Even if CRU was full of evil. It's only one of three different sources of the same information. Which is only part of the weight of evidence towards AGW.
Given the sheer enormity of attention given to this; that a few non-peer reviewed items in the IPCC report and comparatively small number of bad emails out of years is all thats turned up should give more weight to the remaining evidence not less.
The idea that one part was wrong therefore we are allowed to not consider the rest is what the article is trying to remove. If CRU means we should reduce probabilities then do so. But after you update deal with the question again. Don't feel that it's then safe to ignore it until absolute evidence appears.
Humans are evil. The CRU is full of humans. The CRU is full of evil. QED.
It's not just the CRU. Any large organization like the CRU should be held with extreme skepticism. Members make lots of money off grants to study climatological effects on the planet. There are billions of dollars involved and people are extremely greedy.
I think the question the OP of this thread raised is this: There have been times in the past without lots of CO2 where extreme climate change has occurred. Is it possible, that the same causes of those changes are the causes of the current changes? If not, why not? It could be possible that those factors are contributing -- even more dramatically -- to the rise of CO2, than man.
No one has answered that question yet as far as I know, but there is a correlation between the same causes of past warmings the current physical space in this environment, so why aren't the same things then doing the same things now?
Even if CRU was full of evil. It's only one of three different sources of the same information. Which is only part of the weight of evidence towards AGW.
There are multiple sources for climate data, some of which are independent of the CRU data. This increases redundancy and the reliability of our conclusions.
However, much of the "weight of evidence towards AGW" has CRU/other historical climate data as a dependency. For example, climate models (which are a necessary component of the evidence for AGW) are calibrated against historical data.
These dependencies make the rest of the evidence potentially less reliable. Until we can sort out which CRU results are correct, which are not, and which external results depend on them, the reliability of many results has taken a serious hit.
> It's only one of three different sources of the same information. Which is only part of the weight of evidence towards AGW.
Not so fast. CRU didn't do measurements - it did adjustments and analysis. Christy now claims that all of the temperature stations are pretty much useless for determining changes over a few years, let alone multiple decades.
If there's no observed temperature change, Christy's current position, then the other observed changes can not be due to temperature change.
Given the sheer enormity of attention given to this; that a few non-peer reviewed items in the IPCC report and comparatively small number of bad emails out of years is all thats turned up should give more weight to the remaining evidence not less.
The idea that one part was wrong therefore we are allowed to not consider the rest is what the article is trying to remove. If CRU means we should reduce probabilities then do so. But after you update deal with the question again. Don't feel that it's then safe to ignore it until absolute evidence appears.