Climate Unit Releases Virtually All Remaining Data

mutube writes "The BBC is reporting that the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, target of 'ClimateGate,' has released nearly all its remaining data on temperature measurements following a freedom of information bid. Most temperature data was already available, but critics of climate science want everything public. Following the latest release, raw data from virtually all of the world's 5,000-plus weather stations is freely available. Release of this dataset required The Met Office to secure approval from more than 1,500 weather stations around the world. The article notes that while Trinidad and Tobago refused permission, the Information Commissioner ruled that public interest in disclosure outweighed those considerations."

Re:Pesky critics

[Mashiki]

Hmm I seem to remember it taking a lot to get this information. Lawsuits, and the threat of cutting off funding. Nasty business that.

Refuse Permission?

[The Mighty Buzzard]

The article notes that while Trinidad and Tobago refused permission...

Wait, on what grounds? You can't copyright/patent/trademark facts. Why did they even bother asking?

I thought we had it already

[Coolhand2120]

I was under the assumption that the public already had this data. Certainly many people have trumpeted "Look at the raw data". Others still have claimed that the "raw data has been deleted" presumably a long time ago. Why wasn't the data released 5 years ago? So many questions, this just creates a dozen or so more.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Idso, Singer, and Lindzen used to be the fossil fuel funded trilogy of dissenters, and their articles live on today.

My favorite is Idso, who argued, in a quite plausibly conducted bit of research, that the radiation spectrum blocked by CO2 (thus causing the greenhouse effect) was saturated, so more CO2 would no more harm. In that bit if I recall there was actually a "well, screw it, we're screwed" acknowledgement of sorts.

Then people who just hate science got involved, and we went from poor science to just stupid nonsense.

Basics: does CO2 contribute to the greenhouse effect? Of course (seriously, everyone agrees). Does human activity result in more CO2? Of course (again, agreement). The real place for discussion is how the resulting effects impact humanity. "Global Warming" was such a poor name, I guess "Global Climatic Instability" does have the ring (or make a good TLA). But somewhere in there, we stumbled on some visceral refusal to meet with reality, some refusal to acknowledge that we could contribute to (adverse) change, or some "not in my lifetime" vein that caused a huge (mostly conservative politically) backlash.

Without belaboring this post, I think the complications of explaining simple economics (such as the tragedy of the commons, p.s. don't hit me for picking an overly simplified example) resulted in a lopsided value calculation: immediate pain or "what the scientists say will happen." It was always a false choice (not just a Faustian one).

Sometimes I hope Idso was right, so that we can reasonably absolve our selves of culpability in a collective sense. Like children. :(

Re:Pesky critics

[LynnwoodRooster]

More and more scientists are finding other, more interesting relations. For example, tree ring widths are more affected by the presence/absence of herbivores than temperature [wattsupwiththat.com]. Was that factored in to the Mann/Briffa/Jones work on that SINGLE Yamal bristlecone from which their temperature reconstructions arose?

Or is it better to just attack and hurl names at those who do what the Scientific method calls for - skeptical, independent confirmation?

Re:Pesky critics

[riverat1]

I have looked at the pertinent emails. They provide no evidence for your assertions.

Re:Pesky critics HIV AIDS

[Man On Pink Corner]

So, you're not the least bit troubled by the fact that medicines that target HIV also have the oddly coincidental side effect of saving the lives of AIDS patients?