155 replies to this topic

[rwac]

I'm actually surprised no one has started a topic on this.

Seems like the leaked emails/data are pretty damning to the IPCC etc.
Some people involved are Michael Mann, Phil Jones, John Holdren, etc

http://online.wsj.co.....eTabs=article

http://www.guardian....crisis-response

The blog Watts Up With That has been doing a good job of covering this issue.

Here's a website where you can search through the emails.

Thoughts ?

Edit:fixed search link.

Edited by rwac, 28 November 2009 - 07:56 AM.

[valkyrie_ice]

I do believe I have said repeatedly that I did not believe AGW to be anything other than a political sideshow. While I believe strongly in the creation of non polluting energy sources and clean technology, GW is something I have always believed to be due to natural causes outside of man's influence, and only added to in a minor way by man.

The silence is indeed interesting considering

1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He’s just not very good at securing his web site.

2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be “predictable”.

3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.

4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favorable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favorable online communities.

http://wattsupwithth...men/#more-13209

Simply put, whether you are a AGW believer or not, this behavior SHOULD NOT BE EXCUSED. This is not science, this is pure manipulation of the public for financial and political reasons. There are no justifications for which this is acceptable.

The Data either supports the theory or it doesn't. Period.

[niner]

After looking some of this over, I think it is much ado about very little. People say things in email that they would never say in public. One guy said he would be "very tempted" to beat the crap out of some denialist who had done something scummy. Then Fox news tries to spin it a "threat" to the denialist. That's nonsense. If he sent the email to the denialist and said "I'm going to beat the crap out of you", that would be a threat. One guy saying to his friend that he'd "be tempted" is in no way a threat. As far as attempting to keep other people's papers out of journals, I recall a situation where a right wing economist and and engineer managed to get a paper into the journal Science that was an incredibly flawed analysis which attempted to throw a monkey wrench into the nascent electric car industry about ten or fifteen years ago. It bordered on fraud, and I don't know how it got into a real journal, but it provided fodder for the pro fossil fuel crowd. Such things happen when things are politicized, and nothing is politicized like climate change. Is it wrong for scientists to collude to prevent a dangerous piece of misinformation from being published? Not in my book. Is it a slippery slope? Of course. When you have ideological think tanks paying people to write papers in the service of an ideology, do they belong in the scientific literature? I don't think so.

The denialist community doesn't "play fair". They distort or ignore the facts, and frequently don't know what they are talking about. They seem to be more interested in ideology than in the truth, and have their own political agenda. Often they work for the fossil fuel industry, either directly or under the table. Some of the things that they do are utterly infuriating to scientists who have spent their careers in pursuit of the truth. If that leads the scientists to do things that aren't entirely pure, I can at least understand where it comes from.

I didn't see any cases of falsification of data or true scientific fraud. It looks more like it was all about not providing fodder for denialists. Most science is not conducted in an environment where there is a mob waiting to comb through your papers looking for anything they can use to convince a lay audience that you are wrong.

Finally, those emails weren't "leaked", they were stolen. That puts things in a slightly different light.

[warner]

Michael Mann Responds to CRU Hack

Much ado about nothing.
Just the trouble any of us would get into if our private emails became the subject of intense scrutiny by a bunch of loonies.

On the other hand, although convinced that global warming by humans is real, I wouldn't put it at the top of my list of global priorities. (Unless I owned a lot of real estate in southern Florida.)

[rwac]

As far as attempting to keep other people's papers out of journals, I recall a situation where a right wing economist and and engineer managed to get a paper into the journal Science that was an incredibly flawed analysis which attempted to throw a monkey wrench into the nascent electric car industry about ten or fifteen years ago. It bordered on fraud, and I don't know how it got into a real journal, but it provided fodder for the pro fossil fuel crowd.

That's exactly what we're talking about here. It's not ok to keep other people from publishing because of the implications of their paper.
This has been what's going on. Anyone who does not toe the line, doesn't get published.
So they can claim that the peer-reviewed science is settled ...

Such things happen when things are politicized, and nothing is politicized like climate change. Is it wrong for scientists to collude to prevent a dangerous piece of misinformation from being published? Not in my book. Is it a slippery slope? Of course. When you have ideological think tanks paying people to write papers in the service of an ideology, do they belong in the scientific literature? I don't think so.

The problem is that "dangerous piece of misinformation" is a very subjective judgement. In a highly politicized field, people can and will try to block their opponents from being published at all.

The denialist community doesn't "play fair". They distort or ignore the facts, and frequently don't know what they are talking about. They seem to be more interested in ideology than in the truth, and have their own political agenda. Often they work for the fossil fuel industry, either directly or under the table. Some of the things that they do are utterly infuriating to scientists who have spent their careers in pursuit of the truth. If that leads the scientists to do things that aren't entirely pure, I can at least understand where it comes from.

Well, the AGW community doesn't "play fair" either.
Neither the code nor the source data is ever released. They block FOI requests, and even go to the extent of deliberately deleting emails (likely an actual crime) in response to a FOI request.
Duplicating someone's results is a very necessary component of science.

I didn't see any cases of falsification of data or true scientific fraud. It looks more like it was all about not providing fodder for denialists. Most science is not conducted in an environment where there is a mob waiting to comb through your papers looking for anything they can use to convince a lay audience that you are wrong.

Finally, those emails weren't "leaked", they were stolen. That puts things in a slightly different light.

"not provide fodder for denialists" is ok for a political fight, but that's not science.
This needs to be argued on a scientific basis, but that cannot happen as long as the AGW believers deny access to code and data.
And yes, statistics and meteorology are very relevant fields of study.

As for peer review, it's becoming obvious that only papers with certain viewpoints get published in climate journals.
It's become an old boys club.

Multiple trillions of dollars are at stake here. We should demand a high scientific standard.

Edited by rwac, 28 November 2009 - 09:20 PM.

[Singularity]

We are moving towards a scientific dictatorship, or Technocracy. This may sound like some dream-world for futurists, but it's not when technology and the scientific community is hijacked by the political and the greedy.

If anything in this world should be protected and free from corruption and censorship, it should be the scientific community. We cannot have mistrust for our scientists.

[niner]

As far as attempting to keep other people's papers out of journals, I recall a situation where a right wing economist and and engineer managed to get a paper into the journal Science that was an incredibly flawed analysis which attempted to throw a monkey wrench into the nascent electric car industry about ten or fifteen years ago. It bordered on fraud, and I don't know how it got into a real journal, but it provided fodder for the pro fossil fuel crowd.

That's exactly what we're talking about here. It's not ok to keep other people from publishing because of the implications of their paper.
This has been what's going on. Anyone who does not toe the line, doesn't get published.
So they can claim that the peer-reviewed science is settled ...

It's not a matter of toeing the line, it's a matter of not publishing politically motivated garbage. In the CRU case, it sounds like what actually happened is one of the editors at a journal bypassed the usual peer review process to allow some very dodgy work in. A bunch of other editors quit in protest, and some scientists, in private email, said maybe this journal isn't so good; maybe we shouldn't publish there. I think these are people who would welcome skeptical views if the science is good, but they are opposed to publishing bad science that's motivated by politics.

Such things happen when things are politicized, and nothing is politicized like climate change. Is it wrong for scientists to collude to prevent a dangerous piece of misinformation from being published? Not in my book. Is it a slippery slope? Of course. When you have ideological think tanks paying people to write papers in the service of an ideology, do they belong in the scientific literature? I don't think so.

The problem is that "dangerous piece of misinformation" is a very subjective judgement. In a highly politicized field, people can and will try to block their opponents from being published at all.

That's why it's a slippery slope. I wouldn't call it very subjective, though. In the paper that I referred to above, it was obvious. When you are a scientist who knows their field intimately, it's pretty easy to distinguish between good science where you don't like the result, and something that's just crap. I don't think anyone is having trouble publishing good science.

The denialist community doesn't "play fair". They distort or ignore the facts, and frequently don't know what they are talking about. They seem to be more interested in ideology than in the truth, and have their own political agenda. Often they work for the fossil fuel industry, either directly or under the table. Some of the things that they do are utterly infuriating to scientists who have spent their careers in pursuit of the truth. If that leads the scientists to do things that aren't entirely pure, I can at least understand where it comes from.

Well, the AGW community doesn't "play fair" either.
Neither the code nor the source data is ever released. They block FOI requests, and even go to the extent of deliberately deleting emails (likely an actual crime) in response to a FOI request.
Duplicating someone's results is a very necessary component of science.

I didn't see any cases of falsification of data or true scientific fraud. It looks more like it was all about not providing fodder for denialists. Most science is not conducted in an environment where there is a mob waiting to comb through your papers looking for anything they can use to convince a lay audience that you are wrong.

Finally, those emails weren't "leaked", they were stolen. That puts things in a slightly different light.

"not provide fodder for denialists" is ok for a political fight, but that's not science.
This needs to be argued on a scientific basis, but that cannot happen as long as the AGW believers deny access to code and data.

But that's the whole problem; this is a political fight.

And yes, statistics and meteorology are very relevant fields of study.

As for peer review, it's becoming obvious that only papers with certain viewpoints get published in climate journals.
It's become an old boys club.

A statistician without domain knowledge is just a bozo. They don't add a lot of value in my experience. Meteorology deals with weather, not climate. Both of these fields sound like they have the requisite expertise, but I don't think that is necessarily the case. Is it really "obvious" that only papers with certain viewpoints get published in climate journals? I think that's what someone wants us to think. If your conclusions require evolutionary theory or other fundamental science to be wrong in order to make sense, you will probably have a hard time getting published in a prestigious biochemistry journal. That's not a conspiracy, that's just the nature of science. If someone can demonstrate that solid science is getting kept out of journals for political reasons, then I'd like to know about it. I just don't think that's happening here.

[rwac]

It's not a matter of toeing the line, it's a matter of not publishing politically motivated garbage. In the CRU case, it sounds like what actually happened is one of the editors at a journal bypassed the usual peer review process to allow some very dodgy work in. A bunch of other editors quit in protest, and some scientists, in private email, said maybe this journal isn't so good; maybe we shouldn't publish there. I think these are people who would welcome skeptical views if the science is good, but they are opposed to publishing bad science that's motivated by politics.

Well, the IPCC is publishing bad science that's motivated by anti-capitalism/environmentalism.
Good or bad, all the science in this subject is motivated by politics.

That's why it's a slippery slope. I wouldn't call it very subjective, though. In the paper that I referred to above, it was obvious. When you are a scientist who knows their field intimately, it's pretty easy to distinguish between good science where you don't like the result, and something that's just crap. I don't think anyone is having trouble publishing good science.

That paper may or may not have been obvious, but it's impossible to convince outsiders (the rest of us) without releasing the data.

But that's the whole problem; this is a political fight.

Well then nothing needs to be proved really. Let the group with 50+% of US votes win. And the next administration can reverse it, ad nauseum.

A statistician without domain knowledge is just a bozo. They don't add a lot of value in y experience. Meteorology deals with weather, not climate. Both of these fields sound like they have the requisite expertise, but I don't think that is necessarily the case. Is it really "obvious" that only papers with certain viewpoints get published in climate journals? I think that's what someone wants us to think. If your conclusions require evolutionary theory or other fundamental science to be wrong in order to make sense, you will probably have a hard time getting published in a prestigious biochemistry journal. That's not a conspiracy, that's just the nature of science. If someone can demonstrate that solid science is getting kept out of journals for political reasons, then I'd like to know about it. I just don't think that's happening here.

The problem is that certain arguments made in climate research go into statistics. Statistics is definitely relevant in confirming/disproving certain papers. Besides it's not that hard to study something outside of previous experience. It's even easier if your aim is to poke holes in other peoples research.

Also note, none of the big guys in the field have PhDs in the field of Climate research.

Finally, those emails weren't "leaked", they were stolen. That puts things in a slightly different light.

And you know this how ? It certainly appears that someone took the time to collect all the juicy bits of info in a package.
An insider leaking the info is much more likely than a hacker who's well versed in picking out juicy emails.
There are no personal emails in this package. Someone knew to pick out the useful data ...

Niner, there are scientific fields which go off the rails.
Nutrition and long term medicine are examples.
I believe strongly that AGW is one of those fields.

See, McIntyre merely started out attempting to recreate and validate ("audit") the models.
He and his website (Climate Audit) are explicitly non-political. His political sympathies are even leftish.
He gets no funding from big oil or anyone else.

I think that his treatment at the hands of climate scientists makes it obvious that they have something to hide.

[niner]

Well, the IPCC is publishing bad science that's motivated by anti-capitalism/environmentalism.
Good or bad, all the science in this subject is motivated by politics.

This belief seems to be the nub of the problem. I don't know any scientists who hold anti-capitalist views, and I know a lot of scientists. Everyone knows communism doesn't work, so is there even anyone left in the world who is an anti-capitalist and not crazy? I just don't see this. What's the evidence for it? I can't see a mechanism whereby climate scientists have anything to gain from reporting anything other than the truth. I suppose that a hard-core environmentalist would consider the end of coal to be a plus. Hell, I'm not particularly an environmentalist, and I can see that. Millions of people's health will improve if we either stop burning coal entirely or seriously clamp down on particulate emissions. However, I don't think that a significant fraction of climate scientists are Earth First-types. Do we see climate scientists with affiliations that would suggest this sort of political agenda? It seems like an awful lot of the denialists are hooked up with outfits like the Cato Institute. I just don't think there's evidence to say that all the science in this subject is motivated by politics.

[rwac]

This belief seems to be the nub of the problem. I don't know any scientists who hold anti-capitalist views, and I know a lot of scientists. Everyone knows communism doesn't work, so is there even anyone left in the world who is an anti-capitalist and not crazy? I just don't see this. What's the evidence for it? I can't see a mechanism whereby climate scientists have anything to gain from reporting anything other than the truth. I suppose that a hard-core environmentalist would consider the end of coal to be a plus. Hell, I'm not particularly an environmentalist, and I can see that. Millions of people's health will improve if we either stop burning coal entirely or seriously clamp down on particulate emissions. However, I don't think that a significant fraction of climate scientists are Earth First-types. Do we see climate scientists with affiliations that would suggest this sort of political agenda? It seems like an awful lot of the denialists are hooked up with outfits like the Cato Institute. I just don't think there's evidence to say that all the science in this subject is motivated by politics.

What would you call anti-growth policies other than anti-capitalist ?

You know, clean coal will fix the pollution issues, but AGW precludes that possibility.

Well, look at the $Millions of grants they're getting. Do you think they'd be getting any of that funding if AGW wasn't an important issue ? Besides, their careers are tied to AGW now. If AGW goes down, they're going down with it.

Stephen McIntyre is not involved with CATO.

I think you should read the emails, to see just how bad they sound.
Plus, the recently released data from NZ has some serious issues with it, thus the need for raw data.

http://wattsupwithth...e-official-one/

Edited by rwac, 29 November 2009 - 02:12 AM.

[rwac]

Here's another good site.

http://www.surfacest...g/odd_sites.htm

Just look at those sites, and tell me that you can accurately gauge temperature using them.
Some of them are really bad.

[niner]

This belief seems to be the nub of the problem. I don't know any scientists who hold anti-capitalist views, and I know a lot of scientists. Everyone knows communism doesn't work, so is there even anyone left in the world who is an anti-capitalist and not crazy? I just don't see this. What's the evidence for it? I can't see a mechanism whereby climate scientists have anything to gain from reporting anything other than the truth. I suppose that a hard-core environmentalist would consider the end of coal to be a plus. Hell, I'm not particularly an environmentalist, and I can see that. Millions of people's health will improve if we either stop burning coal entirely or seriously clamp down on particulate emissions. However, I don't think that a significant fraction of climate scientists are Earth First-types. Do we see climate scientists with affiliations that would suggest this sort of political agenda? It seems like an awful lot of the denialists are hooked up with outfits like the Cato Institute. I just don't think there's evidence to say that all the science in this subject is motivated by politics.

What would you call anti-growth policies other than anti-capitalist ?

You know, clean coal will fix the pollution issues, but AGW precludes that possibility.

Well, look at the $Millions of grants they're getting. Do you think they'd be getting any of that funding if AGW wasn't an important issue ? Besides, their careers are tied to AGW now. If AGW goes down, they're going down with it.

I've never met a scientist who was so emotionally attached to the idea of "anti-growth" that they would create a mammoth conspiracy to foster it. Why is AGW even anti-growth, anyway? It's certainly going to cause economic rearrangements, particularly if you own a coal company. The economies of the world will surely continue to grow in a clean energy regime; I don't think anyone is seriously questioning that. The most reasonable analysis I've seen is that attempts to control CO2 emissions will take a small fraction off of world GDP for a while. I don't think they even included some of the positive changes like improved health in the analysis. It's certainly nothing like the return to the dark ages that some seem to be suggesting.

Clean Coal might fix the air pollution issues, if it ever happened. I don't see anything on the horizon that would make it happen, though. And I don't think Clean Coal would help with strip mining destruction.

I've heard the $$grant money argument made about a variety of scientists in various fields. I don't think it causes them to falsify their work of to engage in conspiracies. I've just known too many scientists who are very ethical people. All the venality that is ascribed to them just doesn't ring true with me.

[niner]

Here's another good site.

http://www.surfacest...g/odd_sites.htm

Just look at those sites, and tell me that you can accurately gauge temperature using them.
Some of them are really bad.

This is a pretty good example of the paranoia of the anti-AGW guys. Out of 1221 weather stations, they've found a dozen, or 1%, than might have questionable readings part of the time. Most of the purported problems with those sites would be transient at best. Has anyone actually demonstrated that there's a significant problem with those sites? Even if there was, it would be in the noise.

[rwac]

This is a pretty good example of the paranoia of the anti-AGW guys. Out of 1221 weather stations, they've found a dozen, or 1%, than might have questionable readings part of the time. Most of the purported problems with those sites would be transient at best. Has anyone actually demonstrated that there's a significant problem with those sites? Even if there was, it would be in the noise.

Nope. That's just some stations with egregious problems. Take a look at this pdf.
These guys have been evaluating all 1221 of the weather stations, and it looks pretty bad.
Something like 89% of the stations have an expected error of >1 degrees C

It's too big to attach.

http://wattsupwithth...rt_spring09.pdf

[rwac]

I've never met a scientist who was so emotionally attached to the idea of "anti-growth" that they would create a mammoth conspiracy to foster it. Why is AGW even anti-growth, anyway? It's certainly going to cause economic rearrangements, particularly if you own a coal company. The economies of the world will surely continue to grow in a clean energy regime; I don't think anyone is seriously questioning that. The most reasonable analysis I've seen is that attempts to control CO2 emissions will take a small fraction off of world GDP for a while. I don't think they even included some of the positive changes like improved health in the analysis. It's certainly nothing like the return to the dark ages that some seem to be suggesting.

Clean Coal might fix the air pollution issues, if it ever happened. I don't see anything on the horizon that would make it happen, though. And I don't think Clean Coal would help with strip mining destruction.

I've heard the $grant money argument made about a variety of scientists in various fields. I don't think it causes them to falsify their work of to engage in conspiracies. I've just known too many scientists who are very ethical people. All the venality that is ascribed to them just doesn't ring true with me.

Perhaps not a scientist, but environmentalists are attached to the anti-growth idea.
Haven't you been listening to the talk of "sustainable" as opposed to "unrestrained" growth ?

Of course, energy prices will go up cap and trade, which will lead to price increases in most goods.
The increased burdens would likely send a lot of manufacturing to India and China.
The need for carbon credits would further hurt companies just starting up, and help established companies.
(Most regulatory frameworks do this. Larger companies can generally deal with regulation better.)

Most scientists are definitely ethical people. I know my fair share too.
It's just that science (just like any other system) can go horribly wrong when there's not sufficient negative feedback to keep it on the right path.

Get the aerodynamics of a plane wrong, and things fall out of the sky.
"Accidentally" manipulate the data to create a hockey stick, and who would ever know ?
Especially since all your peers are your buddies, and you won't let anyone else have your data.

[niner]

This is a pretty good example of the paranoia of the anti-AGW guys. Out of 1221 weather stations, they've found a dozen, or 1%, than might have questionable readings part of the time. Most of the purported problems with those sites would be transient at best. Has anyone actually demonstrated that there's a significant problem with those sites? Even if there was, it would be in the noise.

Nope. That's just some stations with egregious problems. Take a look at this pdf.
These guys have been evaluating all 1221 of the weather stations, and it looks pretty bad.
Something like 89% of the stations have an expected error of >1 degrees C

Ok, I read the entire report, and I am going to retract that claim of paranoia. That said, there has been no attempt made to quantify the errors. It should be easy to take the data from the class 1 and 2 stations, and compare it to the data from the more poorly sited stations. It wouldn't be that hard to put a correctly sited, calibrated station near a few of the poorly sited ones, and see how they compare for a few months or more. Anthony Watts is a man on a mission; a mission to prove that AGW is false, from the looks of it. Certainly if you read the report, you hear nothing about the other sources of temperature data or any of the obvious clues from arctic and high altitude regions. With 400 or so stations yet to be checked, I would imagine that they are in less populated areas, and might be better sited, so those might change the statistics some. That doesn't excuse the poor siting of the ones they found, though. I think an important question is to what extent do we rely on temperature sensors such as these in our climate models, and what other sources are used? There is satellite data, and data from ocean buoys, among other things (tree rings, sediment and ice cores...). Watts has found something that looks bad, but is it as bad as it looks? I'd like to hear what the users of that data would have to say about it. Have there been any rebuttals of this report? I would think so, because the conclusion seems to imply that you can't trust anything about AGW, and I'm not convinced that's warranted.

Edit: I found a rebuttal from NOAA. They compared data from 70 high quality stations to the complete set. There's no difference in trend. Watts' report looks bad, but the situation is much less bad than it looks. If Watts was really unbiased, he'd be upfront about this.

Edited by niner, 29 November 2009 - 05:07 AM.

[rwac]

Edit: I found a rebuttal from NOAA. They compared data from 70 high quality stations to the complete set. There's no difference in trend. Watts' report looks bad, but the situation is much less bad than it looks. If Watts was really unbiased, he'd be upfront about this.

Here's the rebuttal to the rebuttal.

http://wattsupwithth...ations-project/

There are several mistakes in NOAA's rebuttal.
Apart from that, this seems to be the core of the argument against the rebuttal.
I don't know enough to discuss homogenization of data.

a) The USHCN2 is designed to catch station moves and other discontinuities. Such as we see in Lampasas, TX

b) It will NOT catch long term trend issues, like UHI encroachment. Low frequency/long period biases pass unobstructed/undetected. Thus a station that started out well sited, but has had concrete and asphalt built up around it over time (such as the poster child for badly sited stations Marysville, now closed by NOAA just 3 months after I made the world aware of it) would not be corrected or even noted in USHCN2.

5. They give no methodology or provenance for the data shown in their graph. For all I know, they could be comparing homogenized data from CRN1 and 2 (best stations) to homogenized data from CRN 345 (the worst stations), which of course would show nearly no difference. Our study is focusing on the raw data and the differences that changes after adjustments are applied by NCDC. Did they use 1228 stations or 1218 ? Who knows? There’s no work shown. You can’t even get away with not showing your work in high school algebra class. WUWT?

For NCDC not to cite the data and methodology for the graph is simply sloppy “public relations” driven science. But most importantly, it does not tell the story accurately. It is useful to me however, because it demonstrates what a simple analysis produces.

7. In the references section they don’t even cite my publication!

References

Menne, Matthew J., Claude N. Williams, Jr. and Russell S. Vose, 2009: The United States Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Data – Version 2. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, in press.

Peterson, Thomas C., 2006: Examination of Potential Biases in Air Temperature Caused by Poor Station Locations. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 87, 1073-1080. It is available from http://ams.allenpres...7-87-8-1073.pdf.

Yet they cite Mennes USHCN2 publication where the 1218 USHCN2 station number is clearly found.

7. is actually kinda suspicious. sounds like they're deliberately trying not to cite Anthony.

[niner]

7. is actually kinda suspicious. sounds like they're deliberately trying not to cite Anthony.

Maybe they are restricting their citations to the published literature? I dunno. I thought I remembered a reference to his report in the text but maybe I'm imagining that. Seems like a small point; I get the impression that the short little rebuttal was whipped out pretty quickly. It's not like it's a full paper or anything formal, but it does provide a solid counterpoint.

[rwac]

Maybe they are restricting their citations to the published literature? I dunno. I thought I remembered a reference to his report in the text but maybe I'm imagining that. Seems like a small point; I get the impression that the short little rebuttal was whipped out pretty quickly. It's not like it's a full paper or anything formal, but it does provide a solid counterpoint.

You're right, I guess they went back and added in the citation.
But it's really hard to judge the rebuttal because it doesn't specify the exact methodology as to how the graph was derived.

And here we are, back at the lack of code/data problem again.

[rwac]

<h3>Climate change data dumped</h3>
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

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.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
...
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

They threw away the raw data. How is that not paranoia inducing ?

[niner]

They threw away the raw data. How is that not paranoia inducing ?

If it was on paper and mag tape, that was a long time ago, probably from well before the time that this was insanely politicized. I have been involved in cleaning large quantities of data for analysis, and once you are done with the cleaning process, you have little if any call to go back to the old data. Personally, I would have saved it if it was in electronic form. If it was cleaned as it was transcribed from paper, it may have simply been impossible for them to store it. One reason this is paranoia-inducing because someone is trying to use it to whip up paranoia. Why are they doing that? What is their motivation?

[rwac]

If it was on paper and mag tape, that was a long time ago, probably from well before the time that this was insanely politicized. I have been involved in cleaning large quantities of data for analysis, and once you are done with the cleaning process, you have little if any call to go back to the old data. Personally, I would have saved it if it was in electronic form. If it was cleaned as it was transcribed from paper, it may have simply been impossible for them to store it. One reason this is paranoia-inducing because someone is trying to use it to whip up paranoia. Why are they doing that? What is their motivation?

It's not so clear. Look at the recently leaked/hacked emails.
This group seems to have a history of deleting relevant info.
Why is it so far-fetched that they would delete more incriminating data.

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@meteo.psu.edu>
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling
them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant
here,
but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere
to it !
...

They've also pretended to lose data before.

The original raw data are not lost either. I could reconstruct what we
had from some DoE reports we published in the mid-1980s. I would start
with the GHCN data. I know that the effort would be a complete wate of
time though. I may get around to it some time. As you've said, the
documentation of what we've done is all in the literature.

I think if it hadn't been this issue, the CEI would have dreamt up
something else!

Cheers
Phil

> Ben's comment:
>
> As I see it, there are two key issues here.
>
> First, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Pat Michaels
> are arguing that Phil Jones and colleagues at the CRU [Climatic
> Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK ] willfully,
> intentionally, and suspiciously "destroyed" some of the raw surface
> temperature data used in the construction of the gridded surface
> temperature datasets.
>
....
> Both of these arguments are incorrect. First, there was no
> intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that,
> over 20 years ago, the CRU could not have foreseen that the raw
> station data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and
> Pat Michaels. Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts
> by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based
> estimates of global-scale changes in near-surce temperature.
...

Full emails attached.

Attached Files

•  1255298593.txt   8.94KB   0 downloads
•  1107454306.txt   5.34KB   0 downloads
•  1212073451.txt   891bytes   0 downloads

[niner]

Scientists share data with other scientists who are looking to discover things. If a bunch of ideologues from the "Competitive Enterprise Institute", a right wing "think tank", are already convinced that you are wrong and are looking for anything they can find to cast doubt on your results, and further know nothing about the data or the models or the necessary treatment of the data prior to running the models, who in their right mind would just give them the data? They will just misinterpret the data and take it straight to the media in pursuit of their political aims.

Look at Watts' crusade about the station data. He drove all over the American West "documenting" poorly sited stations, because he wanted to cast doubt on the data. If he really wanted the truth, he could have set up a couple calibrated stations close to the poorly sited ones, or set up a pair of stations siting one poorly and the other well, to see if the siting even matters that much. I think there is a paper in the literature that has looked at this sort of thing, but Watts is just a bulldog who wants to tear down AGW. He's not interested in the truth. And the Competitive Enterprise Institute? Are they interested in the truth? Or are they just The Fossil Fuel Institute?

[rwac]

It's completely standard and normal to ask for the code and data to duplicate results.
That's how science works. It is not normal to withhold/delete data.

In a criminal case, it's the prosecutor's job to prove the allegation.
The defense doesn't need to provide alternate suspects (although it might be useful). They merely need to poke holes in the prosecution's case.

In this case, the AGW proponents are asking for major changes to the world economy.
It should be quite sufficient for the "deniers" to poke major holes in or destroy the theory.

Would you condone the prosecutor withholding vital information from the defense ?

Btw, these issues are not merely ethical issues, they have legal implications too.

Sure the CEI is on the other side.
But it's because the people who's ox is being gored are the ones who are motivated to find flaws.

Edited by rwac, 29 November 2009 - 10:30 PM.

[niner]

It's completely standard and normal to ask for the code and data to duplicate results.
That's how science works. It is not normal to withhold/delete data.

In a criminal case, it's the prosecutor's job to prove the allegation.
The defense doesn't need to provide alternate suspects (although it might be useful). They merely need to poke holes in the prosecution's case.

In this case, the AGW proponents are asking for major changes to the world economy.
It should be quite sufficient for the "deniers" to poke major holes in or destroy the theory.

Would you condone the prosecutor withholding vital information from the defense ?

Btw, these issues are not merely ethical issues, they have legal implications too.

Sure the CEI is on the other side.
But it's because the people who's ox is being gored are the ones who are motivated to find flaws.

This shouldn't be about poking holes in the case. The CEI is like a lawyer who's trying to get his client off, even though he's guilty. All they need to do is mislead the "jury", in this case the public and legislators who know nothing about the science. If someone could show that the theory was wrong using methods that were correct and truthful, I would be all for that. I think most of the scientists would be all for that, too. They're looking for the truth, and don't have much of a stake in what that truth is. This is a fight between scientists and ideologues, and being familiar with scientists, I think that they are not the incompetent, evil and venal group that the ideologues are holding them up to be.

[eternaltraveler]

If someone could show that the theory was wrong using methods that were correct and truthful, I would be all for that. I think most of the scientists would be all for that, too. They're looking for the truth, and don't have much of a stake in what that truth is

this sounds a bit naive from what I've seen of scientists (in admittedly much different fields). They are generally not the idealists they'd like others to think they are. They generally have a great deal of stake in what the truth is. Only a very few of them are the tireless truth seekers they should be. Fewer are competent at truth-seeking.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 30 November 2009 - 02:57 PM.

[rwac]

This shouldn't be about poking holes in the case. The CEI is like a lawyer who's trying to get his client off, even though he's guilty. All they need to do is mislead the "jury", in this case the public and legislators who know nothing about the science. If someone could show that the theory was wrong using methods that were correct and truthful, I would be all for that. I think most of the scientists would be all for that, too. They're looking for the truth, and don't have much of a stake in what that truth is. This is a fight between scientists and ideologues, and being familiar with scientists, I think that they are not the incompetent, evil and venal group that the ideologues are holding them up to be.

I disagree, in my opinion the client is innocent.
The IPCC is like a lawyer who wants to see the defendant hang. Guilt be damned.

However, regardless of whether the defendant is guilty or not, the prosecutor still needs to give all the available evidence to the defense. The character of the defense lawyer is not an acceptable excuse for not producing all the evidence.

Most scientists are good guys, yes. However good guys don't hide data from FOI requests.

Seems like you've fallen for the old "Ends Justify the Means" logic.

[eternaltraveler]

A statistician without domain knowledge is just a bozo. They don't add a lot of value in my experience. Meteorology deals with weather, not climate. Both of these fields sound like they have the requisite expertise, but I don't think that is necessarily the case. Is it really "obvious" that only papers with certain viewpoints get published in climate journals?

Most of the time you really do not have to be an expert steeped for decades in any field in order to be able to interpret data. This is science, not art. Data speaks for itself.

I don't suppose I need to remind you about the logical fallacy about appeals to authority.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 30 November 2009 - 12:40 AM.

[niner]

A statistician without domain knowledge is just a bozo. They don't add a lot of value in my experience. Meteorology deals with weather, not climate. Both of these fields sound like they have the requisite expertise, but I don't think that is necessarily the case. Is it really "obvious" that only papers with certain viewpoints get published in climate journals?

Most of the time you really do not have to be an expert steeped for decades in any field in order to be able to interpret data. This is science, not art. Data speaks for itself.

That's true if the data has already been cleaned and groomed and is ready for statistical analysis. That's the part that requires domain knowledge, and seems to be where the argument is.

[eternaltraveler]

A statistician without domain knowledge is just a bozo. They don't add a lot of value in my experience. Meteorology deals with weather, not climate. Both of these fields sound like they have the requisite expertise, but I don't think that is necessarily the case. Is it really "obvious" that only papers with certain viewpoints get published in climate journals?

Most of the time you really do not have to be an expert steeped for decades in any field in order to be able to interpret data. This is science, not art. Data speaks for itself.

That's true if the data has already been cleaned and groomed and is ready for statistical analysis. That's the part that requires domain knowledge, and seems to be where the argument is.

eh. I still disagree with you. Domain knowledge is important. But you don't need a hell of a lot of time to play catchup in a field if you already have a firm foundation in science in general.

I still have little opinion on whether global warming is real or manmade. I maintain that this is largely irrelevant.


I am against spending trillions of dollars on the "problem".