Bugsy, I admire your tenacity. You have plugged away against tough opposition and have demonstrated a level of determination that is surpassed by few. Please accept my apologies for past abuse. You have earned much respect.

Aside from the possibility of “questionable” stuff from the CRU you quite rightly note that so many other institutions produce independent “similar results”? You suggest this is support that the warming trend identified by the CRU is real.

This is a terrific point and deserves my best effort, so here goes.

The analytical computer applications to process the data are not, as pointed out by Phil Jones, “rocket science”. The only other variables are data and adjustments. The data comes in two forms, “primary” or raw data and “secondary” data which have been modified in some way. The modifications to which secondary data can be subjected are either approved SOA’s (schedules of adjustments) and/or gridded averages. Both sets of secondary data are derived.

There is nothing wrong with derived data providing that the SOA’s are provided to demonstrate “what” was done to the raw data. In the case of gridded averages, any “assumptions” are embedded and therefore independent processing will typically produce a “similar” result.

Each country and their scientific institutions have access to their own countries’ raw temperature data. This does not allow them to arrive at “global” projections. To do this they must access other data, either directly where allowed or via various scientific websites as referred to by Phil Jones. This access can be open, for a fee or only through “affiliation”.

The CRU is not, contrary to popular belief funded by the British, the CRU is funded by the US DOE. Its affiliates are the US research agencies to which you refer. The data they share and merge with their own data is the stuff Phil Jones makes available which is only “gridded” derived averages. (See; Q106, Q107 and Q109) The data that Jones is referring to, that the CRU makes available for sharing “on these other websites” is only “gridded derived” data, no raw data.

Continued:

Continued:

Q148, Graham Stringer “It is the United States Department of Energy that funds you, is it not?”
Professor Jones: Yes.

Q149 Graham Stringer: It puts you above people who have paid their tax dollars to fund you because they cannot check the work you are doing.
Professor Jones: But they can get access to all the data on these other websites.

Unfortunately for Jones, he admits the Met Office even now (as at March 2010) has only 80% of the raw data available to “others”, seven countries have refused to release theirs (?) and the NZ (NIWA) data has no SOA’s.

So the independent researchers to whom you refer do not in fact produce “independent” work at all, because the work they have done is based upon and merged with , 1) the assumptions generated by the CRU, 2) derived or gridded average data, 3) data with no SOA’s and 4) incomplete data sets. All as evidenced by Phil Jones himself.

This means that even if they did so called “independent” analysis after March 2010, there would be little change to the outcomes.

Like so many who might not understand the science, but do understand processes, I know these results and predictions are utterly meaningless. I know this because the input data is meaningless, and I know this because Phil Jones told me. It therefore applies to any and all who use these data.

The issues for the CRU in general and Phil Jones in particular are much more serious than the UK parliamentary hearings. If this ever get to the US courts, and 16 “litigation hold notices” have already been lodged against the US EPA, US taxpayers are going to have a very large bite out of several UK institutions and possibly some government agencies. Uncle Sam does not like being duded

Oh spindoc, what convincing narrative, if only it were true.

I think you will find that the largest fraction of the CRU's funding is from the European Commission.
I'm sure the US DoE is also a major contributor on specific projects, such as the Land surface climate station records but it certainly doesn't fund all their activities.
Interestingly, they also acknowledge funding from sources such as Shell, British Petroleum, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Sultanate of Oman and many more.

Anyway, that's beside the point.

The narrative that you give relies on the idea that everyone relies upon the gridded/derived datasets put out by the CRU. However, I'm finding it very difficult to find evidence of this. I'm sure a lot of people do use their datasets, but many also use data from the GHCN, nor do you mention the raw datasets held at the National Climatic Data Center. I cannot tell whether all these datasets have have all been 'tainted' by the gridded datasets produced by the CRU? Have you any evidence of this or is it just a story?
The data from the Americans is free for educational or governmental institutions ("affiliated" or not), unfortunately private users have to pay. But seriously, most unaffiliated 'private users' have better things to do with their time and bandwidth?

The idea that "US taxpayers" would sue the University of East Anglia and 'others' is pure hyperbole and highly risible.
But then again, I don't like being duded either, I prefer a rougher look, and I'm sure many Americans do to.

Havn't had time to read all the posts here so this might have been mentioned before. The author states that in the mid pliocene period that global warming allowed humans to migrate. I may be wrong but as far as i am aware humans were not around 3-5 million years ago.