ClimateGate and the Climatati

[waldo]

Maybe not to you but there may be a reasonable explanation.

there is an explanation... it's just one the clownish shit-throwers like Shady don't want to hear - or acknowledge. We've been over this now several times on MLW, relative to "hiding the decline" (as in hiding it in plain sight). This relates, again, to the intensely studied divergence problem within dendroclimatology relative to certain tree species above certain northerly latitudes, post 1960... and... this is early code belonging to the dendroclimatologist, Briffa.

why... Briffa was so clever he actually documented his earlier code to reinforce what he was doing... and... he clearly articulated that in his published papers... imagine, such cleverness... in opening describing the issue and steps taken. Example: from the Briffa et al, 1998 paper - Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?, that speaks directly to the divergence problem:

The implications of this phenomenon [divergence between MXD and measured temperatures] are important. Long-term alteration in the response of tree growth to climate forcing must, at least to some extent, negate the underlying assumption of uniformitarianism which under-lies the use of twentieth century-derived tree growth climate equations for retrodiction of earlier climates. At present, further work is required to explore the detailed nature of this changing growth climate relationship” (with regard to species, region, and time dependence). It is possible that it has already contributed to some degree of overestimation in published reconstructed temperature means more likely only those that attempt to reconstruct long time-scale information.

However, in various earlier work, we either made empirical correction for apparently reducing recent MXD (Briffa et al. 1992), or undertook detailed analysis of regression weight-stability and calibration and verification-period regression residuals when fitting regressions over earlier and recent data (Briffa et al. 1995). These analyses did not indicate the likelihood of a bias in these reconstructions,

but future reconstruction work must either find a satisfactory means of correcting for any recent (non-climatic) tree-growth bias or be calibrated against data that do not include it. However, by further reducing the overlap between instrumental temperatures and tree-growth records, the opportunities for independent verification of the low-frequency (multi-decadal and longer) component of temperature reconstructions are also further reduced.

just imagine his cleverness in publishing an acknowledgement about "empirical correction" - oh my... he's so clever even Shady caught him (notwithstanding, as as been stated previously, Briffa proved that the inclusion or exclusion of the small subset of trees from that single area within Russia, the ones that did show evidence of divergence, did not affect his reconstruction)

some of the shit throwing clowns are still at it... but now it's simply recycled shit. This particular gem has been exhaustively beat upon many times over. Even the staunchest of the clownish shit-throwers don't even bother with this anymore. C'mon, Shady... time to step up your game!

[eyeball]

You're the skeptic. So is Michael H. You're both presented with clear evidence of malfeasance, yet you're skeptical, and refuse to believe it. Why? Because you don't want to believe it. Because it goes against your politics and ideology. So you sweep it aside, making excuse after excuse for every new drop of dishonesty that becomes available.

I've been presented with one or two little drops of so-called dishonesty against an ocean of other evidence and consensus.

The original data's been deleted - probably taken out of context.

I'll delete our data if they find out about the freedom of information act - must be taken out of context.

Hide the decline - must be taken out of context.

Apply a trick - it's just a statistic and scientific term

Can't find the reason for the lack of warming - must be take out of context.

Warming models with programmed "fudge factors" - must be an explanation, we just need to wait and see what they tell us.

There's a credible study contradicting warming, please help me discredit it, and make sure it's not published - must be taken out of context.

Do you see how foolish you all look?

You're talking about one small group of scientists, and one or two small drops of...what might amount to little more than bad judgement, maybe. Do you see how alarmed you look? Get a grip. Edited December 16, 2009 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

The mathematical issues have explanations. If there are gaps there, it's likely just sloppiness. Think about it, if there were a true cover-up of the proportions necessary for a conspiracy you'd see a lot more damning comments than this.

Again, you are missing the context. Before SteveMc and RossMc came along climate scientists never had to show their code to anyone so they had no incentive to follow the most basic QA process when it comes to software development. If they needed to add a little fudge factor in they could get away with it because no one would ever know.

I realize that you still want to believe that scientists are these superhumans dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge but the facts simply do not support that belief. That is why we need to open up the process and require that climate scientists adhere to the same QA and review procedures that we would expect from engineers building a bridge or nuclear plant.

It will likely turn out that the majority of scientists were reasonably honest but we have so much riding on this science that we can no longer afford to take their word - they need to prove it by adopting clear and transparent processes.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Again, you are missing the context. Before SteveMc and RossMc came along climate scientists never had to show their code to anyone so they had no incentive to follow the most basic QA process when it comes to software development. If they needed to add a little fudge factor in they could get away with it because no one would ever know.

I realize that you still want to believe that scientists are these superhumans dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge but the facts simply do not support that belief. That is why we need to open up the process and require that climate scientists adhere to the same QA and review procedures that we would expect from engineers building a bridge or nuclear plant.

It will likely turn out that the majority of scientists were reasonably honest but we have so much riding on this science that we can no longer afford to take their word - they need to prove it by adopting clear and transparent processes.

I don't think it requires superhuman ability to do your job without being corrupt. It's superhuman to do your job perfectly, but not to do it adequately. I have already agreed that we need to open up the process, btw, but there are problems with releasing the data as has been noted.

Engineers and nuclear plants are inspected and inspection - like peer review - is the best way to assure that the results are sound.

[waldo]

Here's an interesting youtube video that is an entry for the 2010 Grantham environment awards......I've often wanted to see the difference in temperatures between rural and urban climate stations.....to try to demonstrate the urban heat effect in a way that a layman could understand. It's simple and concise....draw your own conclusions:

the conclusion I will draw is that you're either too lazy to search MLW or you just like recycling misleading and false suggestion/inference. Wait - oh my! Simple... that linked previous MLW post is actually a reply to you in one of your earlier attempts to cast doubt on surface temperatures with your "urban heat islands" myth. But here you are... again! Simple, simple, simple...

another conclusion I will draw is that anyone can claim 2010 Grantham entry status... anyone can enter... you can't actually find anything from Grantham about entries prior to the actual 2010 judgment (the winner, those awarded merit)... just who might be behind this video - draw your own conclusions

[Riverwind]

I don't think it requires superhuman ability to do your job without being corrupt.

There is a huge grey area in climate science that allows people to manipulate results and claim there was some pseudo-scientific rational. If many scientists believe they careers will benefit by supporting the IPCC political agenda then you will find that many make those judgement calls in ways that bias the science in that direction - a bias that is a concern even if it is not 'corrupt' per se.

Engineers and nuclear plants are inspected and inspection - like peer review - is the best way to assure that the results are sound.

Inspections are NOT done by peers. They are done by outside regulatory agencies that have a duty to oversee the work. More importantly, every engineer knows that if something goes wrong they will have to defend their work in front of hostile lawyers in a court of law. This threat is what ultimately provides the incentive to follow the correct processes even if no one is looking. Edited December 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

There is a huge grey area in climate science that allows people to manipulate results and claim there was some pseudo-scientific rational. If many scientists believe they careers will benefit by supporting the IPCC political agenda then you will find that many make those judgement calls in ways that bias the science in that direction - a bias that is a concern even if it is not 'corrupt' per se.

of course, whenever you're challenged to actually state what data has been manipulated, you never bother to come back with anything. Same ole, same ole. You've now (just) added a twist, attaching pseudo-scientific rational as presumed justification. In any case, same request - same challenge, with your now additional caveat that would presume to equate - and show - the presumed justifications to presumed manipulation as being based in pseudo-science.

the IPCC process is completely transparent - everything reviewed, everything commented on, everything decided upon, everything published is available including full minutes of significant meetings. The IPCC process is so open, it even asked the infamous Mc&Mc to be reviewers... it even reviewed their weighty single paper authority (snark), and acknowledged it formally in the report.

[Riverwind]

of course, whenever you're challenged to actually state what data has been manipulated, you never bother to come back with anything.

Take a look at any of Mann's papers. The gross manipulations in them have been well documented in and out of peer reviewed literature.

the IPCC process is completely transparent

The IPCC does not do science. It simply combs the literature looking for papers that support its view and then coming up with excuses to ignore the ones that don't. It took an outsider to uncover the fraud called MBH98 which was the centerpiece of the IPCC report. Edited December 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

There is a huge grey area in climate science that allows people to manipulate results and claim there was some pseudo-scientific rational. If many scientists believe they careers will benefit by supporting the IPCC political agenda then you will find that many make those judgement calls in ways that bias the science in that direction - a bias that is a concern even if it is not 'corrupt' per se.

Inspections are NOT done by peers. They are done by outside regulatory agencies that have a duty to oversee the work. More importantly, every engineer knows that if something goes wrong they will have to defend their work in front of hostile lawyers in a court of law. This threat is what ultimately provides the incentive to follow the correct processes even if no one is looking.

Engineers check the work of engineers, mathematicians check the work of mathematicians. The guiding principle is that you put your reputation on the line with your work, so you're expected to do the best job you can - and that goes for the researchers and the people checking their work.

This is how science has worked for a long time, and it mostly works. Once in awhile you will get an outlier iconoclast who turns out to be right, but that's the exception.

[waldo]

Take a lot at any of Mann's papers. The gross manipulations in them have been well documented in and out of peer reviewed literature.

The IPCC does not do science. It simply combs the literature looking for papers that support its view and then coming up with excuses to ignore the ones that don't. It took an outsider to uncover the fraud called MBH98 which was the centerpiece of the IPCC report.

for you (and your guy McIntyre) it all comes down to attempting to vindicate McIntyre for the beat-down he, McIntyre, took over MBH98... that his much ballyhooed, rather inconsequential, PCA analysis aspect, the McIntyre "ta da", actually meant diddly to the MBH98 reconstruction results. You just can't accept Mann's exoneration that played itself out, over and over, by actual published papers from Mann and others... proving that PCA had no impact on the original MBH reconstruction. The original reconstruction that, in itself, was ground-breaking as one of the first... that included many expressed caveats and uncertainties - that were pointedly and categorically ignored by the Mc&Mc dolts. Again, that you're still fixated and stuck back in time... reliving McIntyre's broken-hockey stick fiasco. How telling!

you're a total disingenuous hack / pimp for McIntyre... perhaps you could qualify your fraud statement, particularly in terms of what (McIntyre claims) the real affect/impact principal-component analysis actually had upon the MBH reconstruction. (oh... and don't forget about the upside-down Tijander )

[Riverwind]

The guiding principle is that you put your reputation on the line with your work, so you're expected to do the best job you can - and that goes for the researchers and the people checking their work.

Engineers can be sued and even lose their right to work as an engineer for shoddy work. They have a lot more at stake than their reputations. If scientists faced the same consequences as engineers I would have more confidence in their work.

[Michael Hardner]

Engineers can be sued and even lose their right to work as an engineer for shoddy work. They have a lot more at stake than their reputations. If scientists faced the same consequences as engineers I would have more confidence in their work.

They could lose their credentials, yes, and that's what we're talking about - your credentials, your reputation and so forth. You should at least wait until the investigation is over before embarking on a redesign of a process that has long served us well.

[Riverwind]

McIntyre, took over MBH98... that his much ballyhooed, rather inconsequential, PCA analysis aspect

McIntyre showed that the MBH98 reconstruction had no statistical significance - i.e. it provides no information about the past and is no more interesting than a drawing made by a 3 year old. You endlessly obsess about the effect on the shape when that was never the issue. Edited December 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

They could lose their credentials, yes, and that's what we're talking about - your credentials, your reputation and so forth.

No - losing your reputation means nothing if you have buddies that will still hire you. Losing your credentials means nobody can legally hire you. There is a huge difference.

You should at least wait until the investigation is over before embarking on a redesign of a process that has long served us well.

All of the investigations are under the control of institutions who want the issue to be swept under the carpet. I have no confidence that they will give the issues the airing they need.

Aside: I also think your claim that the 'process that has long served us well' is not supportable by facts. Can you provide any examples where peer review was used as the only means of verifying science before it was used in a way that affects the public? In all cases that I can think of the science has to go through the hands of engineers or medical regulatory bodies before it can be used outside of academia.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Here are 4 more examples of research that was suppressed by the CRU scientists. http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/climategatekeeping/

One of which has been confirmed by the Russians:

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/iearussia-hadley-center-probably-tampered-with-russian-climate-data/#more-9576

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[jbg]

With Watergate, see, there was this investigation thing that happened. It's not a matter of defending anyone, but - as with Watergate - giving them a chance to explain themselves.

I don't understand why you're not willing to wait for an explanation before making your mind up.

I don't want to repost the thread starter, again, of Al Gore ducking debate in Denmark two years ago. But the fact is that the proponents of the "chicken little" global warming panic are remarkably not open to debate with scientists who can refute them. I'd be more willing to listen to an explanation if they explained anything.

[Shady]

Engineers can be sued and even lose their right to work as an engineer for shoddy work. They have a lot more at stake than their reputations. If scientists faced the same consequences as engineers I would have more confidence in their work.

You're exactly right. Scientists who's work is used to formulate policy that lowers our standard of living should be eligible for class action lawsuits should their work be found incorrect and/or faulty. I think it's only fair.

It would prevent much of the current shenanigans going on.

[Shady]

Another Climategate bombshell. Michael H, and the rest of you. Get your excuses ready......NOW!

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research

Link

And then there's this beauty of an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann (probably taken out of context of course! )

UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it

wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either

appears

I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

Cheers

Phil

Just more dissenting views crushed by the likes of Jones n Mann. Another example of "peer review" that the true believers want us to value so much.

[eyeball]

Another Climategate bombshell. Michael H, and the rest of you. Get your excuses ready......NOW!

Well, its not an excuse but...I guess it figures.

For those of you who have not yet stumbled across his oeuvre before, James Delingpole does a nice turn over on the Telegraph blogs as a rent-a-quote climate change sceptic and good all-round right-wing contrarian...

...Now that we've established his credentials to the uninitiated,

Source

[Riverwind]

Well, its not an excuse but...I guess it figures.

All you come up with is an ad hom? Skeptics have long been suspicious about the Russian stations - especially since problems were already found with the selection of Chinese stations. The CRU emails and this analysis from a Russian group merely confirm what was already suspected.

All of these temperature records need to be completely reconstructed from the raw data with all of the selections/adjustments done in the open.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

Another Climategate bombshell. Michael H, and the rest of you. Get your excuses ready......NOW!

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

oh snap! Pleeaassseeee - not another Shady "bombshell"... particularly one that's size 4 text bolded... that's HUGE!

when this little gem gets dumped, timed to the arrival of world leaders at Copenhagen, skeptical spidey senses are alerted. We see bold pronouncements across the deniersphere that "the Russians confirm". However, these confirming Russians are associated with a Russian economic/politico 'think tank', the "Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA)" - something akin to the Heartland Institute or the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The director of IEA, Andrei Nikoleyvich Illarionov, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who's on record with such telling statements like: "No link has been established between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change"... like... "Kyoto is killing off the world economy like an "international Auschwitz".

so what we have are economists, agenda driven economists, doing analysis of climate change data... and timing the release of that analysis for maximum (presumed) impact at Copenhagen - an analysis that would presume to show a meaningful temperature difference relative to a reduced selection of reporting stations (121 of 476 available stations)... a difference the preceding graphic shows would appear to be isolated to the 19th century. Preliminary response from RC highlights no discerning difference in temperature over the most recent 50 years, coupled with a statement that, (even accepting to the unknown analyis methodology used by the Russian IEA (agenda driven economists)), their analysis shows basically the same 20th century temperature trend that the CRU data shows. RC speculates that the rationale behind choosing a reduced set of stations, might relate to instrument/metadata changes the Russian IEA (agenda driven economists) would have no familiarity with. But why should something like that stop economists from doing analysis of data they have no familiarity with - duh!

coincidentally, RC presented today, an independent assessment done on the CRU data - one that compared CRU CRUTEM3v data to raw data from World Monthly Surface Station Climatology... with comparison results that showed warming with trends that are statistically identical between the CRU data and the raw data (>99% confidence); i.e. there are no problems with the CRU data.

yabut, Shady... given your bombshell, would you like this CRU data scrapped? Although, I'm sure you must know that, of the major independent temperature datasets out there, the CRU data shows the (relative) least warming as compared to others. Should we get rid of that one Shady... the one that shows the least warming, relatively speaking?

[waldo]

All of these temperature records need to be completely reconstructed from the raw data with all of the selections/adjustments done in the open.

all the temperature datasets are available, some for many years now... all the adjustments made are documented and based on methodologies set out within published papers. There are many web sites and individuals that toil away comparing the independent datasets to the raw data - they live and breathe for the regular monthly release updates... many of them tying these updates back to IPCC SRES scenarios, looking for consistency, or not - you know this.

[waldo]

excellent - Shady's on the case... although we've touched upon both of these aspects previously on MLW, citing actual scientific information/study, would you care to provide the support to your claims that:

Shady claim #1. the polar ice is not melting

Shady claim #2. antarctic ice is growing

Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered - "Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007." Link

Arctic Ice to Last Decades Longer Than Thought? - This year's cooler-than-expected summer means the Arctic probably won't experience ice-free summers until 2030 or 2040, scientists say. Some models had previously predicted that the Arctic could be ice free in summer by as soon as 2013, due to rising temperatures from global warming. Link

I tell ya, I'm shocked! Can you believe their model was off? Where have we heard that before?

Perhaps if they constructed models without "fudge factors" in them, they'd be a little more accurate!

you should actually read your first linked article... that refutes itself through its own comment/editorial update. In any case, you need to get more timely/representative

=>

National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

-

Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark

At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.

which itself has been supplanted with a more significant and timely update/study, as previously linked to and discussed within MLW:

=>

'Permanent' Arctic ice vanishing - Satellite images misled shocked scientists

Multi-year sea ice used to cover 90 per cent of the Arctic basin, Barber said. It now covers 19 per cent. Where it used to be up to 10 metres thick, it's now 2 metres at most.

The findings, soon to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters

, come as a shock to experts worldwide.

Although northern sea ice hit a record low in 2007, researchers believed it was recovering because of what they were seeing on satellite images.

But the images the experts relied on were misleading because the rotten ice looks sturdy on the surface and has a similar superficial temperature, Barber explained.

"The satellites give us only part of the story. The multi-year ice is disappearing and it's almost all gone now from the northern hemisphere."

And...

Report: Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking

-

"Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap."

Link

Does growing sea ice in Antarctica bode well for the future?

-

"The area covered by Antarctica's sea ice has indeed expanded over the past two decades."

Link

Um, shouldn't you "experts" already know this?

Normally I'd be hesitant in accepting your first linked Fox News reference... doubly so as it, in turn, references from the equally ill-reputed Australian publication; however, in this case it works out quite well given the linked article presumes to rely on a, "

paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

"

Point in fact, the paper as published does no such thing... and, of course, Shady... you seem to have bypassed reference to Greenland all together (typically, discussed in contextual relation to the Arctic):

=>

British Antarctic Survey

-

Lasers from space show thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets

Reporting this week in the journal Nature researchers from British Antarctic Survey and the University of Bristol describe how analysis of millions of NASA satellite measurements* from both of these vast ice sheets shows that the most profound ice loss is a result of glaciers speeding up where they flow into the sea.

The authors conclude that this ‘dynamic thinning’ of glaciers now reaches all latitudes in Greenland, has intensified on key Antarctic coastlines, is penetrating far into the ice sheets’ interior and is spreading as ice shelves thin by ocean-driven melt. Ice shelf collapse has triggered particularly strong thinning that has endured for decades.

=>

Nature

-

Extensive dynamic thinning on the margins of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets

Here we report the use of high-resolution ICESat (Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite) laser altimetry to map change along the entire grounded margins of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. To isolate the dynamic signal, we compare rates of elevation change from both fast-flowing and slow-flowing ice with those expected from surface mass-balance fluctuations. We find that dynamic thinning of glaciers now reaches all latitudes in Greenland, has intensified on key Antarctic grounding lines, has endured for decades after ice-shelf collapse, penetrates far into the interior of each ice sheet and is spreading as ice shelves thin by ocean-driven melt. In Greenland, glaciers flowing faster than 100 m yr-1 thinned at an average rate of 0.84 m yr-1, and in the Amundsen Sea embayment of Antarctica, thinning exceeded 9.0 m yr-1 for some glaciers. Our results show that the most profound changes in the ice sheets currently result from glacier dynamics at ocean margins.

Shady's claims... busted! Apparently, Shady's models and fudge factors were off - in spite of his puffed up display of confidence and bravado

[Riverwind]

all the temperature datasets are available, some for many years now... all the adjustments made are documented and based on methodologies set out within published papers. There are many web sites and individuals that toil away comparing the independent datasets to the raw data - they live and breathe for the regular monthly release updates... many of them tying these updates back to IPCC SRES scenarios, looking for consistency, or not - you know this.

All of your statements are false in different ways. Some of the raw data may have been available but the exact sub-set stations used to create the indexes was not public. The code that was only released by GISS after considerable pressure by sceptics is crap and has taken some time to even get it to run. That has been done now and it will take some time to figure out how the biases affect the result. At this point in time is looks like not-so-random removal of stations from the GISS record have had the effect of increasing the trend - this is the exact behavoir that the Russians have accused CRU of doing.

Bottom line is it is going to take more than some seat of the pants analysis on RC to establish how much the temperature records have been corrupted (the MetOffice says it will take 3 years to rebuild HadCRUT). In the meantime, climate scientists like the folks at RC and CRU do not have any business asking the public to trust their numbers. They have no credibility outside of the true believers at this point.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[Wild Bill]

Bottom line is it is going to take more than some seat of the pants analysis on RC to establish how much the temperature records have been corrupted (the MetOffice says it will take 3 years to rebuild HadCRUT). In the meantime, climate scientists like the folks at RC and CRU do not have any business asking the public to trust their numbers. They have no credibility outside of the true believers at this point.

RW, perhaps you can answer a question for me. Much is being made about the recent increase in sea ice surface area to be the result of "poor" or thin ice. This is given as an implication that the Arctic is still on the road to being rapidly ice-free.

Wouldn't it take a few years to re-build an ice sheet as thick as formerly? Wouldn't a 2 metre thickness be normal over a span of just a couple of years? Surely to regain an original thickness of 10 metres as one poster has suggested would take longer than just one or two seasons!

Isn't the present thickness and quality of the returning sea ice normal for the time span involved? Is it not fair to consider it indicative of the process of ice recovery?