Dear All,
Here are a few other thoughts. From looking at Climate Audit every few days,
these people are not doing what I would call academic research. Also from
looking they will not stop with the data, but will continue to ask for the original
unadjusted data (which we don't have) and then move onto the software used
to produce the gridded datasets (the ones we do release).
CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don't
have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past
is done on the back of the research grants we get -and has to be well hidden. I've
discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are
happy about not releasing the original station data.
We are currently trying to do some more work with other datasets, which will
get released (as gridded datasets) through the British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC).
This will involve more than just station temperature data.
Perhaps we should consider setting up something like this agreement below
[1]http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/surface/met-nerc_agreement.html
I just want these orchestrated requests to stop. I also don't want to give away
years of hard effort within CRU. Many of the agreements were made in the late 1980s
and early 1990s and I don't have copies to hand. I also don't want to waste my time
looking for them. Even if I were to find them all, it is likely that the people we dealt
with are no longer in the same positions. These requests over the last 2.5 years have wasted
much time for me, others in CRU and for Dave and Michael.
Some of you may not know, but the dataset has been sent by someone at the Met Office
to McIntyre. The Met Office are trying to find out who did this. I've ascertained it most
likely came from there, as I'm the only one who knows where the files are here.
See you all later.
Phil

Also from looking they will not stop with the data, but will continue to ask for the original unadjusted data (which we don't have)and then move onto the software used to produce the gridded datasets (the ones we do release).

The sheep and cows across the country burp out more than 10 billion litres of methane every day.

Associate Professor Vercoe, Deputy Director of Animal Production Systems, and Dr Dean Revell from CSIRO, are looking at how to reduce the methane output from grazing livestock. Individual sheep burp out about 20 litres and cattle up to 280 litres of methane a day.
“This is a great energy loss for the animals, but more importantly, given the number of farm animals, it is the major source of greenhouse emissions from agriculture,”
Professor Vercoe said.
Grazing livestock is the nation’s third largest source of emissions. There are around 85 million sheep in Australia, more than 28 million beef cattle, three million dairy cattle and three million farmed goats.

“The sheep breeding project aims to reveal how much of methane production in sheep is related to the genetics. The emissions from sheep are commonly measured in special ‘methane booths’ (pictured left), one sheep at a time, over a 24-hour period. Developing a simple, quick on-farm method such as breath testing will allow us to measure methane from large numbers of sheep in a short time,” Dr Vercoe said.

Outline and recommendation

This paper aims to focus the attention of the scientific community in general - and of political
and science administrators in particular - on the need for a critical analysis of the performance
and recommendations of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). My
key concern has regard to the scientific methodology applied by the IPCC. Some of the
Panel’s procedures conform to post-modern science2 practices, thereby deviating from the
scientific principles that have traditionally applied throughout the history of western scientific
endeavour.

The IPCC asserts that dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) is occurring, and
that this is caused by the accumulation of human-related CO2 in the atmosphere. As yet,
however, no indisputable scientific proof, or even strong empirical evidence, has been
provided for such an effect, which therefore remains a matter of speculation.

&
At first sight the report may give the impression of representing a ‘complete work’ of the
worldwide scientific community, and a comprehensive summary of the recent research
literature. However:

• The prevailing hypothesis of the assessment report is that Dangerous Anthropogenic
Global Warming (DAGW) is occurring; this hypothesis has been under challenge for
many years by numerous independent scientists. These scientists were not invited to
participate in the preparation of the AR5 report.

• The scientific literature cited in the draft AR5 is selective towards papers that support
the DAGW hypothesis, and even the papers that are included are then selectively
analysed towards the same end4.

These two underlying biases set the tone of the message that the authors of the AR5 report
want to transmit. That message is that current manifestations of climate change are the
harbinger of unprecedented and threatening global warming, caused by the anthropogenic
emissions of CO2 that are accumulating in the atmosphere. However, and despite endless
repetition by its proponents, this proposition remains an unproven hypothesis that many
scientists disagree with, based upon their knowledge of contradictory empirical evidence.

&
Some characteristic features of the IPCC draft report

CO2 as a major forcing agent for temperature rise

All fourteen chapters of the IPCC report start from the assumption that atmospheric CO2 is a
dominant forcing agent for global temperature. In some chapters it is even claimed that there
is now increasing evidence that the rise of CO2 concentrations is the cause of global warming
and other symptoms of climate change. However, the relevant passages, and indeed the whole
report, fail to enumerate any such evidence.

The ‘evidence’ that the IPCC relies upon is not empirical, but rather is largely based on
previously presented hypotheses on the radiation transfer processes that operate within an
atmospheric column.

But how do these processes work out in the real atmosphere on a global scale? In order to
answer this question, IPCC’s modellers use deterministic General Circulation Models
(GCMs). These models, in which the climate forcing effect of CO2 is assumed as a given, are
run on super computers. DAGW proponents argue that observed climate change today cannot
be explained without taking a human forcing effect into account. Since the virtual reality
world of the models is very different from the real world, comprising in effect a series of
“what-if” experiments, critics retort that the hypothetical impact of CO2 on the global climate
system remains speculative. A fundamental critique of the current generation of GCMs is
presented in the next section.

&
Another remarkable feature of IPCC procedures is the instruction to report authors that they
are to express their conclusions in terms of a qualitative (i.e. opinion-based) probability scale.

&
Self-appointed experts

Regrettably, the use of non-objective pseudo-probability judgement is no longer viewed as an
unusual practice in the development of science policy in many scientific institutions.
[ edit; Cosmic might like to take the above on board ]

&
Lack of respect for alternative, independent views

Independent scientists are particularly sensitive to the arrogance and intolerance for
alternative views that are displayed by the self-appointed climate experts of the IPCC. Persons
who claim to possess superior knowledge in any area of public policy, and not just regarding
global warming, and who actively participate in political activity to prevent their views being
independently audited (as IPCC scientists consistently have), should be treated with extreme
suspicion.

&
The most important point to appreciate stemming from this discussion is that the style of
the draft AR5 report marks it as a political rather than scientific document, for it has been
fashioned within the framework of a particular cultural paradigm. This is the case despite
the report containing a thorough and sometimes well comprehended summary of a
selection of the peer-reviewed climate literature. Therefore, the subsequent IPCC’s WG 2-3
AR5 reports, which will be based on the draft WG1 report that is under review here, will not
serve as the considered, balanced, accurate and dispassionate analyses of climate science
and sound public policy that are required.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military /industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.