldn't "walk down to the local store and buy an external hard drive", and if you could a gigabyte of storage would cost you tens of thousands of pounds. Google didn't exist.
1940.
by Joeboy 17y ago
As I understand it their license to (some of) the data did not permit them to do so.
1941.
by Joeboy 17y ago
> if they are colluding to change the results of a study paid for with public monies What study? Are you referring to the fact that at some point they drew a graph that updated data extrapolated from tree ring data with actual data from