Patrick Courrielche has posted the first article in a series on Climategate, including some discussion of me:
Shortly after the post, Lucia, a PhD and specialist in fluid mechanics, received an email from prominent climatologist Gavin Schmidt from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). It said in part, “[A] word to the wise… I don’t think that bloggers are shielded under any press shield laws and so, if I were you, I would not post any content, nor allow anyone else to do so.â€
In response to my inquiry about his email, Schmidt posited, “I was initially concerned that she might be in legal jeopardy in posting the stolen emails.†Gavin Schmidt was included in over 120 of the leaked correspondence.
When asked if she thought the Climategate documents were a big deal at first sight, Lucia responded, “Yes. In fact, I was even more sure after Gavin [Schmidt] sent me his note.â€
Bet you guys didn’t know I got an email from Gavin almost immediately after my first climategate post. It’s one of the reasons I later searched out similar incidents, and mentioned Orin Kerr’s blog post about the legality of posting the “Sarah Palin” emails. My post here Orin Kerr’s post here. I bet some of you wondered why I posted that specific post. Well… the email from Gavin motivated it.
Turns out a few bloggers had been wondering how severely they might need to prune comments that quoted from the CRU emails. They sent me thank you notes for pointing me to The Volokh Conspiracy.
lucia runs with a dangerous crowd:
It’s kind of funny to see circumspect, number-crunching lukewarmists like lucia and Steven Mosher cast as edgy underground anti-establishment bomb-throwers. Kinda cool, actually.
It makes Gavin’s gallant protective gesture even more touching if one were inclined to think beneficently which, of course, I am not.
dood. I can be the moshpit on command
Early 80’s LA punk scene, black flag, I was there. F the man.
Actually Lucia I was a bit worried after posting up the mails in the raw, so your posts were a comfort.
George–
I gotta admit…. I don’t see myself as an edgy, anti-establishment bomb-thrower.
Gavin many have intended his gesture the way he characterizes it. However, it is not the way I perceived it. On the other hand, Gavin grew up in England. He may not just automatically think “Probably ok under the First Amendment”. I worried enough to check.
I was worried enough to download a copy the instant I heard they were available.
Yup! Thank you again.
Excuse the self-link but I have some fairly startling new Climategate news.
Gavin’s email was typical passive aggressive behavior that represents the realclimate milieu.
@steven mosher (Comment#29570)
LOL!!
Any chance of seeing the entire e-mail from Gav?
I would have thought that this was covered by the Pentagon Papers ruling. If I understand it, the leaker/hacker had liability but not anyone who republishes once it’s in the public purview. Secondly the emails were not “private” but work product and I would think would be the property of CRU, not the writers.
BarryW–
I don’t think all the emails belong to CRU. Some were sent to CRU. So, in a copyright snit, they emails would more likely be property of the author or the authors employer. Still…. I don’t think Gavin was referring to copyright when he wrote.
LOL. What a jerk.
bugs–
Why do you think Courrielche observing that climategate triggered public distrust in the peer review process makes him a jerk? Or is it does saying climate did not trigger the death of global warming that makes him a jerk?
I think what Courrielche observes about climate gate is close to right. I know people like Michael Tobis would rather engage those who make the “death of climate change” claim and stay away from the people making the more nuanced claims. But how does that make those who make correct claims “jerks”?
If you read the mails you will see that mistrust in the journal system STARTED with Mann.
Prior to 2003 and the publication of the Soon paper in a peer reviewed journal, the DOMINATE strategy for the climate scientists was established by overpeck. Overpeck’s strategy was to focus on the dictomony between peer reviewed literature and non peer reviwed literature ( the web for example) This strategy was complimented by tactics of ignoring the skeptics and/or attacking their motives.
The strategy, however, had a weakness. As noted in the mails that weakness was exposed when the Soon paper was publsihed in the peer reviewed literature. The scientists noted this weakness. Mann’s reaction was to claim that the skeptics had
stage a “coup” at the journals. The wall had been breached.
The battle ground was shifted to fighting within the journals.
In the same mail, Jones gives the hint at how that battle will be fought: “we have a CRU employee on the editorial board.”
Once the battle was shift to inside the journals, the tactics shifted to twisting that system to their own advantage.
Read the mails for christs sake.
Luica and Mosh,
Who do you want to play you in the movies!!
8>)
Steven Mosher,
“Read the mails for christs sake.”
Bugs can read?? I thought his seeing eye troll was reading, interpreting, and writing for him!!
So if millions of bloggers comment on Climategate – are they going to haul all of them to court! Be like trying to catch smoke in a string bag!
You guys are too hard on “bugs”, I really do enjoy reading him. He reminds me what reasoned discussion is…
by counter-example
David Jay (Comment#29614),
“You guys are too hard on “bugsâ€, I really do enjoy reading him.”
I do not. He substitutes a political point of view for rational thought… the opposite of constructive contribution.
lucia (Comment#29604) January 8th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
His opinion that “What was triggered at this blog was the death of unconditional trust in the scientific peer review process”
There has never been unconditional trust in peer review, it’s just the best process we have come up with. Completely different.
“What was triggered at this blog was the death of unconditional trust in the scientific peer review process, and the maturing of a new movement – that of peer-to-peer review.”
From what I have seen it produce to date, LOL.
, and the maturing of a new movement – that of peer-to-peer review.
Doe bugs ever post anything substantive? What a bunch of trite nonsense.
I would like to make one observation concerning the emails and their legal status. The most important aspect for me is the fact that they are EMAIL. That is, they have all (or at least most) crossed the Internet in plain text and without any control concerning which systems they went through, if and where copies were made, what modifications were made (and to be clear they were ALL modified at least in their headers).
.
Doesn’t anyone read the silly trailers that so many email systems automatically append? Something along these lines “Please use your E-mail connection with us exclusively for the exchange of information. We do not accept legally binding declarations (orders,etc.) by this means of communication.”
.
Email is not a private document. This can all be modified through the use of PGP/GPG or the like but even the conspiracy types don’t seem to bother.
bob
Kuhnkat.
Me: russell crowe. ( or bill murray)
Lucia: Scarlett Johanson
Do I like get to make out with Lucia in the movie.
Or maybe matt damon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsU5jVCQ-QA&feature=related
Mosh,
Do you get to make out with Matt Damon?
Is bender still cleaning your pool?
Is it big enough to sequester stuff?
Carrick (Comment#29620) January 8th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Blame the messenger. I’m dealing with trite nonsense.
About that peer-review:
Just before Christmas I sent a minor paper about some fungal taxonomical problem to a journal. To my surprise, they managed to get reviews so early that I was able to read them online at Dec 30th.
And guess what – I was chastised by one of the reviewers because I archived the DNA sequences OK, but didn’t deposit the natural specimens in public herbaria and isolated fungi into public collections. Without depositing, no paper…
So I spent the first week of the New Year performing the requested tasks, being sternly reminded that a humble fungal taxonomist must obey the rules.
Unlike some other scientists working in research much more influential on world politics.
Well, mycology is a science. You can’t expect the standards of science to govern climatology.
I used to help preserve Audabon and other notable collections, as such worthies, as “pigweed” at the Univeristy of South Carolina’s Herbarium. EW, I wonder if it tickles you, as much as me, to see these claims of how hard it is to archive data (in an electronic age) when you have helped preserve specimens taken in the 1800’s on paper backing and bugs love to eat them, and the paper.
SteveMosher–
I was going to suggest Sally Field for me. My niece can be played by Scarlett Johanson (although Sandra Bullock with hair died blonde would look more like my niece.)
Suppose Coppola decides to remake “The Godfather” with the actors at NASA, Hadley, CRU and IPCC as cast. Who would play which roles? I like Pachauri for the godfather, Gavin Schmidt for Luca and Michael Mann for Fredo. But after that I draw a blank. Can anyone help? Or can my casting be improved?
I think Bugs is on to something. Whoever had “unconditional trust in the peer-reviewed literature? This trust was something WE, the lay supplicants were told we should have.
Did the initiates really have it themselves? doubtful
Lucia – if you go with Sally Field then perhaps we can call it Absence of Malice part 2″.
True about those that were sent to CRU, but the argument still holds. If the emails were done on company time at either end (unless universities work differently from the ‘real world’) they count as work product and are the property of the employer. People think that they somehow have a right to privacy while using company property and on company time. Usually it’s written right in&to the employment contract or the P&P
Fred Nieuwenhuis (Comment#29594)
Fred don’t laugh. I have seen the moshpit. It is deep, dark and dangerous.
Lucia
deep and dark but a mere pussycat in comparison. :)) Haiku
Sorry, my use of the word private was not in the sense of ownership but rather “a private conversation”.
SMTP traffic is plain-text over the wire unless you take the trouble to encrypt it before sending. If an email has traversed the Internet it must realistically be seen as “published” since any number of persons and systems may have read it, made a copy of it, or modified it (with or without notification). It isn’t quite as bad as spraying it on the side of a bridge but not much better either.
If one wants to be certain that the content that is received is the same as what was sent then a mechanism is required to provide that. This is typically done with public key signatures. If one doesn’t want the content to be read while being transferred then it should be encrypted before transmission. None of this is new(s) but very few seem to take any notice.
.
One thing I should clarify too: any documents that were not sent via the Internet would NOT be included in what I have discussed. It is also likely (IANL) that the aggregate archive _IS_ private (unpublished) and thus the actual posting is most likely a crime.
Lucia,
“I was going to suggest Sally Field for me.”
.
You’re a lot younger than Sally Field.
“peer to peer review”
What a joke. These blogs are fun and all, but what discoveries have any–even the great Steve M–made? The contributions from blog science are less than minor.
Boris Comment 29648
And what discoveries have those “great” climatologists at RealClimate made????????
Boris (Comment#29648),
As usual, Boris, you completely miss the point.
.
Blogs like this involve mostly technically trained people with a wide range of backgrounds, a wide range of expertise, and most with ‘day jobs’. These are not climate scientists, so it is rather odd for you to suggest they should be contributing climate scientists.
.
Were some people (like you) not attempting to force enormously expensive draconian measures on humanity in response to global warming, I doubt that these bloggers and blog commenters would give a hoot about climate science. Were climate science not dominated by a bunch of left-leaning ideologues, I doubt these blogs would even exist.
.
What the climate blogs do is critically evaluate the quality of climate science and raise serious questions about the projections based on that science. If you doubt this, re-read the UEA emails. The climate scientists involved certainly cared about the content of blogs; heck, they even created their own blog in response to skeptical blogs.
.
What would make climate blogs go away? Politically neutral climate scientists. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for either.
In the Fairfax district of Los Angeles county there exists natural seepage of methane that remains undectable by ordinary senses.
Every now and then a stray spark or similar source of ignition will present itself and awareness is made suddenly and violently.
Never doubt the ineluctability of the inevitable.
Bob Sykes (Comment#29633)
January 9th, 2010 at 8:31 am
Funny you should say Mann should play Fredo.
This is my third try with this video, and maybe I can elicit a comment this time. (As usual, I’ve been ignored in the past :))
From the Seinfeld episode featuring Fredo the bird:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xk5bd_seinfeld-apartment-5e_fun
The neighbor remind you of anyone?
Tony Hansen (Comment#29626) January 9th, 2010 at 4:44 am
ok, you scored points on the matt damon dig.
bender bender bender.
I don’t know WTF is up with him. Maybe Mc will drop him a line.
steven mosher (Comment#29653)
January 9th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Bender’s stirring at CA. Looks like he’s getting caught up on things.
Boris (Comment#29648) January 9th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
“peer to peer reviewâ€
What a joke. These blogs are fun and all, but what discoveries have any–even the great Steve M–made? The contributions from blog science are less than minor.
________________________________________________________
I dunno. What great discovery has jones or mann made? that they can document? document and not lose the documentation?
I dunno. One great scientist claims a discovery. A retired mining executive looks at his data and says, hey genius, you got this proxy site in the wrong location. Is that science? is that bookkeeping? Does it matter? Will the scientist admit his mistake, say thank you and give credit? Huh, why not? Is that scientist the kinda guy you would trust with your taxes. You see most people can’t check the science. So, they have to trust something. That something ends up being the peer review system.
How come the vaunted peer review process doesnt find this? I mean its just basic book keeping?
I watch the scientists trying to make their case against man as the perpetrator in this great crime against the atmosphere and planet. They gotta pretty strong circumstantial case. They got a murder weapon, C02, The got some forensic evidence that says the victim is dead, but the body is missing.maybe its just badly wounded. They got man’s fingerprint on the weapon. And then to seal their case they call in an “expert” witness. In handwriting analysis. And boy what a piece of work this fellow is. The defense attempts discovery on this guy. He refuses. He claims that IPR covers his techniques. They tell the defense to call their own damn expert to the stand.They call up other “experts” His friends, they too, refuse discovery. Turns out the prosecution has employed all the experts in this field. After some digging the defense shows that the prosecution “tailored” some of their graphs for the jury. The prosecution’s work product gets revealed. We get to see how the witnesses were coached. Crap, what the heck do you do if you are a person like me. I think the accused is guilty. It’s clear the handwriting is not required to make the case. But the prosecutor insists on this expert testimony. He argues that his misconduct doesnt make a difference to the underlying crime. heck he wont even admit to the misconduct. Me? As jury? I have to aquit. As Judge, I would grant a mistrial.
And the prosecution continues to mutter ” it doesnt make the accused innocent” I gotta shrug. Your job buddy was to follow the rules of the court and get a conviction that would stand on appeal. You get a chance to try the case over. Can I suggest you hire Judith Curry. And oh, your career as a prosecutor is over Mr. Darden. Nice move with the glove, numbnuts.
John F. Pittman (Comment#29631)
Sure. Archiving real things is quite problematic and expensive – the bugs don’t eat only paper, but often also the dried plants and fungi. Collection of living cultures needs staff and constant checking and subculturing. Practically all raw material archiving is difficult.
Therefore I was quite surprised by CRU scientists declaring, that they threw out the old raw data due to lack of storage and maintained only the “value-added” version… Being through digitizing all the data once already (otherwise how would have been that value added vrsion produced?), would they really throw out the originals AND the digitized versions?
Boris is right. The peer to peer system played absolutely no role in undermining the fundamental cartoons offered by peer reviewed settled scientific consensus. The defeat of the blogs is why COP15 was such a success.
Boris:
Then I have a suggestion for you a$$-hat. Stop wasting your time reading them. You wouldn’t be missed. Really.
John Pittman.
It boggles the mind. As long as we are telling stories…It was my distinct pleasure to know this man and take classes from him
http://vintondearing.com/biography/
And this which says much more about him.
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/inmemoriam/vintonadamsdearing.htm
While I did not share his religious faith, he did turn me on to programming and for that I am grateful. His office was filled with drawer after drawer of index cards. Hand written. Here he was this pioneer of using computers and literature ( arrg fortran and basic) with a paper back up of all his work. Every fricken textual variant of huge collections. The complete works of Dryden. The Bible. Dood was monk like. I was punk like. Personally, I couldnt work that way, but I was glad he knew how to do the job right.
I measure folks by him.
(Hint: install the CA Assistant… it works here too for souped-up comment replies, auto-threading, etc… 🙂 )
bugs:
The world is full of trite nonsense. Surely you have something of more substantive to add than to point out what you see as trite nonsense?!
j ferguson (Comment#29634) January 9th, 2010 at 8:32 am
They don’t ask you to ‘trust’ them, they have put forward their case in great detail, and provided multiple, independent streams of evidence.
“Then I have a suggestion for you a$$-hat.”
GFY.
Bugs: …. “They don’t ask you to ‘trust’ them, they have put forward their case in great detail, and provided multiple, independent streams of evidence.”
I thought this was my point, but I guess I made it badly. Those who write for journals don’t expect to be “trusted” because they’ve been peer-reviewed. Not are the are the people to whom these journals are aimed expected to trust because it’s been “peer reviewed.”
It’s the rest of us who were asked repeatedly to trust peer-reviewed literature, and further to suppose anything not peer-reviewed to be the work of a duffer at best.
Bugs, I think I agree with you on this.
“George–
I gotta admit…. I don’t see myself as an edgy, anti-establishment bomb-thrower. ”
Maybe you could be a bomb knitter. Boom!! Sweaters and slippers everywhere 😀
Jeff–
Two ladies at The Moose Lodge admired my hat yesterday, and I offerred to make them some. (The Moose crowd has been really helpful to my inlaws while Jim Sr. is having Chemo. Otherwise, I generally only knit for relatives. )
“What a joke. These blogs are fun and all, but what discoveries have any–even the great Steve M–made?” For instance the fact that big NASA had to admit that 1934 was the hottest year on record?
Do you really think that the FOIA papers were revealed without the relentless work of Climate Audit? Keep on trollin’ these blogs you despise….
Lucia and Mosh,
Isn’t this going to be a mystery or action movie?? How about:
Madonna, Linda Hamilton, Angelina Jolie, Jeri Ryan
Johnny Depp, Hugh Jackman, Jason Statham, Vin Diesel (he could wear a wig!!)
8>)
Andrew,
Can you determine the temperature currently in my part of san francisco? Right now? Well you are not here to measure. Can you estimate it? Is it hot enough to boil water? 100C Nope. you kinda know that without being here.
What if I told you that the hottest its been since 1875 was 73F
Can you make a better guess? The coldest was 32F. can you guess better now? Would you guess somewhere between 32 and 73?
knowing NOTHING about todays weather, what is your best guess?
53.5
Are you close?
damn, you almost nailed it. see you can estimate things you cant measure directly. go figure.
Lets do another one. Guess the jan temperature back in 1000. go on guess. Given no other information whats the best guess you can make? I’ll say 53.5. But what about the spread of data? can you guess? of course. How good will your guess be? That depends. Will you be able to say with confidence that it was warmer ? Perhaps, You might say you were 25% confident it was warmer, or maybe 50% or 62%. It would depend upon the proxy evidence you had. You might have no proxy evidence for san francisco. Would you bet that it was warmer than 73F? Warmer than 136F? Why, why not? Was it colder than 32F? colder than -80F
Is there evidence we can look to to narrow these ranges?
Yup. Is it complex? yup? Is there a lot of certainty in it? nope.
What’s it look like for san francisco.
here’s a nice little start. Looks like everything points to a climate back in 1000 that is pretty close to today..Dry and warm as opposed to the wet and cold of the LIA
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/WRCA/pdfs/ccow_Ingram.pdf
Is this data certain enough to establish that climate we see today in SF is unprecedented in the past 1000 years? Nope.
“For instance the fact that big NASA had to admit that 1934 was the hottest year on record?”
Can you tell me the net change in deg C, please?
Because of blogs we know that quality control is non-existent at many of the climate datasets (temp, ice, et al). Because of blogs, we know that Mann, Rahmstorf, Jones, Briffa, et al are incompetent and quite possibly frauds. We know that the IPCC is riddled with dozens of errors, many of which are simply inexcusable.
Science is the process of developing hypotheses and poking holes in them. The hockey team pitched a hypothesis and mounted a major PR campaign to push it. Bloggers did the real science. They showed that so many of the supposed studies and databases are fundamentally flawed that the hypothesis lacks much of the support that was claimed for it. That’s exactly how science works.
To repeat — it was bloggers who made a very large contribution in the scientific process of revealing flaws. Bugs, if you don’t think that’s science, you don’t know science.
stan:
For those of us with a science or engineering degree (probably excludes the trolls with poly-sci backgrounds), we occasionally learn new techniques that we can apply to our own work and get the opportunity to debate scientifically interesting questions with like minded individuals.
One of the big downers for me was when I realized that realclimate was actually a political blog and not interested at all in fomenting technical debate. I quit having any desire to contribute after than.
Other than that, I don’t see blogs as being a substitute for peer review, so much as a platform for discussing the building blocks of papers, like methods, analysis and occasionally even the best presentation style for reporting results.
Hoi Polloi (Comment#29676) January 9th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“What a joke. These blogs are fun and all, but what discoveries have any–even the great Steve M–made?†For instance the fact that big NASA had to admit that 1934 was the hottest year on record?
Where do you get that from, Hansen said that long before MCIntyre said anything about it?
Also Mosher who will play your accomplice?
Phil. (Comment#29684) January 9th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Hal holbrook of course.
Boorish (Comment#29648):
Click-click
After your last embarrassing outburst with Willis Eschenbach, Boorish, a number of us are surprised to see you back here trolling so nonchalantly, as if you didn’t make an ass out of yourself — especially in light of the December 2008 exchange you had with Willis E., in which he spanked you around until you wound up blubbering like a pussy.
Boris, Bugs —
Re: Steven Mosher’s invitation to estimate the temperature in San Francisco, 1000 years ago (Comment#29678, January 9th, 2010 at 6:43 pm).
Mosher offered a link to where Prof. Ingram assembled some proxies(oxygen isotope, forams, sea level), and used them to try and reconstruct the past.
Would it matter if Prof. Ingram’s mis-calibrated some of those proxies to temperature?
Would it matter if he used some of them in an upside-down orientation?
Would it affect your view of Ingram’s competence and probity if his response to the discovery of miscalibration and inverting was to double down on his uncorrected reconstruction, claiming that the focus should be on the “bizarre” aspects of the discovery of his errors?
Before expanding talking points on the worthlessness of “blog science” and “peer-to-peer review,” and before reiterating the lack of substantial contributions by Steve Mcintyre: Please offer your interpretation of the use of the Lake Korttajarvi (Tiljander) varve proxies in the paleoclimate reconstructions presented by Mann et al (PNAS, 2008).
All necessary background can be accessed by a Google search of the obvious terms.
To date, the defenses of Mann & coauthors’ position have been embarassingly lacking in logic and substance. The public silence of Mann et al.s peers has been notable. So you have an opportunity to make a valuable contribution.
Until then, my hypothesis would seem to stand. Which is that McIntyre has made at least one very valuable contribution to climate science by discovering and discussing a glaring error that somehow slipped past the main author, co-authors, PNAS editors, and reviewers.
The implications of that error still haven’t been fully explored. There’s another opportunity for a contribution.
The only way that Lucia could be seen as a danger to any establishment, is if the establishment in question is entirely corrupt.
bugs,
You deomonstrate that unconditional, idiocracy approved, blind trust for the status quo with every post you make.
“Where do you get that from, Hansen said that long before MCIntyre said anything about it?”
It was in the MSM in 2007, have you been around on this planet at that time?
And if Hansen said that long time before, why didn’t they adjusted it until McSteve mentioned it? Inconvenient news?
Great posting, Lucia. It is an excellent and valid point, that blogs and internet discussion have changed the future of science forever. There is no going back, regardless of reactionaries such as Gavin, Phil, Mike, and the boys.
James–
Sorry I didn’t notice the moderated comments.
Hmmm…. do you want just the content? Or the raw headers with originating IPs and time stamps?
Actually, I don’t like to post full email from individuals at my blog, but I do send it on to reporters asking specific questions when researching stories.
Hoi Polloi (Comment#29692) January 10th, 2010 at 9:54 am
“Where do you get that from, Hansen said that long before MCIntyre said anything about it?â€
It was in the MSM in 2007, have you been around on this planet at that time?
Yes I was, however just because Steve McI releases some self-aggrandizing statement doesn’t mean I believe it.
In 2001 Hansen reported (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf) the following:
“The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the
GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century.
In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main
reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing
temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station
history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S.
temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.”
Phil:
LOL.
. By 2007, 1998 had been adjusted upwards in temperature so it was by then hotter than 1934.
Nor did Hansen know of the adjustment error in 2001.
I’m laughing at you, not with you.
Since then, GISS has again adjusted temperatures up again.
Here’s their latest rankings:
Reference.
AMac
Thanks for that. It astounds me that people continue to defend Mann’s work. He made mistakes. The BEST I have seen someone do is argue.. “if there was a mistake, and I’m not saying there was, but if there was, then it doesnt matter.”
How about this: “I would like to thank “fill in the blank” for pointing out the error. The error has been corrected and the final results have been ammended accordingly. In our view, the text describing the conclusion still stands”
But they cant admit the error, cant credit Mc. They obscure, move on, throw stones.
MAkes me embarassed to believe in AGW seriously. They treat Mann and Gore like they were friggin saints. This is science. You make mistakes. Its not about the man. own up to your errors and you move the science forward. But these guys run around ” christy made and error, christy made an error, wooohoo” That mail was utterly childish. Did any of you read it? I mean these guys are infantile.
As always people Miss the importance of the Y2K affair and 1934 being hottest or not.
What the skeptics need to know.
BEFORE gavin released the code I said that no one would find any GLARING ERRORS, no fraud, no intent to deceive. WHY? because you could do a simple simple simple average of the source data ( USHCN) and get something pretty damn close to GISSTEMP. pretty damn close. Which means
GISSTEMP doesnt do very much. Period. We are talking 1/10s of degrees. The “warming” doesnt happen ( for the most part) INSIDE THAT CODE. the best you could hope for is some small errors.
MANAGE YOUR FRIGGIN EXPECTATIONS. In reality after the code was released what was found: a few errors. They have been fixed. A somewhat suspect method ( the reference station) explore by Mc in a post a while back. All to the good. make the code better. eliminate objections. Do sensitivity studies. reduce doubt.
What the defender of AGW need to know.
Sharing code is GOOD thing. many eyes on the problem would have found the Y2K problem before it happened. ON INSPECTION of gisstemp it was clear to me as a former software professional that the IO was a mess. ACCEPT THAT FACT. the software sucks, and it neds professional attention to avoid these kind of problems. Stop complaining about the motives of people who know more about software engineering than a climate scientist.
Open your code and the trust issue becomes MOOT. Sharing code does not take too much time, their is no effin IPR, get over your embarassment that your code sucks and post it. Stop the silly press releases about the weather. please.
What’s left.
Skeptics: push for the raw data and the adjustment code.
Dont expect to find fraud or gross mistakes. You wont find them.
You will find bits and pieces to have a rational discussion about.
keep it focused on the data and method.
Non skeptics: learn a lesson already. cough up the data and the code. If its right you got nothing to worry about. Accept corrections with grace. Thank you, and move on. If morons misuse your code or data, correcting that is easier than untwisting the nonsense you engender by hiding stuff.
“Non skeptics: learn a lesson already. cough up the data and the code. If its right you got nothing to worry about. Accept corrections with grace. Thank you, and move on. If morons misuse your code or data, correcting that is easier than untwisting the nonsense you engender by hiding stuff.”
Except that it doesn’t work like that, does it. Every error that is found is trumpeted in the headlines as “The final nail in the coffin”.
bugs:
You’re going to get name calling and misrepresentations of facts either way, and from both sides .
That’s hardly a good basis for withholding the data and the code and undercutting your credibility with the scientific community.
Bugs.
Every error IS NOT trumpted in the news. you WELL KNOW that the errors found by the external team working on GISSTEMP were submitted to NASA, NASA made the changes, and no skeptics ran around trumpting the changes. Personally I went to the guys site and said thanks good job. I talked about the errors that they found on RC. no press releases. no cries of fraud. None of that. The code got fixed. its better now. And you guys wonder why I prefer GISSTEMP to hadcru.
And so who cares if they trumpted in the news that they found an error that amounted to .01C. take your choice PR GENIUS
1. headlines about hiding code and data and suspicions of fraud.
2. Headline about a skeptic finding an error that doesnt matter?
here’s a clue BUGS.
a small error hidden, then discovered makes MORE NEWS FOR A LONGER TIME.. then a small error found through open disclosure does.
Now how the Eff would I know that bugs. How the hell? Gosh, you think a bunch of years working releasing propritary software with bugs versus open software with bugs, gives me any insight whatsoever into which is the worst PR disaster? ya think.
steven mosher (Comment#29708)
Thanks for that Steven.
I don’t know science, I am just able to follow the course of the debate enough to doubt the dire predictions of the agw scare mongers.
What you have stated above seems to be nothing less than perfect common sense. A rare enough commodity in this age of hit and run, bumper sticker media sensationalism.
steven mosher (Comment#29707) January 10th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
bugs (Comment#29709) January 10th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Re: The misuse by Mann et al (PNAS, 2008) of the Tiljander proxies.
Imagine if XYZ et al published a paleoclimate reconstruction in a prominent peer-reviewed journal that claimed that the Medieval Warm Period sustained a hundreds-of-years global temperature anomaly of +1 C compared to the present.
Imagine further that this analysis contained multiple glaring errors. And that XYZ et al refused to share the data and code that the reconstruction was built on. That they got away with refusing to acknowledge the errors, thanks to complacent or complicit journal editors. Circled the wagons and slimed the people who’d uncovered the mistakes.
How would that go over, at RealClimate and Stoat and Deltoid? Or at The Blackboard, Pielke’s, the Air Vent, Climate Audit?
My guess: it would play out as it should play out. XYZ et at would face a chorus of well-deserved criticism. They’d have to archive their data and codes, and correct their work. Or retract it.
What are your guesses, Steven Mosher and Bugs?
Speaking of which: Bugs, you didn’t respond to my query on your views on Tiljander and Mann et al (PNAS, 2008).
AMac (Comment#29689) January 10th, 2010 at 7:27 am
Do you side with the Consensus herd and defend Mann et al’s work? Will you be the first, lonely, pro-AGW voice to say, “er… bad arithmetic, bad code, correct or retract!”
Perhaps you don’t know that story. It might enhance the credibility of your defenses of The Consensus if you looked at it. Fortunately, the competing narratives are pretty simple, and easy to understand.
“a number of us are surprised to see you back here trolling so nonchalantly”
If idiots like you can’t stand me, then I must be doing something right. Thanks.
(BTW, I know it’s you, Willis. “Miss Priss” is a bloody giveaway.)
http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/03/hansens-y2k-whopper/
You aren’t ‘gobsmacked’ Mosher? This is Hansens ‘whopper’.
Where’s the outrage, people?
Carrick (Comment#29702) January 10th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Phil:
In 2001 Hansen reported (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs…..n_etal.pdf) the following:
LOL.
. By 2007, 1998 had been adjusted upwards in temperature so it was by then hotter than 1934.
Nor did Hansen know of the adjustment error in 2001.
I’m laughing at you, not with you.
Didn’t read the last sentence I guess?
Phil:
Not close to relevant to the original discussion, which was about an adjustment error that was discovered in 2007, and to which you responded with a reference from 2001 and a claim of priority for James Hansen.
Miss Priss, you link to a topic where Lucia clearly misunderstood what the claims about the ‘Hot Spot’ were, and had to be corrected several times on what the RC topic was claiming, and what the IPCC Report was claiming. Your contributions did nothing to clear the confusion.
bugs, can you point to one example where any of your comments did anything to “clear the confusion”?
“Why was Steven Mosher so ubiquitous when it came to the breaking of the Climategate story? Because Steven Mosher had the files several days before they reached the internet.”
http://bigjournalism.com/pcourrielche/2010/01/10/peer-to-peer-review-part-ii-how-climategate-marks-the-maturing-of-a-new-science-movement/
Did you now, Steven? Tell us that story.
From that link
The NAS came up with a finding that damned McIntyre with faint praise, a more polite version of what Schmidt said.
http://bigjournalism.com/pcourrielche/2010/01/10/peer-to-peer-review-part-ii-how-climategate-marks-the-maturing-of-a-new-science-movement/
He is even more of a jerk than I first thought he was. An excellent example of using purple prose to create a mountain out of a molehill.
Dr Inferno has nailed it.
Carrick (Comment#29730) January 10th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Nick Stokes got it right first time, there was nothing I could have added.
AMac,
Any proxy study that showed a warmer MWP, first would have to
make it through a gauntlet of review from a hostile editor and hostile reviewers. “we have an employee of CRU on the editorial board.”
Assuming it did make it through, they would have to show the data nd the code or be laughed off RC and other places.
The best case for all of this of course is santer.
Santer denied intermediate data. Utterly STOOPID as a tactic.
A huge waste of his time, a ding on his reputation, and a starring role in the climategate letters. Hows that for a payoff?
Here was his brain dead argument. Intermediate data was requested. He argued that the code to produce the intermediate data was EASY and would take a couple hours.therefore he wouldnt give it.
Now, read that again. I’m NOT going to share my code because… it’s so easy it should take you two hours. Huh? duh, that’s exactly the kind of stuff you should send around. Gavin tried the same stoopid argument about GISS. Then they wised up.
1. what does the time it takes to write the code from the textual specification have to do with the price of tea in china? what?
2. Ah, looks like that code, if its so easy, doesnt have a lot of instrict value, so IFF you felt like you were giving away your lifes
work, maybe you should get a new life.
As it ends Santer’s refusal to turn over this intermediate data or the code to produce it, COSTS HIM way more time and efforts ( months he says) than the code itself or data itself was worth.
OH ya, in the end he had to post up stuff… hey Bugs.. which did more damage… skeptics working on santers stuff AFTER he released it OR Santer when he stepped on his own **** by not releasing it? No sympathy for guys who beclown themselves and waste there own time over not sharing a puny program.
Here is the trick. When you see arguments like this: we wont share the code, because:
1. its too easy, do it yourself.
2. its too hard, you wont understand it.
3. It will cost too much
4. It might be nice, but you’ll improve your moral character if you write the code yourself.
5. It’s not logically necessary to do so.
then you know, you know, that these arguments are post hoc.
They are excuses not arguments. You dont get real arguments against it, because.. there are none.
A smart climate scientists would publish his code using GPL.
Because the demand for the code is not being done for a scientifically valid process.
You will never see such juvenile commentary in a scientific paper.
Also, the standard to date has been to do it better, ‘advance the science’, if you think someone is wrong, not resort to infantile language on a blog.
Punch My Ticket (Comment#29731) January 10th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
What do you think?
If you want to see the extent to which Giss has manipulated US temperature over the past decade, here is a comment I put up at CA back in December. Unfortunately unthreaded has become an orphaned thread over there and I don’t think anyone saw it.
I blew one of the links in the comment. You’ll find it in the nested comment below the original.
bugs (Comment#29738) January 11th, 2010 at 2:59 am —
> Because the demand for the code is not being done for a scientifically valid process.
Your background reading on philosophy (Popper, Kuhn, Feynman) and on the history of scientific controversies is current. And that’s where you want to put your markers?
My favorite remains one of William Connolley’s defenses of Mann et al (PNAS, 2008)’s upside-down use of Tiljander’s (pesky) XRD varve proxy. After McIntyre forced Kaufman et al (Science, 2009) to correct their use of the same proxy, Connolley was asked what he made of that.
“[Kaufman] is right and Mann is right.”
So Mann claims that higher X-Ray Density means higher temperature, Kaufman reverses his position to claim that higher X-Ray Density means lower temperature, and they are both right. A triumph of applied arithmetic.
I still like “scientifically valid process,” though.
I think a “valid process” argument proffered by the requestee should suffice to reject any FOIA request, as well.
“Dr Inferno has nailed it.”
<3 Dr. Inferno. He's the only one asking for UAH code 🙂
I think a “valid process†argument proffered by the requestee should suffice to reject any FOIA request, as well.”
If your process involves making juvenile attacks on science, I say go jump, you aren’t really interested in advancing science, just cheap shots for the amusement of the punters.
Punch My Ticket — SteveMosher is writing a book. So, presumably, we will learn more details when it’s published.
Something good is happening. The bugs and boris trolls are losing their cool.
Their smarmy pose of assurance is slipping and showing the emptiness underneath.
Lucia,
Keep up the good work.
bugs (Comment#29744) January 11th, 2010 at 6:14 am —
> If your process involves making juvenile attacks on science, I say go jump…
Examples can be found for just about any idea, if it is phrased very broadly and very vaguely. It may well be that Michael Mann has suffered juvenile attacks by know-nothing Denialist (or Alarmist!) critics from–say–the 5th graders in Ms. Smythe’s Phrenology class at the Flat-Earth Creationist Astrology Academy.
One way to distinguish science from parascience is to ask: “What is the practitioners’ record as far as handling the strongest criticisms made by their strongest critics?”
Hence my queries to you about Mann et al.’s responses to a powerful and clear critique (Upside-down Tiljander proxies) by a capable critic (McIntyre).
That somebody, somewhere may have made another juvenile attack on science is uninteresting.
By the way, a requestee’s views of a requester’s motive is disallowed as a reason for denying an FOIA request in the US and the UK. The laws would be toothless otherwise. Cites if you need them.
bugs:
LMAO. Bugs is using the words “juvenile attacks” in conjunction with somebody besides himself or Boris.
What a hoot.
bugs:
Nick got “what” right the first time?
Still waiting for an example. Surely you and Boris are capable of something better than this petty snark and snarl.
Otherwise you may want a refund on that education.
“LMAO. Bugs is using the words �juvenile attacks� in conjunction with somebody besides himself or Boris.”
What, you actually think calling people “asshat” and “pussy” is a marker for maturity?
“The NAS came up with a finding that damned McIntyre with faint praise, a more polite version of what Schmidt said.”
Yeah, right. The NAS pannel, under oath, had to admit that they agreed with the Wegman Report conclusions: “Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.”
Re faint praise, methinks that was for Mann, not for M&M.
bugs asserted:
“Because the demand for the code is not being done for a scientifically valid process.”
Nonsense. An attempt to test another person’s conclusions by replicating their work is indeed a “scientifically valid process”.
What is NOT “scientifically valid” is the notion that one may publish scientific claims — and then demand that everyone take those claims on faith.
Witholding data, code and methods is simply unjustifiable — attempting to post hoc defend it with claims like this is just silly.
moshpit,
Ockham’s Razor: If you had the file before the links went up, then you’re the linker.
Only slightly more complex: You were sent a copy a few days ahead by the linker.
Corollary: You know who the linker is.
Punch My Ticket
Your Ockaham Razor analysis is missing key pieces of information revealed by Gavin early on. Someone uploaded the zip file to RC weeks before the link appeared to The Air Vent. Someone also evidently put a link to the RC location of the files up at Climate Audit early on, and Gavin knows some people detected the link at Climate audit and downloaded. We know SteveMosher haunts comments at Climate Audit.
So, Ockaham Razor says: SteveMosher was one of the people who noticed the link at Climate Audit and downloaded before Gavin got the files off the RC location
Boris:
Typical verbal bully. You demand to be treated deferentially while you are allowed to act as thuggishly as you wish. If you want to be treated with respect, you need to grow some manners. You push, I push back. Science is a contact sport.
I keep asking you if can you give a single example when you weren’t just behaving like a juvenile. I’m pretty sure there are no examples.
NokTang:
Exactly right. I’ll note that bugs was forced to paraphrase (colloquial for lie out his nostrils) the report because it obviously didn’t contain the words that would have supported his narrative.
Ok you guys. Stop arguing about who is the most immature!
Lucia,
REF: “Ok you guys. Stop arguing about who is the most immature!”
You have a wonderful sense of humor.
Thanks!
;^)
Lucia, your timeline is wrong. The “RC” link was included in a CA comment on the morning of November 17. The link at Jeff Id was in the evening of November 17. A link was also posted at Roman M’s site in the evening of Nov 17. Neither link attracted any comment at the time. The links were widely noticed on November 19 with Mosh stirring the pot very vigorously.
Steve–
Oh. Ok. I thought Gavin said the stuff was uploaded to RC long before it appeared at TAV.
I remembered to add “turkish” to my google search and found
‘There seems to be some doubt about the timeline of events that led to the emails hack. For clarification and to save me going through this again, this is a summary of my knowledge of the topic. At around 6.20am (EST) Nov 17th, somebody hacked into the RC server from an IP address associated with a computer somewhere in Turkey, disabled access from the legitimate users, and uploaded a file FOIA.zip to our server. They then created a draft post that would have been posted announcing the data to the world that was identical in content of the comment posted on The Air Vent later that day. They were intercepted before this could be posted on the blog. This archive appears to be identical to the one posted on the Russian server except for the name change. Curiously, and unnoticed by anyone else so far, the first comment posted on this subject was not at the Air Vent, but actually at ClimateAudit (comment 49 on a thread related to stripbark trees, dated Nov 17 5.24am (Central Time I think)). The username of the commenter was linked to the FOIA.zip file at realclimate.org. Four downloads occurred from that link while the file was still there (it no longer is).
The use of a turkish computer would seem to imply that this upload and hack was not solely a whistleblower act, but one that involved more sophisticated knowledge. If SM or JeffID want to share the IPs associated with the comments on their sites, I’ll be happy to post the IP address that was used to compromise RC.”
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2019
So, yeah. I had thought RC was hacked earlier. Don’t know why I mis-remembered.
I posted on the 19th. Mosh was the one who made me aware of the appearance of the note at TAV.
lucia (Comment#29757) January 11th, 2010 at 11:18 am
he is missing key bits, but you’ve got some bits wrong.
According to gavin the attempted post at RC when up the morning
of the 17th. And a hint went up at CA on a thread posted on the 16th. the hint was posted the 17th.
according to Gavin 4 people hit that hint. Not me, not anyone
I know. I dont know who hit that link.
Gavin could fill in those details. they could be important.
If that link was hit from sites in the UK, it could be the whistleblower checking whether his link worked or not.
steven m-
True, that. I wonder if Jeff Id or WordPress has records of who first hit that link that far back.
I don’t take any steps to save of delete any of my logs. I don’t think I have any software in place to record outclicks. But I know that if I installed the wordpress tracker, it would. But I don’t have that installed because sometimes it slows the site down. Maybe my google analytics does? I have that installed.
If Jeff has something similar installed, he might be able to check the first few clicks. If we think that might be the person who uploaded, that would be interesting.
That said… didn’t Jeff trace the comment to a proxy server? If so, the first ‘test’ clicks may also be cloaked.
Lucia:
I’m not sure how “sophisticated” that is. There are file servers world wide, and if you search for “how to hide my ip address” there are plenty of good instructions available on line how to do it.
Bugs
bugs (Comment#29719) January 10th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
It is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that you and other people do not practice CLOSE READING or completed research. Earlier I had to school Andrew Ky in this. NOW, it is your turn.
You object to the word “gobsmacked” in Mc’s commentary
First thing GENIUS, do those quote marks give you ANY EFFIN HINT
whatsoever, ANY HINT. Why gosh, Professor mosher, if an author puts a word in quotes there can only be a couple reasons.
1. he is quoting someone else
2. he is using scare quotes.. dang that makes things really tough.
Well, if you are a regular at CA you would have NOTICED and got the JOKE about the word “gobsmacked” You would have remembered the time it first came up and who used it. If you were not a regular and saw the word in quotes you would wonder
who is Mc quoting or why the scare quotes. Hmm, DAFS on CA. DAFS. you won’t, so here is a tiny clue:
“One of my first blog postings was on Briffa’s very first fudging of a temperature reconstruction – his adjustment of the Tornetrask reconstruction – a reconstruction that is used in virtually every study. This was one of the first encounters with the Divergence Problem. Tornetrask MXD went down in the 20th century. Briffa resolved this by simply “straightening†out the reconstruction (although, unlike in IPCC TAR, at least he reported it in the original article.) At the time, per, an early reader of the blog, remarked that he was “gobsmacked†at this. This has recently come up again in two contexts and this time even I am “gobsmackedâ€.”
So, unless you read the blog regularly OR practice good reading skills the word gobsmacked will trip you up.
NOW, what about the word whopper? hehe. I suggest
you re aquaint yourself with ALL THE LITERATURE. You see bugs, I have this stupid little talent for rememebering odd words. by odd I mean words that are infrequently used by authors. It’s like I’m a human Zipfs law calculator. Like so. “dang, whopper is a rare word for Steve to use, hmm outside forcing, its a volcano in his text. Sorry bugs, its how I read. years and years and years of it. And this stupid word memory. Oh, that word was on page 64, about 2/3rds the way down. weird huh. Im not as good as I used to be. But No help for you on this. You’ll have to hunt for the word whopper. not far. dont use google. follow your nose. SOMEBODY used the word whopper to describe Anthony Watts. So, think bugs.
WRT hansens mistake and Watts. I’ll say this. Lets ROLL TAPE on everything
the warmests said.
1. Climate scientists were professionals and should be trusted.
2. Watts was only interested in finding bad stations, he would
not complete his survey.
3. The adjustment codes took care of these problems.
4. The papers described the code.
5. Pictures of sites are meaningless.
6. The effect of these siting issues is nothing.
care to take a position on these?
take your best shot bugs. but be very careful.
Carrick–
I agree that Gavin’s diagnosis that the use of the Turkish computer means the unauthorized access is sophisticated is naive. I was posting to show the time lines.
Steve,
The link hit Roman’s site as well on the evening of the 17th?
RomanM is one of my favorite posters/commenters.
Neither CA nor RomanM had anything to do with me getting the file. Full stop.
Jones left the office early on friday the 13th.
Lucia,
I guess I was hoping for the entire content of the e-mail, just to read the absolute tone, ladder escape routes written in, etc. The partial quote from the message shows the tone somewhat, and hopefully accurately.
But, I know that publishing full e-mails without permission can be a tricky copyright issue.
Mosh, as you say, the word “whopper” is not the sort of word that I normally use. But it does have an honored place in CA vocabulary – attached in particular to Ammann and Wahl – known in climate terms as A&W. In an admittedly lame pun and also admittedly mixing hamburger brands a little, I called one A&W [Ammann and Wahl (submitted)] the “Little Whopper” and another A&W [Wahl and Ammann (submitted)] the “Big Whopper”. I know that the pun is pretty lame, but I submit that the use in this context is not as shall-we-say excited as a typical Zipf Law use of the term.
Jeff’s AirVent was not the first who got (some of) the FOIA papers.
BBC weatherman Paul Hudson got some emails one month before they were revealed at the AV. The fact that he ignored these emails (surprise, surprise) presumably lead to the fact that they were publiced on the AV.
One may ask; did Hudson reported the emails to his BBC principals and did they told him to ignore the emails, knowing BBC’s AGW bias and why did the leaker/hacker choose AV, a relativly obscure climate blog (sorry Jeff 😉 ) and why not for instance WattsUpWithThat which has a much larger coverage.
I’m sure Hudson is/will be interrogated by the Extremist Squad, and I’m sure we will know the leaker/hacker’s name within a reasonable period of time. If it’s a leaker and he/she’s smart he will tell so, this will prevent him from proscecution and maybe he/she’s in for the reward some bounty hunter/lawyer has made public recently.
We live in interesting times, eh Moshpit?
I think Hudson at the BBC received only a few emails which referred to him, not the entire batch, so he probably had no clue as to what would happen and didn’t really “sit” on a huge scoop.
This is all I can find about Hudson in the FOIA papers:
“You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that theres been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics views.”
Hudson claims that he was copied in on emails regarding his person, but I can’t find any CC directed to Hudson or the BBC.
Pretty sure they will not send a copy to Hudson with the following text (1255550975.txt)
“>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>> extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC.
>>>> its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat
>>>> at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was
>>>> formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
>>>> We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it
>>>> might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I
>>>> might ask Richard Black what’s up here?
yes, and those are probably the emails he was copied on, which he probably found interesting but would by no means give him a clue that “climategate” was about to happen.
Journalists get anonymous tips all the time
Steve McIntyre (Comment#29776) January 11th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Ha, A&W whoppers, I assumed the proximate cause was rabbets post, where he uses the word in reference to Anthony.
But it was one of those uses that made me go.. WTF whats that word doing here? Funny aside, Long ago I once fiddled with looking at these sort of textual occurances ( from an information theory standpoint) as significant markers. rare word = high information flow. Just a theory. Also made me a wicked plagarism spotter. where the eff did that word come from mr freshman with the MTV vocabularly, and where the eff did that parallelism come from mr stylistically impaired.
Moshpit
your presence is requested at Bishop Hill
what does the Moshman know and when did he know it?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/1/11/how-did-mosher-get-the-climategate-files.html?lastPage=true#comment6892718
bugs (Comment#29738) January 11th, 2010 at 2:59 am
I wrote:
They are excuses not arguments. You dont get real arguments against it, because.. there are none.
YOU WROTE:
Because the demand for the code is not being done for a scientifically valid process.
Really,
1. What is a scientifically valid process?
Please list the criteria.
2. How do I determine that YOU will follow a scientifically
valid process?
What I suspect is this. I suspect you will appeal to what you think the requester is going to do with the code. maybe you think he will do a blog post. maybe he has a whole history of doing blog posts. maybe he has a mixed history. Some blog posts some journal articles. What if he has no articles? is he a student?
do you quiz him on the scientific process.
Will he break your code?
Balance the harms: Santer refused to supply code to a resquest from a publsihed author. Somebody who knows the scientific process. Santer cause himself and his organization harm. Rleasing the code and data… in the end….. no harm.
here is the problem with your argument. I publsih a paper.
Gavin asks for my code and data. I say that I’m afraid he will not practice a valid process in my case. there, I dont have to share it
because of my OPINION of what he will do. This Supposition,
can of course be TESTED. how, release the code and see.
So, go find me examples of people releasing code where harm resulted. actual specific scientific harm.
usualy what happens is this: Little improvements, good PR.
So, now come up with a real argument. One based on data or principles.
Here is afunny episode. Mcintyre released his code. Tom P used Mcintyres code and MISUSED IT. gavin used Tom Ps results and posted the results. WHAM, Mc caught the error.
Moral: the winner is the guy who releases good code.
the loser is the guy who uses it unscientifically
next bugs. Really, do step up your game.
Please let there be more disks of juicy e-mails and data floating around, waiting for some excellent timing to come out and move on to the next play period.
There are several criteria, but one is that there is no public abuse or ridicule.
bugs @6:15
one is that there is no public abuse or ridicule
wow, just wow.
I don’t know about the poli-sci suggestion, but “what’s-up-doc” certainly isn’t a HISTORY major.
Mosh –
I do remember the origin (on CA) of “beclowned”. Back in my earliest lurker days…
“wow, just wow.”
Where’s the roll eyes smiley. Just try to get a paper published that indulges in the regular juvenile behaviour on display at CA and see how far you get.
“next bugs. Really, do step up your game.”
You wonder why the formal scientific process doesn’t include ad hoc analysis on the internet?
bugs (Comment#29797) January 11th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Tiljander?
bugs:
Can you point to where that is formalized?
Anyway I can think of counter examples, like a paper with this exact quote “In a series if the same paper, …” referencing another contributor’s work.
Carrick (Comment#29801) January 11th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Try and get a paper published in a serious journal that ridicules an individual. I’ll bet you can’t.
Whoever posted the data on Nov 17 was a reader of climate audit. I was online when the link appeared, as I was in the middle of an intense discussion with Steve McIntyre and Rob Wilson on the “miracle” of dendoclimatology as summarized in a cartoon in a Malcom Hughes presentation. (A cartoon caption (“Then, a miracle happens… “) that I said was not funny.) I saw the FOIA.ZIP link within an hour of its posting and did not pursue it because I am in the habit of avoiding these two things: (1) zip files from unknown sources, and (2) anything coming from RC. Had the description been less cryptic, I would have bit. As it was, I assumed it was spam for erectile dysfunction or some such nonsense. Which hapens a lot at that time of morning. (The spamming, not the dysfunction.) I thought it was for some “miracle” cure … like for people staying up way too late getting their life fulfillment from climate blogs.
bugs:
Well, personally, I would consider describing a person’s publications on a subject as a “series of the same paper” as ridicule and scorn aimed at that person. LOL. How else is one supposed to take it?
HA Bender!
That was wild the way the link appeared and then Wilson.
This is too weird.
I was there on the thread but never saw it as I avoid those blue links in the name.
Crap, wish I would have known that before writing the book.
BUT, here is what is REALLY EIRY. Scary
Without knowing anything about this… This is what I wrote,
3 weeks ago when I wrote the account. I shit you not.
“None appears to have taken the time to click on the link “RC†and why should they, as more often than not these links merely provide the email address of the poster or link to some site advertising products. ”
But if you clicked on the link and saw the file, then you are 1 of the 4 that gavin claims did this.
You are the first person to claim that they clicked on this link.
I didnt and I dont know anyone who did
David Jay (Comment#29795) January 11th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Mosh –
I do remember the origin (on CA) of “beclownedâ€. Back in my earliest lurker days…
Yes. When I staged the cage match of the century between dr. browning and judith Curry and Lucia.. and introduced the
concept fo quatloo betting… err and also reminded Lucia that I named Lumpy not sadlov?
“Lucia,
I just picked a fight for you over at Atmoz. I promised that you would unclown the boys
who had beclowned themselves. Sorry.
Oh yes. I named Lumpy! not Sadlov. people always confuse us. I’ll forgive you.
TRUTH BE TOLD? I believe I stole the term ( beclowned) from glenn reynolds way back when in the early instapundit days.. or maybe at slate on the fray where I used to hang out WAY WAY back.
That was all alias work.. so much more moshpittery
I was lurking on CA just a little while after the link appeared and I remember reading Bender’s reply. CA is pretty much way over my head at the best of times but I also remember thinking “what is this cryptic stuff all about?” I am not one of the gang of 4 clickers!
I’m looking forward to Steve Mosher’s book immensely! When will it be published over here in Thailand?!
Re: Mosh (Comment#29773) January 11th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
“Jones left the office early on friday the 13th”
And…???
Beclown, like all the be transitives, comes from forming transitive verbs on adjectives and substantives, taken as complements of the predicate, and meaning To Make: as in BEFOUL, to make foul (originally, to surround with foulness); BEDIM, to make dim; BECOLLIER, to make as black as a collier; BEBISHOP, to make like a Bishop; BECLOG, to encumber with a sticky substance (Ex: “At eve returning, thighs beclogged with thyme” — J. Rose Virgil, 1866.)
Oxford lists the earliest written use of beclowned as 1609:
“O wretch, O Lob, who would be thus beclown’d” (Samuel Rowlands, A Whole Crew of Kind Gossips 24 — not, Mr. Mosher, to be confused with Benny Profane and the whole sick crew).
The place, however, that Steven Mosher discovered the word is here.
Very, very, Intelligent lady, the “so called AGW shi** crowd don
‘t seem to ‘get it’, that we sceptics get it as well, power to the people!!
I think I will take the free back and forth of CA over the pravda-esque editorial slant of any number of allegedly scientific journals these days.
http://bigjournalism.com/pcourrielche/2010/01/12/peer-to-peer-review-part-iii-how-climategate-marks-the-maturing-of-a-new-science-movement/#more-2402
Part 3 is posted now. Thanks Mosher, Lucia, McIntyre, McKitterick, Jeff Id, Lord Monckton, Roger Pielke Sr. and Jr, and all the others who have done so much to help save the planet from the clutches of the AGW Hysterics and who have injected so much needed scepticism and anti-alarmism into the public view.
The blogosphere has been invaluable in this, and all of you who run, comment, post, analyze and in other manners assist with the dissemination of fact, less tainted with the stench of corruption, into this debate.
I second ChrissyStar. What does this mean ?
Re: Mosh (Comment#29773) January 11th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
“Jones left the office early on friday the 13th.”
Yes. That Friday was the 13th. So it’s not a horror movie reference. I am on tenterhooks. I do wonder why Jones has not done any face to face interviews and always pulls in colleagues. There are maybe direct questions he would rather not answer. I am sure he knows more than he admits about the origins of the FOIA.zip file. Do tell us more !!
mosh, i never clicked. I moused over *without* clicking, and saw the name of the file appear in the mouse-over. I always do that when weird stuff gets posted in the middle of the night. (When I’m in a commenting frenzy like that I get to see tons of crazy spamstuff before it gets filtered out.)
“I was lurking on CA just a little while after the link appeared and I remember reading Bender’s reply”
.
Actually, I never replied to the FOIA.ZIP link by “RC”. Read the thread:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/16/luckman-at-the-canadian-society-for-petroleum-geologists/
Did ANYONE reply to that comment? I don’t think so. My comment on Nov 25 on that thread was the first to reference the CRU emails.