Rosegate: Rose does to data what he does to scientists

David Rose is notorious for fabricating quotes to misrepresent scientists. Now he’s doing the same thing to climate data. The UK Met Office recently reported that 2010 is “on track to become first or second warmest in the instrumental record”. Rose sprung into action, wrting a news story denying that global warming is happening. Rose claims:

Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.

Who to believe, David Rose or your lying eyes?

i-ca4da6dfda354045005fb75aae665e43-nhshgl2010prelim.png

(Graph above has anomaly for 2010 up to end of October in a lighter colour)

Rose continues:

They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system’s acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all.

Thus providing another example of why journalists need to learn statistics. You just have to look at the graph above to see that it has warmed since 1995. What Rose has misunderstood is what statistical significance means. Because the temperature has random ups and downs on top of the long term warming trend, you need about 16 years to conclude (with 95% confidence) that a trend in those 16 years is not a result of chance. So if the only temperature data we had was 1995-2009 (15 years!) we couldn’t conclude with 95% confidence that there was a trend. But we also couldn’t conclude (as Rose wants to do) that there is no trend — there simply isn’t enough data for a firm conclusion. But we have more data than just 1995-2009, so we can conclude (with greater than 95% confidence) that there is a warming trend.

In fact, since we have data for 2010 now, it is even now true that we have statistically signficant warming since 1995.

Rose then attempts a gotcha:

But though it was still successfully trying to influence media headlines during Cancun last week by saying that 2010 might yet end up as the warmest year, the small print reveals the Met Office climbdown. Last year it predicted that the 2010 average would be 14.58C. Last week, this had been reduced to 14.52C.

That may not sound like much.

Because it isn’t. Their prediction was only out by 0.06, which is really close. They even said when they made the prediction that their average error was 0.06. Compre that with David Rose’s [prediction that 2010 was the start of the mini ice age. Rose wasn’t brave enough to give a number, but presumably he was, at the very least, predicting that 2010 would be colder than 2008. The 2008 temperature was 14.31, so Rose was out by much much more than the Met Office.

Rose’s story contains many more errors. George Monbiot has taken advantage of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team to correct many more of the them. Read his fact check here.

Comments

#1 Wow
December 8, 2010

> Rose does to data what he does to scientists

And he never asks first…
#2 Arthur Smith
December 8, 2010

For the record, my guess at 2010 global average temps (made in February 2008) is far better than either the Hadley Center’s or Rose’s

http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/my_predictive_powers_continue_to_astound

Not that I expect my winning streak to continue, but I think it’s high time we held so-called “skeptics” feet to the fire with actual numeric predictions and see how well they do compared to the actual warming we’re seeing….
#3 Arthur Smith
December 8, 2010

Ok – fixed link – sorry about that!
#4 Phila
December 8, 2010

My favorite part of Rose’s article is his reference to Phil Jones’ “little-noticed BBC online interview.”
#5 AmandaS
December 8, 2010

I’ll be waiting to see if Rose’s article is in today or tomorrow’s Australian. It would have to be close to a certainty that it will turn up soon.
#6 Robert
December 8, 2010

David Rose is notorious for fabricating quotes to misrepresent scientists. Now he’s doing the same thing to climate data.

Well, I agree misrepresenting the data isn’t good but it’s not as bad as when Lindzen actually manipulated, not just misrepresented, the data for a figure.
#7 cbp
December 8, 2010

I noticed this video in which ['Anderson Cooper humiliates a willfully ignorant birther'](http://videosift.com/video/Anderson-Cooper-humiliates-a-willfully-ignorant-birther) and laughed at the parallel with what we are seeing in the realm of climate science – today’s Deltoid post being the perfect example, with once again Tim Lambert humiliating a willfully ignorant climate change denialist.
#8 Donald Oats
December 8, 2010

You beat me to it, AmandaS: Oz to repeat? is like a rhetorical question; of course they will!

Thanks again to Tim Lambert, we are once again able to confidently see the modern politics-trumps-truth style of journalism in full regalia. What on Earth possesses individuals like Rose (apart from a big paycheck, I mean) to keep doing this?
#9 Paul UK
December 8, 2010

Daily Mail comments policy states:
“Libellous and abusive comments are not allowed.”

hmmm, double standards?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard

“The term double standard, coined in 1912, refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, typically without a good reason for having said difference.”
#10 Observer
December 8, 2010

In order to sustain their position, genuine skeptics do not need to misrepresent or manipulate accepted data produced by climate scientists. They produce new theories supported by empirical or other data – then get it peer reviewed. Thus advances are made in the world of science.

Rose, Monckton, Lindzen and others, wrongly described as skeptics, are more accurately deniers of anthropogenic global warming. They will – and do – put forward views and opinions which contradict science based evidence of global warming and its effects on climate and the environment.

Thanks to the efforts of Tim and a lot of other scientists, these people are being continually shown-up for being what they are: people who knowingly and intentionally pervert science, rather than defend and develop it.
#11 Eamon
December 8, 2010

Hmmmm… three days since the publication of Rose’s ‘piece’ and no comments on it at all!
#12 JamesA
December 9, 2010

So what’s Rose going to do when the warming since 1995 does become statistically significant? Move the goalposts to 1996?
#13 Gaz
December 9, 2010

So what’s Rose going to do when the warming since 1995 does become statistically significant? Move the goalposts to 1996?

He’s already moved the posts by ignoring the GISTEMP series, which is more geographically comprehensive and, last time I looked, had a linear trend significant at the 95% level using annual data over the past 15 years.

Also, by aggregating the data into annual blocks – all the monthly series are up near 99% significance – he reduces the measured significance.

In a pinch, I suppose he could always use five-year blocks, that way he’d only have 3 points for the last 15 years and not much hope of getting to 95%.

The possibilities for creative denial are endless.
#14 Jeremy C
December 9, 2010

cbp,

That Anderson Cooper birther piece hurt my brain!

It made me want to shout out, “MATT DAMON!!”.

Please don’t make me do that.
#15 sunspot
December 9, 2010

hmmmm…..temperature data ?????

(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sens. David Vitter and John Barrasso today introduced S. 4015, the Public Access to Historical Records Act, which would dramatically improve the transparency and accuracy of NASA’s historical records and guarantee public access to the data.

“Recent incidents, such as the investigation showing that the Obama administration manipulated data to justify the drilling moratorium, have raised concerns that some scientists and government agencies are using misleading data to support their favored viewpoints,” said Vitter. “This bill would open NASA’s temperature records to public scrutiny and establish an objective set of data to ensure that influential climate research is protected from political agendas.”

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/z5h
#16 sunspot
December 9, 2010

Cont.

“Each year, Americans are forced to spend billions of their hard-earned dollars to support climate change research. Since this administration promised to be the most open administration in history, it should immediately share NASA’s temperature data with the American public,” said Barrasso. “There are too many questions regarding temperature models not to allow all Americans access to this data. This legislation will ensure that our nation has the most accurate and transparent historic temperature record in the world.”

The bill by Vitter and Barrasso is consistent with the Data Quality Act, which requires that scientific information from government agencies be accurate, clear, complete and unbiased. The Public Access to Historical Records Act would require NASA and the National Climatic Data Center to immediately release relevant climate data that outside groups have long been attempting to review through the Freedom of Information Act.

The bill would also force NASA to make all of its raw historical temperature data available online to the public and would require the agency to compile an official U.S. historical temperature record with oversight from an independent council of appointed meteorologists and statisticians. The resulting temperature record would be routinely reviewed for accuracy by an independent auditor and would be required for use as a primary source by any scientists or groups accepting federal money for climate research.
#17 J
December 9, 2010

I could be wrong, but I don’t think NASA has any secret temperature data.
#18 Jeremy C
December 9, 2010

Yeah, well the Moon landings were a hoax to….. I can prove it….y’know….when you see the supposed TV pictures from the moon’s surface there are no stars…and how can that be, its space and space has stars doesn’t it so that proves NASA hoaxed it besides that the astronauts went at night, everyone knows that which is further proof the whole thing was a scam besides that I saw the movie with Telly Savalas which documented how they faked it.

I’m sure I left my pills around here somewhere….
#19 lord_sidcup
December 9, 2010

Oh, the irony.

Americans are forced to spend billions of their hard-earned dollars to support climate change research.

Call the auditors, the billions claim is bogus.
#20 Wow
December 9, 2010

I wonder why spots lauds someone who complains of billions being spent on climate research each year, yet also demands work that will cost billions to enact of the climate science?

There’s some broken brains here. Better get the mop.
#21 Jeff Harvey
December 9, 2010

*Each year, Americans are forced to spend billions of their hard-earned dollars to support climate change research*

As lord_sidcup said. Where’s the evidence? The figure is plucked out of thin air.

Besides, Spotty, how much anger is Vitter expressing over the fact that (which much more evidence) “Americans are forced to spend trillions of their hard-earned dollars to support expansionist wars abroad”. I’ll bet old Vitter is silent on this one. Why? Because the political and corporate establishment in the US are virtually indistinguishable, and there’s a lot of short-term profit in promoting the military-industrial complex but there’s the potential for a significant reduction in short-term profits if we take measures to deal with climate change.

Basically, these guys are utter hypocrites.
#22 MapleLeaf
December 9, 2010

I could be wrong, but that number of “billions” probably included several satellite missions. Those observation platforms and associated data are not used exclusively for climate research. Also, climate research proper receives nowhere close to that amount. So yes, please call in the auditors.

And I have no idea what data is allegedly being hidden. All they have to do is go online. Heck, Hansen would probably burn them a few DVDs. his is just another fabricated scandal and with hunt. Theatre for the frothing masses of Limbaugh fans and Tea Baggers.

So yup, the deniers/skeptics are deceiving again and attacking scientists. Shouldn’t Americans be more concerned how many, many billions of dollars (trillions even?) of their hard-earned money that is used for needless wars, for subsidizing FFs and to make up for the shortfall arising from huge corporate tax cuts? Just wondering…

Anyhow, good attempt to derail the thread with a drive-by sunfreckle. Nice to see that, by your silence sunfreckle, you agree with Rose’s fabrication, distortion and disinformation. then again, I would not expect anything less from a denier of AGW/ACC.
#23 Wow
December 9, 2010

> I could be wrong, but that number of “billions” probably included several satellite missions.

Every year?

No, I don’t think so.

But whatever millions are spent, most of that goes on the weather, not the climate, and is part of the needs of the armed forces to ensure they can operate effectively (no air support when it’s cloudy, so don’t start engagements when there’s cloud forecast).

Weather models are also used to increase bombing accuracy and are primed with the onboard bomb computer on most modern fighter/bombers today.
#24 MapleLeaf
December 9, 2010

And can I also point out the logical fallacy here. Many skeptics, like Michaels says that the climate change issue requires much more research. Fine. But then they turn around, and in the same breath lament how much money is being spent on satellite missions and studying the biosphere. Not only that, but those data are exactly what they themselves use (for free probably) to try and refute theory of AGW. OMG!

Really, does the average person like sunfreckle who gobbles this conspiracy stuff up like candy have the attention span of a squirrel?
#25 MapleLeaf
December 9, 2010

You are right Wow @23– I did not mean to suggest billions are spent each year on satellites, I was thinking of a time window. So the statement is even more ludicrous.

Auditors please….and no, not Steve and Co., real and professional auditors.
#26 Jeff Harvey
December 9, 2010

MapleLeaf,

Nice posts.

What you are saying shows that its a no-win situation. We are told that we need to do more research on climate, but if the conclusions are not what powerful, vested interests wanna hear, then they crow about taxpayer’s money being ‘squandered’. I’ll bet that if the results went the other way then they would say that it is money being ‘well spent’. Again, it depends on the conclusions.
#27 blueshift
December 9, 2010

“In fact, since we have data for 2010 now, it is even now true that we have statistically signficant warming since 1995.”

I’ve assumed this was the case but haven’t seen anyone do the test (or done it myself). Anyone have the link showing it, or a link to the easiest place to get the CRU annual averages?
#28 pough
December 9, 2010

You can use Wood For Trees. Just do the [last 180 samples](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/last:180/plot/wti/last:180/trend), which is 15 years. It doesn’t have to be Jan-Dec to be a year.

Or, if you prefer the Only Non-Evildoer Climate Scientists*, you can use [UAH only](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/last:180/plot/uah/last:180/trend).

* They’re apparently the only ones not lying for the sake of greed and total global domination. The fact that they get pretty much the same numbers as everyone else should be ignored. Also, the fact that they get the same numbers using a method that isn’t affected by the UHI and yet still seem to think that the warming signal is mostly from UHI is simply a sign that they’re the only ones not corrupted by any kind of bias.

(There should be a * at the start of the previous paragraph, but something somewhere is very helpfully removing it.)
#29 Trent1492
December 9, 2010

Anyone have any clue why the Rose article disallows comment?
#30 blueshift
December 9, 2010

Pough, if that was a response to my question then thank you.

Acutally, I think the analysis should be from the beginning of 1995 and on CRU data only. After all, that is the cherry picked data set and year that Phil Jones was asked about.

Regarding the WTF site, I don’t think it has the p or r2 values, even under the raw data link. I can pull the data and put it in excel though, so will take the time to do so eventually (unless someone else saves me the time).
#31 Mike
December 9, 2010

The sad thing about people like Rose and our very own Miranda Devine, is that I don’t think they’re totally dumb or unintelligent.

They are largely protected by the guise of “opinion” writing. They know full well that there’s no credible evidence for their claims, but being manipulative and deceptive is an acceptable means to push their political line.

As opposed to the politician in the Anderson Cooper link above. He’s quite clearly freaking moronic. Now another 10 million of my brain cells have undergone apoptosis in yet another protest at the inherent idiocy of these people.
#32 Eli Rabett
December 9, 2010

GISS gets it raw data from NOAA, the WMO and the Hadley Center.
#33 jakerman
December 9, 2010

pough, [Phil Jones said](http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/12/08/impervious-to-learning/) the 2010 made the difference in response to a Monbiot question.

>*Phil Jones replies: “The key statement here is ‘not statistically significant’. It wasn’t for these years at the 95% level, but it would have been at the 90% level. If you add the value of 0.52 in for 2010 and look at 1995 to 2010 then the warming is statistically significant at the 95% level.*
#34 MartinM
December 9, 2010

IIRC, warming from 1995 to 2009 is insignificant at the 95% level only if one insists on a two-tailed test. If ever there was a case where a one-tailed test would be more appropriate, this would appear to be it.
#35 Hamish Mack
December 9, 2010

A Rose by any other name would smell just the same?
#36 Gaz
December 10, 2010

MartinM I think you’re right.

A regression on the 1995-99 annual HADCRUT data gives a 95% range with a lower bound just below zero, but the probability of the actual value being above the lower bound is 97.5% (95% plus the 2.5% in the upper tail).

If you specify a 90% confidence level in Excel, to use a common program, you effectively have a one-tailed test with a 95% confidence level, because only 5% on the possible values are below the lower bound.

And if you do that the lower bound is in fact above zero.

So it seems Phil Jones is being too hard on himself (and the data).

Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

My result from Excel:

Coefficient (degrees C per year increase): +0.0115

95% CI
-0.0012 to 0.0242 (97.5% of the distribution is above -0.0012)

90% CI:
0.0011 to 0.0219 (95% of the distribution is above 0.0011)
#37 andrew adams
December 10, 2010

One thing that puzzled me about Rose’s article was his claim that

Last week at Cancun, in an attempt to influence richer countries to agree to give £20billion immediately to poorer ones to offset the results of warming, the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute warned that global temperatures would be 6.5 degrees higher by 2100

partly because although I’m sure that the IFPRI is a perfectly respectable organisation if I were a journalist looking for a cite for predicted global temperatures over the next century the obvious place to go would be the IPCC AR4, but also because when I tried to check this out I couldn’t find any record of them making this statement – all I could find was a report on food security and climate change which stated

In 2050, the increases in mean surface air temperature relative to the late 20th century across all scenarios are relatively modest, on the order of 1°C; but they diverge dramatically in the ensuing years, with outcomes ranging from 2°C to 4°C by 2100

which is obviously quite different (in their document they reference the IPCC for their temperature projections.

So I emailed their media people and got the following reply

“No one at IFPRI has ever said global temperatures would be 6.5 degrees Celsius higher by 2100. However, if you convert 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit to Celsius, the result is 3 degrees. So I suspect the author found a US paper that converted to Fahrenheit and then didn’t bother to report his source in the article. Well that’s a guess.”

So either Rose is wilfully misquoting the IFPRI or he doesn’t know the difference between Centigrade and Fahrenheit (but he must know that even the most extreme range of the IPCC projections doesn’t go up to 6.5C). Either way the IFPRI joins the long list of people and organisations whose views have been misrepresented by Rose.
#38 Jeremy C
December 10, 2010

WRT to media coverage of climate change media’s bias or gaming by deniers I’ve been listening to this [panel discussion about the Australian media's coverage of climate change wrt to the treatment of deniers](http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2010/12/02/3082854.htm). Its a debate that took place a week or so back at UTS in Sydney and despite the context being Australian I’m sure readers of this blog from many countries will recognise the issues within their national/local media.

The Australian’s coverage of climate science is covered along with how deniers like Monckton actually frame media coverage of AGW. Panel members from Fairfax and the ABC (two Australian media out lets who view themselves as ‘unbiased’) get taken to task by other panel members for being basically ‘gamed’ on climate change coverage.

It makes very interesting listening to undertand how the media gets gamed by ther likes of Rose et al. As far as I can tell chris Mitchell wasn’t at the debate.
#39 sunspot
December 10, 2010

Phil Jones

“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” -

Phil Jones to Michael Mann Feb 21, 2005:

The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate ! Cheers Phil PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
#40 JamesA
December 10, 2010

sunspot: The data’s available and no-one has found anything wrong with it. Get over it.
#41 Wow
December 10, 2010

> “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

Indeed. Why was McI making illegal demands?

Vexatious requests can be refused:

> Section 14(1) states that public authorities do not have to comply with vexatious requests. There is no public interest test.

> To decide whether a request is vexatious, you need to look at its context and history. The key question is whether the request is likely to cause unjustified distress, disruption or irritation.

> In particular, you should consider the following:
> Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive?
> Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
> Would complying with the request impose a significant burden in terms of expense and distraction?
> Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?

But thanks for showing your ignorance again.
#42 Wow
December 10, 2010

> sunspot: The data’s available and no-one has found anything wrong with it. Get over it.

He can’t.

He’s unable to believe the truth because he doesn’t like it and his religious fervor against (note: not FOR anything, AGAINST) any envrironmental issue or interference in Ayn Rand’s Holy Word (Free Marketism for Misanthropes) means he MUST REFUSE to believe there’s anything wrong with the data.

If he gives that up, he’s left with nothing to talk about or refuse the rising tide with.

Neither of which are acceptable.
#43 Wow
December 10, 2010

> Really, does the average person like sunfreckle who gobbles this conspiracy stuff up like candy have the attention span of a squirrel?

Two points

1) spots isn’t an average person, he’s a mouthpiece for anyone with the money to pay him to open it

2) he isn’t gobbling this sort of thing up like _candy_

PS please don’t insult the squirrels, they have feelings too.
#44 sunspot
December 10, 2010

sunspot: The data’s available and no-one has found anything wrong with it. Get over it.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/axw

they did hand over the homogenized data though !!

Ken found that BOM pumped up the Aust temperature.
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/

also

‘Twentieth-century temperature records are now being challenged all around the world” said Bryan Leyland, spokesman for the NZCSET. “But I think we are the first country where the issues are to be placed squarely before an independent judicial forum.”

“Many scientists believe that, although the earth has been in a natural warming phase for the past 150 years, it has not heated as much as Government archives claim. The precise trend figure is extremely important, as it forms the sole basis of the claim that human activities are the dominant cause of the warming.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/z6n

there are many more disputes about the temperature record, eg, china, russia, usa

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/z6o

a good thrashing out in the open of the temp data would support your view jamesa, would it ?
#45 Wow
December 10, 2010

> SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

How can they throw away what they do not own?

It isn’t their data.

The owner still has it.

Nothing was thrown away apart from your brains.
#46 Wow
December 10, 2010

> ‘Twentieth-century temperature records are now being challenged all around the world” said Bryan Leyland, spokesman for the NZCSET

Bryan Leyland’s criminal past is being queried all around the world.

Guess he’s a criminal, then.
#47 JasonW
December 10, 2010

Oh come on, sunspot, we’ve been over this a thousand times. Even I, as a layman, understand that scientific results are not checked by exactly copying the method, but by replicating, using raw data, and different methods. If all the results more or less agree with each other – which they do – then you prbably have it right. I find it depressing that so many fail to grasp this point.
#48 sunspot
December 10, 2010

CRU admit that their data is a complete mess, how can they prove that their temperature records are accurate ??

They can not !!! and they should not be used !

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/z6q
#49 chek
December 10, 2010

Sunny, I’m pretty sure the pips of what you no doubt still refer to as ‘climategate’ had stopped squeaking around last May, and yet here you are desperately regurgitating and recycling the same old dead and buried nonsense.

I hope you realise that you’re due another crushing disappointment regardless of NZCSET’s huffery puffery.

Lean and desperate times for you deniers, eh?
#50 lord_sidcup
December 10, 2010

@tosspot

There is an [Open Thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php) available. Rather than going off-topic and all conspiracy on this thread, why not just go all conspiracy on the open thread?
#51 jakerman
December 10, 2010

Sunfreckle isn’t bothered at all about passing on lies. As he gets called out on one lie he doesn’t skip a beat before moving on to his next.

You are shameless freckle, think of the effect of your passing on these lies.
#52 sunspot
December 10, 2010

no lies akerz, just passing on concern’s
about the temp data, that’s what this thread is about, isn’t it ?

Don’t you think there should be an independent peer review of the temp record ? I mean, you know, just to prove that you alarmists are correct.

by the way akerz, full moon where you live is it ?
#53 Chris O'Neill
December 10, 2010

sunsick:

“Many scientists believe that, although the earth has been in a natural warming phase for the past 150 years, it has not heated as much as Government archives claim.

i.e. deny everything. Deny warming. Deny its cause. Deny its effects. Deny we can affect it. Deny denial.
#54 Chris O'Neill
December 10, 2010

sunsick:

Don’t you think there should be an independent peer review of the temp record ?

Even better, I think there should be several independent temp records and there are and they all agree that there’s a lot of warming going on. You’re better off just denying everything.
#55 Anne van der Bom
December 10, 2010

sunspot,

The deniers are asking audits as a tactic, not because they’re interested in the result.

What if the audit shows the temperature record is solid? What will you do then? Accept reality? I suspect not. You will explain it away by concluding that the conspiracy goes far deeper than you ever imagined. I pity you.
#56 sunspot
December 10, 2010

chris, are you worried about a professional, open and independent audit on the temperature record ?

or do you think that given the large inconsistencies that have been found we should just shove it under the carpet and ignore it, this is science is it ?
#57 jakerman
December 10, 2010

sunfreckle you are being the useful unskeptical idiot by passing on dishonest claims such as the unadjusted data is more appropriate than the necessarily adjusted data.

Its an excuse for anti science PR to try and confuse people.

Just like this lie:

>*SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.*

As wow pointed out, the CRU do not own the raw data, they get if from others.
#58 Wow
December 10, 2010

> are you worried about a professional, open and independent audit on the temperature record ?

No. Why are you, though? There have been several, the Russel inquiry being the last one, and that found the data fine.

But you seem to have a problem with a professional, open and independent audit.

Heck, there are independently arrived datasets that realise the same trend.

But you seem to be afraid of the open, independent and professional audits already done, refusing to admit they’ve been done.
#59 sunspot
December 10, 2010

Anne, this need’s to be done to return a bit of confidence to climate science, it is probably the main cause of the dwindling believers.

nobody, other than the warmers, respects the outcomes of the recent inquirygates.
#60 Wow
December 10, 2010

> Even I, as a layman, understand that scientific results are not checked by exactly copying the method

Unfortunately, this is all the denialists can do. See Girma applying rote values in an invalid way and proclaiming them valid because he added 1 and 1 and got 2, proving that climate sensitivity is not 3.

They cannot check the methods because they are incompetent.
#61 sunspot
December 10, 2010

as i said akerz,

They can not !!! and they should not be used !

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/z6q

is this the scientific method ?

WELL is it a full moon ?
#62 jakerman
December 10, 2010

sun freckle your response to me made no sense.

But your response to Anne proved her point.

Anne wrote:

>*What if the audit shows the temperature record is solid? What will you do then? Accept reality? I suspect not.*

sunfreckle responds:

>*nobody, other than the warmers, respects the outcomes of the recent inquirygates.*
#63 Chris O'Neill
December 10, 2010

sunsick (mentally that is):

given the large inconsistencies that have been found

Yes, UAH has the largest inconsistency with all the others so I agree that the largest inconsistency should be the first to get a professional, open and independent audit on its temperature record. Nevertheless, when it comes to warming, there is no inconsistency.
#64 sunspot
December 10, 2010

do you know what the word impartiality means ?

i don’t think so, they were run by insiders, made to fit
#65 jakerman
December 10, 2010

>*do you know what the word impartiality means ?
i don’t think so, they were run by insiders, made to fit*

What is your evidence for this sunfreckle? That they didn’t give the result you wanted?
#66 sunspot
December 10, 2010

try taking the blinkers off akerz.
#67 jakerman
December 10, 2010

So freckle, you’ve got no evidence to support your outrageous claim?
#68 Wow
December 10, 2010

> do you know what the word impartiality means ?

Yes.

You don’t, which is why you then spout this:

> i don’t think so, they were run by insiders, made to fit

The only reason you think this is because they didn’t give you the answer you wanted.

Pray tell us how the CRU in the University of East Anglia have control over NASA?

There’s an independent source of data and comes to the same trend.

UAH and RSS do too. With even Roy Spencer admitting that the CRU data set is genuine and accurate.

If a confirmed AGW skeptic like Roy thinks it’s correct, why do YOU insist that it isn’t?

Because you have no idea what independent means, nor impartial.

You’ve NEVER known professional in your life.
#69 BernardJ.
December 10, 2010

Foulspot.

You claim that many independent temperature records are loaded to support the concept of global warming.

Tell us, how were the biosphere and the hydrosphere pursuaded to join the conspiracy?
#70 JamesA
December 10, 2010

sunspot,

There’s more than enough publicly-available temperature data out there and enough methodologies published that people can do their own reconstructions and replicate their findings. It didn’t stop Muir Russell. What’s stopping you and your denialist bretheren?
#71 Wow
December 10, 2010

> What’s stopping you and your denialist bretheren?

Ability.

Those who can’t, criticise.
#72 Marco
December 10, 2010

Wrong, Wow. It’s not the lack of ability, it’s the lack of desire to come to an inconvenient result. Better criticise what others do, because how are you to criticise what you yourself did if you get the same result?
#73 Steve Reuland
December 10, 2010

For what it’s worth, GISTEMP has its data out for November, and unless the Dec. anomaly is -23, which isn’t going to happen, 2010 will easily be the warmest year on record for that data set too.

Of course, this just means that the conspiracy is larger than previously thought!
#74 Paul UK
December 10, 2010

Spot:
>”SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.”

Geezus feck man.
How many times do richard heads like you need to be told???

1. They were never required to keep archives.
2. The raw data is still available from the nations that actually OWN it.
3. Learn about licenses and copyright law etc.
4. CRU now has a budget for archiving.

Sunspot:
>”It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.”

Complete bollox.
Any scientist or group of scientists can ask for the raw data from the nations that own it and do whatever they like with it as long as they don’t break the laws of the nations that own said data.

Now we have some basic facts straight.
Go back to your little cave.
#75 MapleLeaf
December 10, 2010

Sunfreckle,

Oh, this is delightful. You are trotting out myths that have been debunked, addressed and answered ad nauseum. That is does not constitute a credible or valid argument.

“They can not !!! and they should not be used !”

Pat Michaels used the HadCRUT data in his testimony to Congress a few weeks ago. It is good enough for him– although I object to him using those data to lie/deceive. And we all know why he uses those HadCRUT data and not RATPAC or GISS or NCDC. The answer is in the long term warming trend.

Sunfreckle–do you agree with the errors, inaccuracies and misinformation contained in the Rose piece? If not, which of the listed errors etc. do you happen to agree with and why.

I’ll take silence or non-response to those questions as a loud Yes.
#76 spyder
December 10, 2010

The UK Met Office recently reported that 2010 is “on track to become first or second warmest in the instrumental record”

Well now that part is at least official. NASA reports that this past meteorological year was the warmest in recorded history.

And, for the record, I have no interest in the solar-puke debating.
#77 This really is my last comment
December 11, 2010

Writing in a blog comment at Deltoid, Rose admitted the accusations against him were, “Damning. Just Damning.”
#78 sunspot
December 11, 2010

Could be interesting…………

Ralph Hall to chair Science panel

Hall told POLITICO in a recent interview he’s not a climate skeptic. “If they quote me correctly, I’ve never said it’s outrageous to even think about global warming. I want some proof,” he said. “If I get the chair and have the gavel, I’m going to subpoena people from both sides and try to put them under oath and try to find out what the real facts are.”

But he said he does want to question all sides of the issue, including the scientists at the center of the so-called “Climategate” controversy surrounding e-mails stolen from climate researchers last year in England. He said at a hearing last month that the documents exposed a “dishonest undercurrent” within the scientific community. Investigators (their mates) in the United States and Britain have cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing.

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/z7o

A lot of people in high places don’t believe the temp data.
#79 Chris O'Neill
December 11, 2010

Mentally retarded sunsick:

Could be interesting…………

Ralph Hall to chair Science panel

More like a big yawn.

A lot of people in high places don’t believe the temp data.

Gee, who would have thought a Republican politician was interested in science denial.
#80 zoot
December 11, 2010

Isn’t it time sunspot had his own thread?

It’s tedious scrolling through the responses to his nonsense. This thread is about the behaviour of David Rose, not the outpourings of spotty’s febrile imagination.
#81 Bernard J.
December 11, 2010

[Foulspot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/12/rosegate_rose_does_to_data_wha_1.php#comment-2996233):

A lot of people in high places don’t believe the temp data.

I’ll ask you again – how were the biosphere and the hydrosphere pursuaded to join the conspiracy?
#82 Paul UK
December 11, 2010

Sunspot:
>”A lot of people in high places don’t believe the temp data.”

So your opinion Sunspot is that the government with the most troops and weapons is the only government that counts and within that government, only ‘a lot of people in high places’ should decide what climate science is correct.

Interesting philosophy and thanks for sharing it with us.
#83 Tim Lambert
December 11, 2010

No more discussion with sunspot on this thread please — I have created a sunspot thread.
#84 Wow
December 13, 2010

> It’s not the lack of ability, it’s the lack of desire to come to an inconvenient result.

Well, lets say it could be both: inability and a lack of desire to do, well, work, really.
#85 Philip Machanick
December 15, 2010

@Gaz: taking monthly data to get more “significance” isn’t right. You need to worry about autocorrelation. I agree though that a single-tailed test is right.

@Steve Reuland: I went over to look at GISTEMP and November does look pretty hot. Back in April, I predicted 2010 was shaping up to be the [warmest year](http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2010/04/warmest-year.html) yet. Why? Because we were already at a pretty warm time and we were coming out of a major solar low.
#86 lord_sidcup
December 20, 2010

If you have the stomach for it, check out David Rose’s lurid hatchet job on Julian Assange:

[The wildly promiscuous lifestyle of WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange: Look away now Jemima as our report reveals the sordid truth](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339859/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-promiscuous-lifestyle-revealed-Jemima-Khan-look-away-now.html)
#87 Tim Lambert
December 20, 2010

And Rose is lying yet again in his story:

>Mr Assange has lied about aspects of his work. At a public meeting in London, he falsely claimed that the ‘Climategate’ emails from the University of East Anglia were first published by WikiLeaks. In fact, the emails were published by specialist climate websites in America and Canada – yet Mr Assange spent several minutes lamenting how he had found publishing them morally difficult because they boosted the arguments of global-warming sceptics.

Assange did not say that WikiLeaks was first to publish them, merely that they had published them.
#88 lord_sidcup
May 23, 2011

Despite his recent mauling by [Monbiot](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/08/david-rose-climate-science) (or rather by the Climate Science Rapid Response Team), David Rose is still pretending to be an expert on climate science. He has contributed an ‘analysis’ appended to a another [Mail story](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389622/Mrs-Huhnes-licence–clean-3-points-New-pressure-Minister-speeding-offence-punishment.html#ixzz1N58y2Dtl). In his ‘analysis’ Rose cites Phil Jones’s ‘admission’ of no statistically significant warming since 1995, appears to quote mine John Mitchell of the Met Office, asserts that “the assertion that the science is ‘settled’ is collapsing everywhere” by citing a truly cruddy report written by Lord Turnball of fake educational charity GWPF (dealt with at [Carbon Breif](http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/05/lord-turnbulls-gwpf-briefing-paper-suffers-from-basic-factual-inaccuracies)), pimps Plimer’s claim that only 3 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere is from human sources. Finally, he says warmists are are communists.

It transpires that Rose (along with Monckton, Delingpole, Montford, Lawson, Plimer) was also at the recent ‘reconciliation conference’ at Downing College. Shows what a waste of time these reconciliation conferences are.
#89 lord_sidcup
May 24, 2011

The Carbon Brief has tackled the latest ‘Rosegate’ episode:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/05/david-rose-climate-science-checked