Contrary to the insinuations of the more aggressive stone-cold coolers, the contents of the hack contain nothing to prove that basic theory of AGW is false. Contrary to strong insinunations by Raypierre the fact that there was a leak provides no evidence to suggest that all or even any arguments of the shadowy unnamed groups he he refers to rather vaguely as “them” are hollow. Moreover, contrary to Gavin’s suggestion, the fact that the emails do not contain references to “George Soros nefariously funding climate research” is not particularly interesting. ( It is equally uninteresting to observe the archive does not contain a Phil Jones’s confession that he was the one who really, shot JR. )
What is interesting is what the emails do contain. I think the most important of these are email showing active measures taken by scientists to make external evaluation of scientific claims as opaque as possible and smoke surrounding the FOI process in both the US and the UK to motivate calls for a external investigation of that process, regulations surrounding the process, and calls to increase transparency of the results of publicly funded research. Some key emails include one in which Santer threatens to no longer send papers to weather if they make data availability a condition of publication and an email where Phil Jones sympathises with Santers grumpiness about being forced to respond to an FOI request.
The Blackboard readers will recall my previous post L’Affaire Santer discussing LLNL’s behavior in response to SteveM’s request for data from Santer. The email in the leaked documents sheds more light on Bader’s formal response making it seem, at best, disingenous. I think it is fair to say that much of the damage from the leaked email will be to provide evidence that over a number of years many public statements posted in blogs, forums, letters to the editor and provided to reporter, by those often referred to as “The Team” amount to disingenous word parsing. Admittedly, the same may well be true of those who some member of the team seem to refer to simply as “them”, there is no leak to provide concrete evidence.
So what will come of all this? The thousand or so emails will be read in their entirety by many. Of those, like Judy Curry, some inclined to be some what sympathetic to “The Team” will find the overall tenor unsettling. Others with little sympathy will find enough to reinforce their negative opinions of a particula band of climate scientists. Some prominent politicians will surely press for investigations into scientists efforts to make the scientific process as opaque as possible. I suspect some prominent politicians will call for specific investigations into responses to FOIs at CRU and Livermore.
Politics is a slow and uncertain process, but I anticipate some action on the part of politicians over the next year. Gavin’s raising a red herring like lack of emails containing ” ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords” my play well to his readers, but it won’t stop calls for formal investigations into the FOI process conducted by personnel who are not salaried employees of CRU and who are less likely to be swayed by Phil Jones power within that organization.
I’d like to take a page out of Our Gav’s book and publically state that there are no emails associated with my email address that have Anna Kournikova Swimsuit Pics embedded in them.
In fact, I don’t even know anything about any of that kind of thing… whatever it is.
Humpf. 😉
Andrew
As I’ve understood lately the Harry “codes” (or what they have to make of it) are much more revealing then the emails themselves.
Hoi Polloi–
I suspect the codes have great potential to be very interesting. However, it will take longer for someone to plow through and explain the issues. That person must a) have sufficient computer skills, b) have time and interest and c) be able to isolate issues and communicate them clearly. I think such a person exists, but It’s going to take longer to find that person. If they want to explain the issues here at The Blackboard, I’d welcome a guest post. But we will need some degree of clarity.
Lucia:
You gently suggest we may have evidence of “…active measures taken by scientists to make external evaluation of scientific claims as opaque as possible…”, a sentiment I find laudably restrained, but keeping in mind that Jones and “THE TEAM” have taken in hand millions meant to fund scientific research producing public understanding of a complex issue wouldn’t it be more fair to say what we have here is “unequivocal evidence of a conspiracy to defraud the public.”
That would better explain your confidence that politicians and their bureaucratic minions will find this issue worthy of further investigation.
The underlying issue here for many is global warming versus man-made global warming versus CATASTROPHIC man-made global warming. Everyone knows what side the TEAM is on, as well as most of the politicians and policy makers. What the Team doesn’t want is open access to the data, because if we had it, I suspect the case for CAGW is rather flimsy.
I have said this all along. The politicians (who fund CRU) and the enviro-communists took CAGW to heart 20 years ago and have run with it way before a strong case could be made. This, of course, have caught certain people in a trap where they cannot escape. In essence, an emerging science was hijacked by extremists. For example, we now are beginning to understand the effects of land-use changes, black soot, brown smog, UHI effects, etc. on local and global scales. The contribution of CO2 becomes smaller with each passing year. Unfortunately, within the science, you either become extreme yourself (see the Team), or leave the field. Sad. Very sad.
“nothing to prove that basic theory of AGW is false”
No disrespect, but what “theory?” That changing CO2 concentration is responsible for temp. change, either infinitessimal or a lot or in between, or the politically necessary idea that anthropogenic CO2 increases are the complete or near complete cause of temp. change? Because the latter is in play, the reason why all the attention to wiping out the MWP and other statistical shenanigans. If the effect is infinitessimal it would be no less interesting—to real science–but what is really in play is politics and grant fundings and substitute religious belief. So, yes, the emails do debunk a “theory”–outside your strictly scientific world–the one that is controversial, the one being used for the cap and trade scam and green taxes. Indeed, in one or two sentences the emails completely vitiate Mcintyre’s long work on the divergence issue. Keep up the good work.
Chris (Comment#24366)
What the Team doesn’t want is open access to the data, because if we had it, I suspect the case for CAGW is rather flimsy.
Which data do you have in mind which you suspect would weaken the case? With HadCRUT some 2% of the data is not available, since it is still subject to National Weather Services ownership restrictions (and CRU are negotiating to find a way around this so that the whole set can be released). Do you think this 2% will undermine the case? I find that notion highly implausible (and I believe Steve McIntyre has said he’s not expecting there to be any ‘smoking gun’ in that 2%).
Sinmon Evans,
Please do not play us for fools. 2% or 100% is not the point. Lying is the point.
It is clear that they are holding back data they have no right to hold back. It is clear they are tweaking their code to make results fit.
It is clear they are playing with every aspect of this to control the message, and in apparently many cases, the brains, of those in the discussion.
Lucia,
No one needs to prove that the theory of AGW is false. In any moral political process, the advocates of destructive, wrenching change ought to be required to meet a very high burden of proof that their policy proposals are absolutely necessary. The documents from Phil Jones files which were apparently pulled together for the contingency of having to meet an FOI request contain a whole lot of evidence that Mike Mann, Phil Jones and company are frauds. And the so-called science that they pretended to rely upon for their political crusade turns out to be highly suspect. Some of it is bogus and a lot of it is incompetent.
We already knew that the temperature records were a joke. Now we know that they are even worse than we thought. We already knew that the scientific method was being subverted. Now we have even more evidence. We already knew that the IPCC assessments were one-sided garbage. Now we have proof to confirm our suspicions as to why. We already knew that peer-review was crap. Now we have a lot more evidence to explain why. And we already knew that the hockey team was incompetent when it came to statistics and computers. Now we are falling down laughing at how bad it really is.
Other than reliance on bogus temperature records, unverified and invalidated computer models, or seriously compromised science publications, what evidence remains to support the massive government measures that Jones, Mann and Hansen were pushing for? Damn little, if any.
Having just spent some time with the Harry_read_me file, I can tell you that while the programmer is not completely incompetent, the requirements/planning/management people definitely are (incompetent). This is NOT a guess or speculation, but rather based on years of personal experience with software development and test – at one time on almost precisely the same kind of software, although for a different application. The problems the programmer has to deal with there should have been resolved long before the first line of code was written, eh?
And they want me to trust them?
I think not.
Bloody amateurs……
There have been calls for a public inquiry in the UK. Suggestion that Nigel Lawson should be in the chair.
Agree with a lot of what you said.
One question I have though, even though there is nothing that disproves the theory of Human Induced Global Warming in the emails, isn’t there evidence that the proof is much weaker than the team we communicating externally?
It is clear from the emails, that the team was 100% certain they were right and the skeptics are wrong. So in their mind there was no fraud, but it seems clear from the emails that there an urgency to educate the public for action beyond what the data supported.
Bishop–
That’s for that heads up. It looks like there will be an inquiry. Of course, the results of the inquiry will be spun by many–but I suspect they will lead to some concrete changes in law and procedures related to FOI. Given Jone’s expressed cosy relationship with FOI officers, I suspect we will see some move to have FOI offers be given rotating positions such that government workers cannot develop overly close relationships with “their” tame FOI officers.
Lucia,
I just posed my first bit of code analysis – http://www.di2.nu/200911/23a.htm – based not just on the Harry_read_me but on the files it refers to.
Here’s my conclusion:
I’ve examined two files in some depth and found (OK so Harry found some of this)
* Inappropriate programming language usage
* Totally nuts shell tricks
* Hard coded constant files
* Incoherent file naming conventions
* Use of program library subroutines that appear to be
o far from ideal in how they do things when they work
o do not produce an answer consistent with other way to calculate the same thing
o but which fail at undefined times
o and where when the function fails the the program silently continues without reporting the error
AAAAAAAAAARGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!
This debate will persist because you have those who make a living searching and finding evidence to support their claims. And you have those that spite their efforts because they don’t agree with their claims. But I think that a large percentage of people who are skeptical aren’t denying warming (on whatever magnitude) for the future – nope – they’re just not convinced of the ‘danger’ and ‘catastrophe’ associated with it. That alone negates the need to support its cause. Al Gore is shouting wolf and the world sees it only in movies! Most of us know that weather – not climate – is the greatest threat to living. And most of us do not concern ourselves with models that are not held accountable for 30-100 years in the future. Nor do we believe that emission mitigation via cap n trade will slow or eliminate any meaningful temperature rises.
“.. Gavin’s suggestion, the fact that the emails do not contain references to “George Soros nefariously funding climate research†is not particularly interesting.”
But what is interesting is that the emails do reveal that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants. Maybe he could loan George Soros a quid or two?
And this leads one to ask how much has Gavin collected for his climate research? Maybe he too had no need for George Soros.
“Contrary to the insinuations of the more aggressive stone-cold coolers, the contents of the hack contain nothing to prove that basic theory of AGW is false.”
Depends on what you mean by “that basic theory of AGW”. This is a red herring or strawman. If “that basic theory of AGW” means humans are causing CO2 to rise which may cause some, as yet undetermined rise in temperatures, which are so far undetected amongst the natural rises of the past, then yes. But then this didnt require any proof or falsification.
If “that basic theory of AGW”, as meant by the alarmists, means a catastrophic and inexorable rise in temperatures due to this small increase in the CO2 extent of our atmosphere, then yes this requires a very rigorous “proof”, specially if the “cure” to this, as alleged and part of this theory, means committing trillions of dollars of tax payers money, debt and economic hara-kiri.
In this regard if it is found that a small coterie of scientists, who espouse this theory and who have extraordinary influence on the IPCC and thus policy matters and purse strings of the govt, are colluding with each other to keep contrary evidence from being published and apparently engaging in fixing data, then it is natural that doubts be raised and at the very minimum a full and fair enquiry be launched to find the truth of the matter.
Kevin Trenberth: “..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t…â€
Mr Kevin Trenberth who was the lead author of the 1995, 2001 and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports for the IPCC is totally flummoxed by the lack of warming, yet the politicians claim that the science is settled and we must commit to a suicidal battle against this uncertain and possibly imaginary AGW foe.
Scientific Doomsday Mania
by
Amitakh Stanford
22nd November 2009
There is a doomsday message that is swiftly gaining global acceptance. The new wave is clothed in acceptable clichés and has won over the support of many of the respected scientific communities.
Unlike most other doomsday messages, this one is supposedly based upon scientific evidence. The scientific “doomsdayers†wear masks and pretend that they are predicting calamities based on hard evidence. This lulls the unsuspecting public into absolute belief and acceptance of the doomsdayers’ ravings.
If the same message were given in a spiritual setting, the adherents would probably be encouraged to turn to God in preparation for the final days. Generally, scientists have sneered at and mocked spiritual predictions regarding the end times, and the same scientists have convinced the general public to do likewise. Further, governments of the world use their police powers to suppress, restrict, or even eliminate these spiritual-based groups. Scientists have now one-upped the spiritual believers by supporting their dire predictions of calamity with supposed scientific evidence. Using their scientific clout, they have now convinced most of the world leaders to meet in Copenhagen. The stated agenda of the gathering is to halt global warming with a unified and urgent approach.
People may remember that there have been similar gatherings to solve the global economic crisis. In those meetings, every leader attending was told to boost their economies by stimulus spending. By and large, the world leaders have dutifully followed those dictates. One might ask: Is the global recession over due to this unified approach – or is it deepening? Many thinking economists have finally realized the latter to be the case.
[…]
Were the carbon traders truly concerned that global warming is a seriously urgent issue, they could perhaps justify following their untested carbon-trading notion. But if it were an urgent situation, why would they offer a solution that will take decades to take effect? If they have decades to work on the solution, by definition, it cannot be that urgent. And, if they have decades to implement their plan, could they not spend at least a few years or even a few months openly and transparently debating which course of action will save the planet from its imminent death?
To demonstrate the absurdity of the current “green†position, consider that they are proposing massive increases in nuclear power because it is supposed to be carbon friendly. The nuclear proponents do not seem to care about the disposal of nuclear waste from these sites. This means that they are presenting an extremely short-sighted solution, which is not really a solution at all. Besides, the proponents of expanding nuclear power want to tremendously restrict who can and who cannot use nuclear power. For instance, Iran and North Korea are presently being ostracized for, among other things, having nuclear-power programmes. This is a glaring instance where part of the real agenda of the ruling elite shows through; the nuclear proponents are not as concerned about global warming as they are with political dominance.
As indicated earlier, humans are only marginally responsible for global warming. The hotter sun is undeniable, and it is the main reason for global warming.
[…]
This would be all well and good if it could be believed that scientists are acting in the people’s best interests. But, since when have scientists been assumed to be altruistic? Why is it accepted that they will only act in the best interests of humans? And why should it be accepted that the scientists are correct about human causes of global warming?
[…]
The carbon-trading schemes, and other emissions-based solutions presented by the ruling elite’s scientific doomsdayers, will not solve global warming. But, if they get their way, they will change the lives of people for the worse.
Does anybody remember the Keenan affair, where a distinguished professor was accused of scientific misconduct and fabrication and got off under mysterious circumstances?
http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/2009/03/kafka-at-albany.html
Well, we’ve got access to part of the other side of that now. What did Tom Wigley think? Did he speak up at the time? If he knew there was a problem with the paper – that it contained a statement about method essential to the paper’s validity that could not possibly be true, and indeed where the author already knew the opposite was true, and where both declined to correct the scientific record – and a formal enquiry was being conducted into the matter and he said nothing in public, might this not be classed as knowing collusion in scientific fraud? Why, why, why?
1241415427.txt 1188557698.txt
So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Or did somebody already say that?
FrancisT — that’s good evidence for the fact scientists can’t in general program. I see that a lot in the ecological sciences. But that brings me to one of my pet peeves — scientists who do not open-source their code. Even if the climate modelers have correctly identified all of the relevant physics, what guarantees do we have that the physics has been translated into working code correctly if outside parties can’t review the programs?
Whether FOI laws are broken, formally, must be established by investigation. Then benefit of doubt etc kicks in.
But I think we may very safely say that the _intentions_ of these laws are broken, and that is the really serious thing here. It calls for action. Can the paragraphs be clear enough when such things can happen?
I also wonder if there should be some rules for scientific conduct, in particular re communication with the public. Fair reporting of uncertainties, for example. Overselling can be a big problem, this example is not unique.
Lucia,
I read what the CRU people had to say about the FOI requests. Their primary concern has nothing to do with secrecy or concealment. They are just conscious that they are vulnerable to a huge amount of time wasting. As Phil Jones said:
“In response to FOI and EIR requests, we’ve put up some data – mainly paleo data. Each request generally leads to more – to explain what we’ve put up. “
And we’ve seen that organised. When CRU mentioned in one response agreements with data suppliers, 54 FOI requests promptly came in demanding details of CRU agreements with other countries, each request asking re different countries. This sort of thing can easily overwhelm them, and they have to have some way of managing it.
I find their impatience quite understandable. The process was being used, not in a spirit of enquiry, but obstruction. You yourself demanded details of agreements with CRU and Honduras, etc, swearing that you needed the result for your academic research (as did the others). It is very easy to see such requests as made not in good faith, but rather obstructiveness. And I think that explains their attitude.
Nick Stokes,
All they had to do is give SteveMc what he asked for. The requests for details of agreements with individual countries was a direct result of the refusal of earlier requests and demonstrated willingness to be petty and uncooperative.
Bottom line is UEA has no one to blame but themselves if they felt they were wasting too much time on FOIs.
Nick–
My main response is, So?
In the first place, isn’t an “I suspect that giving out information will waste my time so I get to not comply to an FOI” clause.
In the second place, the series of FOI came after the initial refusals. Had they given data in the first place that wouldn’t have occurred. So the reality is their time was wasted because they are unwilling to give out information that can be requested under FOI. If scientists wish to avoid time sucking vortexes, they should simply distribute information rather than forcing endless FOI’s. If the FOI’s come across, they should comply instead of wasting their own time brainstorming clever ways to thwart the spirit of the law– and which will only result in additional FOIs.
Nick–
I should add– I did need the data for research. I and others, need the information to support our investigations. What’s your problem?
Nick Stokes’ problem, as usual, is that he is an apologist for the climate religion, or, as others might characterise him, a USEFUL IDIOT!!!
Lucia,
I was responding to your criticism of the Santer/Jones emails etc. That’s what shapes their attitudes, and often the attitude of others who look at this stuff. Phil J describes in 1228330629.txt how he explained the FOI harassment to senior UEA people, whereupon they became supportive. That sounds right to me. You may think this is a lark, but it looks bad to those who are actually concerned about their sciebtific institutions being able to function.
Of course, no-one can disprove your claim about needing CRU/Honduras commercial agreements for your academic research. But you’d need to do more to get them to believe it, especially when many others from varied fields are making identical claims.
Nick–
How could Santer/Jones attitudes have been shaped by events that not only hadn’t happened, never happened?
In the first place, you are using events that happened after the refusal. In the second place, they happened because they refused the data.
The reason that external evaluation are required is precisely because powerful people in CRU (i.e. Phil Jones) are able to persuade CRU functionaries to go lightly.
Your theory about why the FOI’s were turned down makes an interesting hypothetical. However, the person who turned them down is required to provide a reason that is both valid and truthful. The reason you are telling me the FOI’s were turned down was not the one provided. So, if it is the “true” reason, then those were also violations of FOI.
In reality, had those at CRU believed they could turn down for the reason you imagine, they could simply have given that reason. Then the ball would be in my court. But that was not the reason provided. Stop trying to defend what happened in the CRU process by dreaming things up in your imagination.
Nick Stokes,
Why are refusing to acknowledge that Jones created the problem by refusing legimate requests fro petty reasons? This forced Steve to go back and make more requests to see if could work around the petty reasons provided. If Jones had simply done the ethical thing and gave Steve the data to start with there would have been no requests for the Honduras commercial agreements.
Your argument is like the proverbial boy you shots his parents and then asks for mercy because he is an orphan!
Raven #24470
Your argument is like the proverbial boy you shots his parents and then asks for mercy because he is an orphan!
No, your argument sounds to me like the boy who says – if they’d only given me that icecream, none of this would have happened.
Nick–
Your argument goes like this:
A hungry kids asked for the sandwich. The people with sandwiches thought “if we gave him the sandwich he would complain”. So they did not give him the sandwich. Then, the kids was still hungry, so asked for sandwich again. The people he asked repeated : “No. No food for you! If we give you food, you’ll just complain. This food is for us alone!”
Then, he after several refusals, he started complaining and demanding the food!.This proves he would have whined if they’d given him a sandwich.
Well…. no. It proves the complained when he was not provided the sandwich. (Of course, if we continue the analogy, other people begin to notice the poor hungry kid who cannot get fed lunch, and is being given all sorts of lame excuses why they will not feed him, and the others and start complaining too. Then, those with the sandwiches get grumpy that third parties think they should give the kid a sandwich. )
Lucia,
Your theory about why the FOI’s were turned down makes an interesting hypothetical. However, the person who turned them down is required to provide a reason that is both valid and truthful.
I didn’t advance a theory on why the FOI requests were turned down, and Jones’ email made no reference to that. However, I note that CRU frequently cites:
s.12, Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit: The cost of finding & assembling the information will exceed the appropriate limit
which may well genuinely reflect their modified judgment as to what constitutes a reasonable limit. If they really believed (or that a court would believe), say, that 54 pieces of academic research around the world depended on access to these confidentiality agreements, these judgments might have been more favorable. If they believe that harassment is going on, their view of the appropriate limit will reasonably change.
Nick– Once again: if cost is the reason for declining the request, they are to specify this as the reason for declining the request. That was not the reason.
You are advancing reasons that might hypothetically be the reason for declining a request, and which may have been a reason Phil or others did not wish to hand out data. However, the FOI officer must not have believed that reason would hold up because if he did, he could simply provide that reason. He did not. Moreover, the notion that giving the data out in the first place would consume time was an utter hallucination. It was the refusal that triggered the barrage of time consuming FOIs.
If these guys want to save time, they should just give data instead of putting hurdles in every bodies paths creating time wasting paper work and investigations.
Lucia #24478
I presume you’re now referring to the result of your request for CRU/Honduras etc, to which they replied that they did not hold the information. Presumably there were no such agreements, and that was a valid response.
Lucia:
It would seem in fact that he would be required to give that reason, were it the real one.
I guess Nick Stokes is suggesting that the FOI officer is lying, since that is not the reason that was given.
In any case, this is just bogus nonsense. I can’t judge whether the reasons given by the FOI officer are actually reasonable or not, but there certainly remains the question of collusion (which Phil Jones private claims to exist) between Jones and the FOI officer.
That’s serious enough to warrant an investigation, unless of course you’re dealing with this shiny, new CRU facility that is the pride of the British government and a bit of a protected, sacred cow.
Pretty sure the fix is in on this one.
Tax evasion,
Tax evasion,
Tax evasion
Fire the science majors, hire mathematicians, reanalyse the data.
It seems most likely the FOIA.zip file was in fact the information required to answer the FOI request which makes a claim that it was too costly to answer rather indefensible.
Simon Evans (Comment#24370) November 23rd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Chris (Comment#24366)
What the Team doesn’t want is open access to the data, because if we had it, I suspect the case for CAGW is rather flimsy.
Which data do you have in mind which you suspect would weaken the case? With HadCRUT some 2% of the data is not available, since it is still subject to National Weather Services ownership restrictions (and CRU are negotiating to find a way around this so that the whole set can be released). Do you think this 2% will undermine the case? I find that notion highly implausible (and I believe Steve McIntyre has said he’s not expecting there to be any ’smoking gun’ in that 2%).”
I love the 2% argument. Simon you fail to see how it undermines the CRU position. As you note 2% of the data is nothing. Nothing will turn on this 2%. Agreed. So, if we agree on that, then you also have to agree that CRU could well do WITHOUT that 2%.
Correct? I mean the globe is already pretty well sampled. What’s 2%? A paleo reconstruction only uses a dozen or so sites. What’s 2% of thousands of stations? Right? Agreed.
Now, consider the argument that CRU makes to DENY the FOI.
They cannot release this 2% because………
Because IF they do, those countries that supply that 2% MIGHT,
they just MIGHT, not give data to CRU in the future.
So choose Simon. If the 2% doesnt matter to the final answer,
then where is the harm? you can’t have it both ways. You cannot argue that the 2% doesnt matter on one hand, and deny access to it on the SUPPOSITION that you might lose access to that 2% in the future.
Finally, 2% of the data IS NOT subject to restrictions. CRU has lost the agreements so they cant tell you what the situation is.
HankHenry,
As a budding mathematician, I could support that view. Does it pay well? 😉
Nick Stokes (Comment#24452) November 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
It’s time for you to stop defending the indefensible. Just call for the release of data and code. If you publish a paper you know you have current data and working code. Zip it up and post it.
Jones didnt complain when webster asked for the data. He zipped it up and sent it. Mac asked for the same thing.
NOW, because they denied the FOI, they got WAY MORE work on their hands. And jones’ head. Peer reviewed literature is sullied until these guys retire. Period. I mean this. If anyone points me to peer reviewed literature I have one question.
1. name the reviewers.
If you DONT, if you dont name the reviewers then I have wonder.
Did Mann review this? did jones? did briffa? On the possibility that these men had anything to do with the paper, I’ll reject it’s conclusions. False in one, false in all. I don’t need to prove that jones had anything to do with a paper. You have to prove he didn’t.
Free the data; free the code; open the debate
steven mosher (Comment#24487)
I love the 2% argument. Simon you fail to see how it undermines the CRU position. As you note 2% of the data is nothing. Nothing will turn on this 2%. Agreed. So, if we agree on that, then you also have to agree that CRU could well do WITHOUT that 2%.
Yes, actually, I would agree that it would not make much substantive difference to the HadCRUT analysis over the longer term. Since the rest of the data is largely the GCHN dataset I’d guess we’d end up with less variation between HadCRUT and GISS on a monthly basis. It would be a shame to lose the interest of those variations, but I don’t think it would make a significant difference to our assessment of the situation.
So why did they not release anyway? I think there’s evidence in these emails of some individuals being defensive, arrogant and politically naive. I posted elsewhere here that I’m dismayed by the pettiness, paranoia and pugilism displayed (I remember the alliteration, so I’ve repeated myself). Judy Curry’s analysis of the mindset, which Lucia has linked to, looks likely to be a good one to me.
I don’t think this has been good for the reputation of science and, insofar as the release of the remaining data would have made a difference to any significant challenge to their analysis (of which I am not convinced) I don’t think it has been good for the practice of science.
If there have been improper attempts to prevent the release of data, if information subject to FOI requests has been deliberately destroyed and if there have been improper influences upon the peer review/publication process then these matters should be investigated and dealt with appropriately, IMV.
However, I have seen no evidence from these emails that there has been any fraudulent falsification of data underpinning any publication or temperature analysis.
So, what else is not good for science? Here’s a statement from Nigel Lawson (UK Chancellor of the Exchequer 1983-89) –
the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece
I think this is an appalling allegation, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. It is indicative of the ways in which many commentators are feeling free to fling around whatever allegations suit their agendas, referencing ‘standards’ of behaviour whilst showing absolutely no standards of integrity themselves.
If you want to experience true believers suppressing skeptical points of view first-hand, try this:
Wikipedia articles that should record this event in a neutral and balanced manner, with journalist-written sources (best to discuss on the talk page, don’t just start editing directly):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
If you want to experience true believers suppressing skeptical points of view first-hand, try this:
Wikipedia articles that should record this event in a neutral and balanced manner, with journalist-written sources (best to discuss on the talk page, don’t just start editing directly):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
How many people have had their careers and reputations damaged by the Jones and Mann misusing their influence and position to prevent their work from being published?
That is the bit of the emails that I find really anger provoking, that they had no second thoughts what so ever about preventing scientific research from being published, just because they didn’t like the results.
I hope teh people involved start asking very pointed questions of the journals and publishers involved.
I think a critically important lesson to take from all this is that peer-review and the publication process are easily gamed and in reality only provide a false certification of established scientific facts. They give cover to the politically influential and impede progress. Utterly hypocritical are the accusations of these gate-keepers who criticize the skeptics for not publishing in prominent journals. For their collusion in the process, I’d like to see them banned as editors and reviewers. Their own submissions for publication ought to be reviewed openly on the internet by any interested individuals before a journal even considers it. Open the window and let the fresh air in.
Nick, my request was for a copy of a file which they had already assembled and sent to Peter Webster at Georgia Tech. It would have taken about 30 seconds to forward me a copy, far less time than it took them to assemble their unconvincing refusals.
What’s Next?
Well in the first part, do not expect any national leaders not to sign up for anything because of anything revealed so far. In fact it might be wise to consider whether they are going to sign up to anything solely, primary, or even remotely based on climate science. Consider whether or not leaders tend to sign up to the inevitable. In this case less emissions from developed countries, not much change or some increase from major producers, and rising emissions from the rest. The status quo post.
Secondly, I do not think anyone should imagine that any of this changes the fundamentals underlying projected global warming one jot. The models are probably deficient in lacking a “blogular opinion” parameterisation feedback tweak intervention setting.
All we can hope for (expect dissappointment) is a return to scientific normalcy. To find this, you would have to go back at more than 20 years.
If climate science has been high-jacket it was done a long time ago, and it is not likely that its hostage status is going to change all that soon. It may be an important nudge but it is not as yet a full step towards liberation.
I am going to quote a comment from an interview with Pat Michaels that I think cuts to the core: (the transcription is mine own)
PROF. PAT MICHAELS: People who have a point of view which may not be the politically acceptable point of view are going to have problems. That’s not surprising.
(audible edit point)
PROF. PAT MICHAELS: I have had experience with editors, where I have asked questions as to why something was rejected, and this has occurred with more than one jounal, and have been told that your papers are held to a higher standard of review than others. I have been literally told that.
Interviewer: On what grounds did they hold (interrupted)
PROF. PAT MICHAELS: Because of what they say. I mean that’s fine, OK if they want to be that way. I’m a big boy. And fairly successful, I know I would have been more successful probably if I’d said the world’s coming to an end, but I just can’t quite bring myself to do that.
The interview was prior to the current revelations so it reinforces what we all now know.
But the interview is extracted from “The Greenhouse Conspiracy” (Channel 4 1990), yes 19 years ago. So, if a battle has been won, and a time of rejoicing is to be savoured, that is not to say that this heralds liberation.
Alex
Lucia, it seems to me from these emails that the data skills of some of the researchers are highly suspect. As I read the documents, I pitied the poor data analyst who had a heck of a time trying to do his/her work and found the databases to be in a terrible state. I suspect part of the reason that some of the scientists didn’t want to give out their code was that it was so badly documented. Is that a crime? No, just bad practice and embarrassing. Does it negate the theory of global warming and all the other research out there that supports it? No.
As per the requests for data from McIntyre and others who are not involved in or experts in climate research, I think that they were nuisance requests and should have been treated as such. The obvious intent of those making the requests was to discredit the research by finding small errors, thus undermining public opinion and casting doubt on the whole. Even the FOI official, once they understood who was making the requests, realized they were nuisance requests. It’s really sad that it has come to this. The scientists were harassed so much and pushed by the clear attempts to discredit them and their work that they said things and did things that are not appropriate, if entirely understandable. Shame.
greenaway (Comment#24611):
Steve Mc is a big boy and can speak from himself but he is and was involved in climate research, perhaps you ignore or are ignorant of his role with the IPPC.
For sure a lot of people find the Team repellent, literally so.
I would like to introduce you to GW centrifugal force effect (or Team repellent effect)
F= w^2*r: where F is the force, w the rate of spinning, and r the distance from Team central.
I can not speak for others but I am repulsed by the Team, because I have also looked into their published work. Initially because I was interested in GW, and looked from the point of view of a Team fellow traveller. I was very dissappointed (actually rather shocked). I have to add that I am also rather dissapointed in almost every GW paper I read no matter whether piping hot or stone cold.
Also I should add that trying to get any information regarding the background necessary to follow up on paleoclimatology is like drawing dragons teeth. I have not gone down the FOI route but others have. In the case of Steve Mc, only after more friendly overtures had been rebuffed.
Alex
Alexander, I thought his involvement with IPCC was the result of his involvement with Mann et. al. and the paleoclimate papers referenced therein. I didn’t think he did any climate science research prior to his interest in Mann’s work for the IPCC report. I understood he was a retired corporate type with a background in maths. So, I wouldn’t consider him to be a climate scientist or a serious researcher who was working in the field.
“The obvious intent of those making the requests was to discredit the research by finding small errors, thus undermining public opinion and casting doubt on the whole.”
Or by finding big errors.
Andrew
I don’t see that anything he found discredited or overturned existing climate science. A lot of effort was expended for not much return in scientific terms. Lots of heat but little light.
greenaway,
The problem that so many alarmists miss is climate science is not really science – it is opinion dressed up as science. This occurs because none of the theories are testable (e.g. we can’t go back in time and see if trees really measure temperatures).
That is why the “trust me” approach to science is unacceptable and it is not possible to prove someone else wrong but coming up with another “opinion”. The only way to verify science is to go back and do exactly what the original author did and make sure all of the steps make sense.
In any case, I think you only support data secrecy is because the scientists holding the cards (data) happen to be saying things you want to hear. I am sure you be singing a different tune If a group of sceptics produced research but insisted on keeping their data from alarmists who wanted to discredit it.
“I don’t see that anything he found discredited or overturned existing climate science.”
And I have yet to see that any climate science has demonstrated Global Warming is true.
Andrew
greenaway,
The real problem that SteveMc uncovered is climate scientists are not a particularily trustworthy group of people. You may be willing to radially reengineer the world economy based on the opinion of people that have no interest in open and fair scientific discourse, however, I am not that naive.
If you really believe that there is a problem that needs solving then you should be joining the calls to open up all the data and methods because that is the only way to build the consensus required to support the policy changes that you want.
I don’t support data secrecy, but I also don’t support encouraging the notion that every tom dick and harry off the street has the right to demand a scientist’s data and computer code so they can fish for errors, rather than actually replicate the work. I do understand how political this has all become and I regret that the politicised nature has made scientists feel that they have to stop sharing their work.
Raven, I suspect that the intent of the demand for data is not to create any consensus but to destroy it.
“but I also don’t support encouraging the notion that every tom dick and harry off the street has the right to demand a scientist’s data and computer code so they can fish for errors”
I’ve posted on this subject before, but it’s worth repeating because you seem seriously mislead-
Science belongs to all of us common folk, too. Knowledge is something that we share with each other, to everyone’s mutual benefit. Why would someone claim they know something we don’t, and then hide it from us… and then try to force us to act upon that something?
Andrew
I’m not misled. I have a different view than you. I understood that the scientists were willing to share their data with other scientists and initially with McIntyre. When they realized what the intent was behind the requests from those among the denial camp, it appears they reconsidered this openness. It was a mistake. To me, it was understandable given the highly politicised nature of the issue. I am not able to judge from reading the Harry file if we are seeing evidence of poor work habits or deliberate attempts to falsify the data or both. I look forward to someone with expertise in code and climate science to do a thorough analysis.
Greenaway,
If a blogger can destroy a consensus by looking at the data then the consensus was bogus to start with. In fact, the released emails provide a lot of evidence that the consensus is, in fact, a fabrication by people with specific political agendas.
I also have no patience for the elitist attitude that the average joe has no right to see the data that is being used to make major policy decisions that affect everypne.
Hey Simon,
Did you search those emails for the phrase “contain the MWP”? Do that and tell me what you find and what you make of it. Especially given Gavin’s remarks about the “lack of mention” of “erasing the MWP”. Ah, wordplay! After that, I have a couple more questions for you.
Cheers
Greenaway:
The whole point of FOI legislation is to expressly permit “every tom dick and harry off the street” to “fish for errors” or otherwise see what was done with public money. it’s not a bug, it’s the purpose.
The British FOI statute does not require the requester to state a purpose or have some special credentialed status. It is expressly not vexatious if the requester just wants to prove the agency wrong. None of the objections raised by Nick Stokes and Greenaway would have merit if used by an American agency subject to a FOIA request to deny a similar request.
Politicized groups and individuals make lawful but annoying FOIA requests every day in the US and that is a good thing.
I think the weakness in the British law is that there appears to be limited access to litigate directly without the cooperation of the Commissioner(s). In contrast, US Federal district courts can not only compel release of the info but direct that individuals who stonewalled be brought before the Merit Systems Protection Board.
In Britain, the Info Commissioner has to make an adverse finding upon which the court then assigns contempt of court sanctions. The excuse that Honduras has an undisclosable secret treaty with the UK to keep its temperature data secret would probably not resonate with a judge if the matter went that far.
In any case, it is legally and substantively pointless to defend the refusal to supply any and all data with the public policy significance that climate data now possesses. It is amazing than anyone bothers to do so.
Stokes says:
“The process was being used, not in a spirit of enquiry, but obstruction.”
1. You can’t prove motive, so these words are wasted.
2. I and many others who publish using CRU data assume they are of a certain quality. If UHI effects are not effectively removed, this is a major problem for us. Our work is wrong and it is their fault and we have no way of knowing HOW wrong.
3. Your defense is pathetic.
George Tobin, I’m talking about scientists sharing data with each other above, not FOI requests.
As to FOI, there are limitations and some material is not open to a request, no matter who requests it. It’s up to the FOI officials who are supposed to know the law/regs and advise on these matters what is legally to be included. I’ve been involved in FOI requests where I work and have had to trudge through old files and emails to find relevant info.
FYI I fully support FOI legislation and compliance with said. Much of the most incriminating evidence about the denialists involved in this and other campaigns was obtained through them. From my read of the FOI emails in discussion, it appears that the FOI officials agreed with the scientists that most of the requests from some individuals were of the nuisance variety. If the scientists were advised by the FOI officials that some materials were not eligible, the scientists have done nothing wrong.
Besides, and most importantly, none of this goes one whit to changing the science.
Greenaway
Huh? FOIs have been used to incriminate denialists involved in Climategate? Who? What evidence? Which FOIs?
I suspect the political process is going to trigger investigations into the cozy relationship between the FOI officers and the head of CRU. The leaked files themselves suggest that it was Phil Jones who persuaded the FOI officers to be unresponsive to requests and not the FOI officers who evaluated this independently.
Also, I think you are pretty unfamiliar with the history and turn down reasons for the FOI’s. You might want to familiarize yourself with the series of amazing responses. None to my knowledge were turned down as nuisance requests. All were turned down for other reasons (including that the data had been lost, which appears to be untrue.)
including that the data had been lost, which appears to be untrue
After reading Harry’s notes, I think that particular claim may be the only true thing from CRU.
Punch…. I thought it was no longer claimed lost or deleted. It’s hard to keep track of the reasons. Only for academics, then only for research, the only for.. then lost… then legal agreements in place… then….
Huh? FOIs have been used to incriminate denialists involved in Climategate? Who? What evidence? Which FOIs?
FOIs have been used to gain information on the groups involved in funding denialists and denialist lobby groups, not wrt the current CRU hack issue.
I suspect the political process is going to trigger investigations into the cozy relationship between the FOI officers and the head of CRU. The leaked files themselves suggest that it was Phil Jones who persuaded the FOI officers to be unresponsive to requests and not the FOI officers who evaluated this independently.
Whether the relationship is cozy or not is a value judgment I can’t make based on the evidence. Whatever the case, the FOI officer is responsible for advising and evaluating based on the law and ensuring it is met. If they advise that some things are not covered under the law, you can’t blame Phil Jones.
Also, I think you are pretty unfamiliar with the history and turn down reasons for the FOI’s. You might want to familiarize yourself with the series of amazing responses. None to my knowledge were turned down as nuisance requests. All were turned down for other reasons (including that the data had been lost, which appears to be untrue.)
I have read the entire series of emails on the FOI. I didn’t say they were turned down as nuisance requests but were possibly seen that way by everyone involved. I think people are drawing far too many conclusions based on scant and questionable evidence.
And most of all, none of this overturns the actual science.
Greenaway,
What science are you talking about?
Is it the science referenced by the IPCC which, thanks to efforts of Jones and co, exludes work that does not support the political agenda?
Or would it be the complete corpus of peer reviewed climate science? That would be those peer reviewed by journals that face blackmail if they get uppity and accept too many sceptical papers?
Scientists don’t get to tell the great unwashed who they trust and who they should not. Scientists need to earn that trust and that requires that the public trusts the institutions that are supposed to ensure the integrity of science.
Jones, Mann, et. al. have shown the public that the scientific institations have been corruputed and therefore cannot be trusted. Until that trust is restored the “science” you reference means nothing.
Now restoring trust will not be a difficult task but it will require changes. Releasing all data and code would be an excellent start.
bender,
#24636 How can 54 separate FOI requests coordinated at CA , each from different individuals for CRU re nondisclosure agreements with a separate group of countries, help your understanding of UHI? Or any other scientific matter?
I’ll take up your “contain the MWP” query #24632. What do you think it means? What’s bad about it?
Here’s what Mann said:
Clue – the MWP is often said to be about 800-1300 AD. 0-2000 contains that period, 1000-2000 does not.
Nick Stokes (Comment#24656)
I believe people have already told you many times: those requests were direct result of the first FOI refusal which cited IPR as the reason. If Jones had done the ethical thing and released the code and data when it was first requested then those 54 requests would have never been sent.
IOW Jones is like a man who kills his parents and then asks for mercy because he is an orphan. He deserves no sympathy.
Nick Stokes (Comment#24656)
The use of scary quotes around “contain” changes the meaning of the sentance. The meaning that they wished to some how limit or otherwise minimize the MWP is the most plausible interpretation.
Raven (Comment#24658)
“The use of scary quotes …”
You guys seem to forget that you’re prying into private emails here. They are not trying to scare anyone – they are using whatever words it takes to communicate with each other. Possibly written in a hurry.
Please explain how extending the analysis period could “limit or otherwise minimize the MWP”.
Nick Stokes (Comment#24659)
I used the term ‘scary quotes’ to describe the use of quotes to denote an ironic meaning. In this case, the writer put quotes around ‘contain’ which means the literal meaning was not intended.
It is most likely a double entendre based on the premise that extending the range will allow them to show that the MWP did not exist and therefore ‘contain’ it as a counter argument.
Raven (Comment#24661)
There’s actually a much simpler explanation for the use of quotes. Mann is referencing a point made by Overpeck. It’s likely that Overpeck used those words, and Mann is emphasising that he’s quoting directly.
We’re to a war of opinions here, but I would vote for Raven’s interpretation.
Very clearly these guys have a bias regarding a very warm MWP, the emails are rife with comments on this, and they would love to “contain” it. That doesn’t mean I think they planned on manufacturing data, but my guess is their expectations were that any temperature chronology they produce that extended through the MWP period would limit it’s temperature to well below late 20th century values.
“1. You can’t prove motive, so these words are wasted.”
Have you never read Climateaudit or wattsupwiththat. You should visit those sites and see the relentless use of the public pillory they have been set up for. There is no spirit of free enquiry, just relentless focus on individuals.
bugs:
I beg to differ about ClimateAudit. Although the tone is sometimes snarky, they do really provide the goods (and Steve M is also fairly consistent about disclaiming most scientific expertise/interpretation and sticking to the statistics).
I have created a petition on the UK Number 10 web site to gather signatures for an inquiry into this affair. If you are a UK citizen or resident please add you name to this petition.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/HADLEY-LEAK/
Thanks
bender (Comment#24632)
Yes bender. The spinning of the email in question is the most obvious example of the extent to which some will go in distorting anything they can so long as it fulfils their agenda. It is entirely obvious that extending the reconstructions backwards in time could only ‘contain’ the MWP historically and could do nothing to reduce its scale. Anyone arguing otherwise is either so subject to distorting bias that they’ve lost the ability to assess the truth or else they never had any interest in the truth in the first place. I have been naive enough to think that some were concerned with the truth and I discover now that I had allowed myself to be misled. Still, a lot of things become clearer now.
“I don’t support data secrecy, but I also don’t support encouraging the notion that every tom dick and harry off the street has the right to demand a scientist’s data and computer code so they can fish for errors, rather than actually replicate the work.”
Greenaway,
if you don’t know how the published work was done, you can’t replicate it. It is that simple. You may attempt to devise independently a similar method but in case that the result does not correspond to the published one, you have absolutely NO possibility of finding out what happened.
BTW – science progress often advances through fishing for errors.
Greenaway (Comment#24653) November 24th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
many people claim as you do that nothing in these files overturns the actual science.
CRUTEMP is not science. It’s not science until CRU turn over the data and methods.
If CRU want to hide behind confidentiality agreements, fine.
If they want to hide behind IPR, fine.
They simply can’t then expect me to believe in a graph that is produced by confidential data and hidden code.
You give it a go. Convince me that I should believe in a graph from CRU about the global temperature. Go ahead. Convince me.
Oh, but before you do I have my own graph. It shows that the current temperature is lower than in 1850. And no, you can’t se the data. and no your can’t see the code.
So convince me that I should believe CRU.
ready set go.
Simon Evans (Comment#24495) November 24th, 2009 at 7:00 am
Simon. Why wont they release the data and code.
read the mails. Jones is afraid that MCIntyre will find errors.
Also, Jones gets gets grants to keep the code and project going.
read the programmer notes to see how screwed up the code and database is. Finally, jones believes that CRU is better than GISS
and not because of the 2%. Read his mails.
Finally, you see NO EVIDENCE of fraud. from that antecedent NOTHING FOLLOWS. We looked at the files and we found no evidence of fraud, THEREFORE…
Now put on your logic hat and complete that sentence. You can’t.
because nothing follows from it. For my part I am am only claiming this. CRUTEMP isnt science. It isnt science unless they release the data and code. If you can agree on that perhaps we can have a discussion. But if you deny that then your deny the basics of science itself.
many people claim as you do that nothing in these files overturns the actual science.
CRUTEMP is not science. It’s not science until CRU turn over the data and methods.
AFAIK, CRU has turned over the data and methods to other scientists. Ergo, it is science.
if you don’t know how the published work was done, you can’t replicate it. It is that simple. You may attempt to devise independently a similar method but in case that the result does not correspond to the published one, you have absolutely NO possibility of finding out what happened.
As I said above, I understood that the CRU data had been turned over to other scientists.
BTW – science progress often advances through fishing for errors.
Science progresses through peer review,replication of existing research and new research, not by untrained non-scientists looking for lines of code or typos in an effort to cast doubt on the science as a whole and the scientists in particular.
It’s appears to me that CA and people who frequent it reject either the concept of global warming and/or its logical consequences – legislative efforts to stop or stem it. They do so because of political / financial / ideological objections or interests.
Since they aren’t scientists themselves or involved in the actual science and can’t do their own primary research and come up with legitimate challenges to existing science, they can only hope to discredit it by finding small, insignificant and ultimately inconsequential mistakes.
Since the majority of the public and politicians don’t understand the science or scientific method well enough to judge for themselves, they are easily misled by such deception. Lacking understanding of science and its methods, they are easily convinced, wrongly, that the jury is out, the science is unsettled, there is no warming, and worst of all, it’s all a hoax. To me, people engaged in such an endeavor are shameless.
Given that, I can understand why no one wants to release their data or code to people associated with CA. I can also see why, after reviewing the CA website, that FOI officials agreed with them.
Quite so, Greenaway – where, for example, is Steve McIntyre’s numerical quantification of the significance of any of the issues he has raised in respect of the ‘team’s’ work? I can’t seem to find it – anyone got a link?
Nick, I agree with your interpretation of the quote about containing the putative MWP but ultimately, the best source for understanding what they meant would be Mann and Phil themselves. The rest is just speculation as none of us are mind readers.
So, in that vein, here is Mann on what he meant:
In this email, I was discussing the importance of extending paleoclimate reconstructions far enough back in time that we could determine the onset and duration of the putative “Medieval Warm Period”. Since this describes an interval in time, it has to have both a beginning and end. But reconstructions that only go back 1000 years, as most reconstructions did at the time, didn’t reach far enough back to isolate the beginning of this period, i.e. they are not long enough to “contain” the interval in question. In more recent work, such as the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007, the paleoclimate reconstructions stretch nearly 2000 years back in time, which is indeed far enough back in time to “contain” or “isolate” this period in time.
Quite so, Greenaway – where, for example, is Steve McIntyre’s numerical quantification of the significance of any of the issues he has raised in respect of the ‘team’s’ work? I can’t seem to find it – anyone got a link?
From what I have seen after reviewing his “work”, not much. Nothing that I can see has made one whit of difference to the overall science, or even specific issues in the science or moved the science forward. But forgive me if I suggest that was never the intent.
Simon
Uhmmm… you do realize there was a peer reviewed paper showing the significance of the errors in an early paper? You do realize it ultimately lead to reviews lead by trained statisticians, funded by congress, right?
Lucia,
I was thinking of Tiljander. Sometimes I forget to cast my mind back a decade.
steven mosher (Comment#24745)
Jones is afraid that MCIntyre will find errors.
Well, he may be. But he may also be rightly worried that he’ll have to spend endless time with people who find something that they can beat up into a gotcha, but which amounts to nothing. We’re seeing this in the thread above. Folks like bender spot something that sounds like it might be MWP blasphemy. It’s actually a perfectly straightforward statement of appropriate scientific investigation planning. But Mann has to prepare and circulate a statement just re-explaining the obvious.
OK, that’s just once. But that’s the problem with self-appointed auditors – there’s no end to it. You satisfy one “auditor” and another turns up – maybe with the same issue. You release code, then have to explain every comment that mentions “adjustment”. And explain again. And so on.
Raven (Comment#24658) November 25th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Nick Stokes (Comment#24656)
The use of scary quotes around “contain†changes the meaning of the sentance. The meaning that they wished to some how limit or otherwise minimize the MWP is the most plausible interpretation.
On the contrary the only sensible reading is that the conventional meaning of “contain” is meant. It’s clear that the meaning is chronological:
“I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain†the putative “MWPâ€, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.”
Uhmmm… you do realize there was a peer reviewed paper showing the significance of the errors in an early paper? You do realize it ultimately lead to reviews lead by trained statisticians, funded by congress, right?
Many subjects are brought forward to congress for many legitimate and illegitimate reasons, so that doesn’t in itself mean much. And as to the significance of the “errors” that were purportedly showed, the hockey stick remains in many other papers using different methods and data. As to McIntyre’s contribution, he’s more of a thorn in the side than contributor to the science.
Here is a summary from Von Storch on why McIntyre wasn’t even mentioned in his assessment of the so-called “hockey stick” debate and its effects on the science:
This was on purpose, as we do not think that McIntyre has substantially contributed in the published peer-reviewed literature to the debate about the statistical merits of the MBH and related method. They have published one peer-reviewed article on a statistical aspect, and we have published a response – acknowledging that they would have a valid point in principle, but the critique would not matter in the case of the hockey-stick …
Heat, not light.
steven mosher (Comment#24745)
CRUTEMP isnt science. It isnt science unless they release the data and code.
It either is science or it isn’t, Steven, regardless of whether they’ve released the data and code. You may not be convinced of it without the data and code, but that makes no actual difference to whether it is or is not science. You are concerned with verifiability, but a lack of verifiability does not determine the validity or not of the matter (put your logic hat on!).
I agree they should release whatever they can, if they can, so I’m not sure what principle we’re disputing really.
Greenaway–
Wow! You sure like to cut out context and words!
Intepretation alert: the hockey stick was temporarily dead.
He didn’t cite M&M as causing it’s death. M was unhappy about that.
Von Storch had just published a critique showing the hockey stick did not hold up. However, he felt that it’s failure was for other reasons than those in M&M’s manuscript. So, while the point M&M made was valid, it was not the reasons Von Storch found most devastating, so he didn’t cite their finding. The “in principle” is referring to the fact that M&M found something that might matters– but it didn’t because other problems lead to the failure of the hockey stick.
All this said, historically, the entire affair was investigated because of M&M. The hockey stick and the methods used were found wanting.
So, how you can say M&M did not contribute is beyond me. Showing methods that have been accepted as working do not work is normally considered a contribution in Science. If it were not, people would keep using poor methods forever. There is no requirement that one discover a new method that does work before showing the old method doesn’t work. Sometimes, there just is no good method to do something. Scientists need to know this.
Simon
But verifiability is a defining feature of science.
God may exist. The believe in God may be correct. He, she, it or they may be perfectly valid entities. But, since we can’t verify he/she/it/their existance, it isn’t science.
In the case of CRU, actually, the rather cursory documentation by journal article of what amounts to a rather tedious detail intensive process does mean lack of code of data makes the result, like existence of god, unverifiable.
I’ll admit, I suspect Hadley is close to right while I don’t believe in God. But there are problems with Hadley not releasing their code.
So, how you can say M&M did not contribute is beyond me. Showing methods that have been accepted as working do not work is normally considered a contribution in Science. If it were not, people would keep using poor methods forever. There is no requirement that one discover a new method that does work before showing the old method doesn’t work. Sometimes, there just is no good method to do something. Scientists need to know this.
My point is that M&M are not scientists contributing to the science but outside critics (with an agenda no doubt) who raised an objection about methods that did nothing to overturn the science of global warming or the main concept or even the conclusions of the MBH98 work.
All it did was raise questions about a particular statistical method used — these kinds of methodological debates do occur but the underlying conclusions of MBH98 were upheld. Even von Storch didn’t feel their (M&M’s) contribution was great enough to include them in his reference.
Then you are making a stupid point.
First: Neither of the M’s has claimed to over turn the science of global warming. They found a flaw in a published paper correcting misconceptions that were created by that paper.
Second, the issue of whether or not they belong to some insider group may be of some historic or sociological interest, but it is utterly irrelevant to science. It is also irrelevant to assessing whether they contributed to science.
I assume this stupid point is of the “talking points” variety and you will continue to repeat it like a mantra. Repeating it will not turn it into anything meaningful.
Since Lucia brought up God, I thought I might go off on a fire and brimstone sermon. So here it comes…
Just kidding.
But I think this may be an appropriate time and place, since it’s Thanksgiving tomorrow, to express that I am thankful for Lucia, and her Blackboard and everyone who comments here. I hope you guys have a blessed and peaceful Thanksgiving Day tomorrow.
Time to go see if Mr. Turkey is still frozen. 😉
Andrew
Greenaway,
It is not at all clear that the ‘conclusions’ of MBH98 were upheld. All of the subsequent studies which claim to reproduce the same result are only able to do so because they use one or more proxies which are likely bogus. Well it is true that SteveMc has not bothered to submit additional papers on these issues it is not surprising given the dishonesty and corruption within the climate science – dishonesty and corruption that was known to exist but could not be proven until the release of these emails.
Lucia,
i am not questioning the call for Hadley to be verifiable (I think they should release data if they can FFS! I think worrying statements about FOI stuff should be investigated FFS!), I am just making the very tedious point that unverified stuff is not, by definition, not science (FFS!).
I am just being tedious, FFS.
Mines in the cold garage soaking in a brine!
Simon–
Unverified is not, by definition, not science. But unverifiable is not science. And CRU’s behavior has tended to bump their temperature records from merely unverified to unverifiable because they won’t let anyone outside their clan look at the warts. This isn’t the manhattan project — the reasons they concoct to keep the stuff out of site are flimsy.
Lucia,
Yes, I know the difference between unverified and unverifiable. I couldn’t really care much less about the CRU temperature record. Burn them all I say!
I think that even I am incapable of being any more boring on this subject, so I’m off to bed. Have a nice Thanksgiving, or whatever you folks do 🙂
Simon, Phil,
You need to read the context of that email on “containing the MWP”. Why did Mann put quotes on the word “contain”? Why not just say that? And why say it in the context of an exchange over an alleged email from Overpeck about constraining the MWP? Coincidental timing, I guess. You really think Deeming was lying? Then say it! Did you actually read Overpeck’s, err, response to David Holland? What did you think? Do you think Gavin has done a good job at RC contextualizing the exchange? You guys are almost being willfully obtuse. I guarantee you’re not at the bottom of this one yet. Keep reading.
bender,
I don’t know why he put quotes on ‘contain’. Perhaps he’s quoting someone else’s use of the word? Perhaps he thinks it’s not obviously the ‘correct’ word? Perhaps he thinks it’s a ‘funny’ idea to round up the ‘MWP’ so that it can’t be ‘stretched’ ever further ‘backwards’ through time? I don’t know? Why am I putting quotes around some words?
The one thing I feel confident of is what he doesn’t mean, and that is that extending reconstruction back further would reduce the magnitude of the MWP. How could it do that?
Deming. I’ve already said that I am sceptical as to whether he was quoting verbatim. Here’s an extract from an Overpeck email 1206628118.txt –
I have no memory of emailing w/ him, nor any record of doing so (I need to do an exhaustive search I guess), nor any memory of him period. I assume it is possible that I emailed w/ him long ago, and that he’s taking the quote out of context, since know I would never have said what he’s saying I would have, at least in the context he is implying.
I think it’s sometimes been taken as an indication of Overpeck’s ‘guilt’ that he has never denied the Deming email, but here he does deny it, saying later that the claim is ‘bogus’.
Overpeck is worried that he might have said something in an email which could be damaging if decontextualised. I don’t blame him. It’s interesting that he can’t remember Deming, and all the more improbable, even if you believe Overpeck to be a crazed fraudster, that he would have said such a thing to someone he didn’t know well.
So, do I think Deming was lying? I suspect that he was being economical with the truth. I think he almost certainly was not telling the truth in this statement:
A major researcher working in the area of climate change confided in me that the factual record needed to be altered so that people would become alarmed over global warming.
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2006/11/11/inhofe-correct-on-global-warming/
Interesting, don’t you think, that he didn’t go so far as to make that claim of altering the factual record in his Senate testimony?
Did you actually read Overpeck’s, err, response to David Holland? What did you think? Do you think Gavin has done a good job at RC contextualizing the exchange?
I don’t know which email you’re referring to – I’ll say what I think if you give me the number.
You guys are almost being willfully obtuse.
I’ve already said that I there there are some matters which should be investigated (response to FOI requests particularly). Otherwise I see evidence of attitudes (and I’ve been critical of those) but no evidence of fraud in the production of scientific results. I actually have no idea what sort of fraud those crying “fraud” are imagining. It’s all very well looking for smoking guns, but where’s the victim of the crime? Do you think, as Deming states above, that they’ve actually altered the “factual record” to show their preferred results?
Thanks for the reply, Simon. Overpeck does not in fact issue a denial. He says he can’t remember. Mann offers him and out: Hmmm, Peck, maybe Deeming was referring to that time you emailed us talking about “containing” the MWP? Point is: if Peck never said any such thing, why does Mann feel compelled to offer this up as a possible explanation? Is it possible that this is Mann revising history, redefining words in his favor? Sort of like “trick”, “hide” and “censor”? You must admit that, unlike yourself, the guy seems incapable of answering a question squarely.
.
Second point: any email from Peck on erasing the MWP would have come before 1998, which is when the leaked emails start. And it is possible that Jones was not a recipient. Therefore Gavin’s claim that the absence of such an email is noteworthy is specious. I want Overpeck to do the “exhaustive search” that he himself said he should do. If he was merely talking about extending a recon back in time to “contain” the MW period, and Deeming simply misunderstood, then let’s see the proof.
Simon,
I’m going to put on my football sideline reporter hat and ask some dumb questions:
Coach Evans, how does it feel to be defending a group of people that millions and millions of people recognize as frauds and hoaxsters? How do you think your team will respond to this in the second half? 😉
Andrew
bender,
On your second point, I would agree that having this matter evidenced would be for the best. Maybe Overpeck didn’t get the best of advice in the email exchange. But what if, entirely genuinely, Overpeck cannot find such an email to Deming? In that case one must turn to Deming to produce the email (and evidence of its authenticity, whatever that would amount to). If I’d been on that Senate committee I’d like to imagine I’d have asked to see his evidence in the first place!
Andrew_KY
Hee hee. I’ll let the second half speak for itself. Hereyago, brought to you by The Juice –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBzR0-j0O0o&feature=player_embedded
RE: Nick Stokes (Comment#24659)
You wrote: “You guys seem to forget that you’re prying into private emails here.”
Forgive me but which emails were private?
I think I know how to send a private email, you do it from a private email account in your own time.
The FOI bods at the UEA have published guidance to staff informing them that emails are potentially subject to an FOI request along with all other information held by the UEA.
If these guys wished to hold conversations “off the record” they should have done just that. This is not just an FOI issue, it is an organisational one. If you wish to engage in activities upon which the organisation is likely to frown, it is best not to leave a document trail on the organisation’s computers. That is simple self preservation.
Alex
Simon Evans (Comment#24938)
November 26th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Pretty funny charactures…for about 2 minutes. Got a bit old, but I managed to last to the end, where I thought I heard a slam at cap’n trade.
BTW, didn’t catch any questions as the whether Big Al’s work was “peer-reviewed”.
For me the major issues exposed are concerned with the FOIA obstruction and with the manipulation of peer review both of which leave the status of some of the culpable participants in a very questionable position.
In addition we now have substantial insight into the Hadley code. People are currently picking at the Harry readme which whilst very amusing is probably a bit of a diversion. However the release of the code will now provide the more serious programming types with opportunities to compare Hadley with GISS and to establish if there are common issues. I expect that will take time but could become very significant down the line.
The other outcome is the release of substantial information to Steve Mc who is best placed to take advantage of it. For Steve this must represent a gold mine, silver mine and diamond mine rolled into one. He now has the information in the docs folder but also has substantial information in the emails both from a technical viewpoint and an insight into what they think. Hopefully Steve will also take into account how they view him and restructure CA and its comment policy accordingly. The CA site is clearly in need of rework. Personally I would like to see him separate the serious technical content from the discussion so that the technical stuff is more accessible and acceptable for the academics.
Alexander Harvey (Comment#24939)
Forgive me but which emails were private?
All these emails were private. It’s absurd to say you can’t write private emails on a government computer. People write job references, performance assessments, anonymous referee reports, all the time. Yes, they are subject to possible FOI application. But any FOI tribunal will respect privacy as a consideration, and balance that against any need to know. Release by hacking – not to much.
Although of course my point here was simply that in trying to interpret these emails, you should appreciate that you are not part of the intended audience, and the writers have no obligation to make their meaning clear to you.
bender (Comment#24865)
And why say it in the context of an exchange over an alleged email from Overpeck about constraining the MWP? Coincidental timing, I guess.
Where’s the exchange over alleged email about “constraining the MWP”? Are you referring to Mann’s 2003 reference to Overpeck’s point (“w/ regard to the memo”) in which he says it would be good to “contain” the MWP? Or to Deming’s evidence to the Semate about a “confiding” in 1996, possibly from Overpeck, possibly by email, which says nothing about “constraining”? What’s the “coincidental timing”?
And what does this have to do with Mann’s perfectly clear statement about extending the calculation period?
Not evil, just wrong. There seems to be a basic misconception about “science†here. Science is NOT defined by peer review, nor by the degrees one holds, nor by verifiability nor even replication. It’s defined by falsifiability. If a theory is not falisifiable, then it’s not science, but religion. This is basic to the philosophy of science.
BUT – in order to be falsified, a theory MUST be replicatable. That is – ALL of the data, code, methodology, boundary conditions and assumptions must be publicly available. The first step in falsification is the ability to replicate what was originally done. Cold fusion failed because it was not replicatable and therefore, it was falsified. But that’s the simplest case.
Falsification is more complicated when one talks about a case where computer code is involved. In this case, the “theory/experiment/whatever†may well be replicatable – IF ALL of the data, code, methodology, boundary conditions and assumptions are made available to others.
In the case under consideration here, there has been no possibility that real science is being practiced because none of the requisite components for replication have been made available. Until very recently, statements to the contrary were simply smoke and mirrors. Release of the code/data only to those who are assured of agreeing with ones viewpoint and who can be counted on to not look closely at the methodology or results does not constitute “science†because they can also be counted on to not attempt falsification.
Given the above, there is no possibility that the Wrecking CRU was doing science. Indeed, they spent years obfuscating, obstructing and generally excluding those who were at all interested in the real practice of science – the real purpose of science – falsification.
OTOH – M&M are most certainly scientists of the highest order. They have been attempting, and have partially succeeded, in the falsification of a major impediment to the real practice of science – to wit, the hockey stick. MBH98 was assumed for much too long to be incontrovertible evidence of GW. And contrary to the view that the hockey stick is not “deadâ€, I would suggest that those who believe so should actually READ the Wegman Report. It not only does NOT validate MBH98, it clearly states that the methods, and therefore the results, are simply “bad scienceâ€. More, it details the precise problem we’re discussing today – the interconnected, self-reinforcing, self-aggrandizing social/professional network that produces questionable science. Kinda like marrying your sister – it tends to produce strange offspring.
The destruction of the hockey stick was a great leap forward for science, not least because the hockey stick depended heavily on the suppression of the MWP and, to some degree on the flattening of the LIA. That, of course, is the genesis and meaning of “containing†the MWP. Any other interpretation is simply dissembling – or obtuseness.
BTW – if M&M have an agenda, it’s incumbent on those who believe so to specify or at least speculate on what that agenda might be. If, for example, you believe they’re making big-time money, then you need to specify how you think that might be accomplished. By their own words, we already know some of the methods used by the CRU for self-enrichment. Your statement above is nothing more than snark by insinuation. It gives me the feeling of being slimed.
All it did was raise questions about a particular statistical method used — these kinds of methodological debates do occur but the underlying conclusions of MBH98 were upheld. Even von Storch didn’t feel their (M&M’s) contribution was great enough to include them in his reference.
I’ll repeat – Wegman did not uphold MBH98. Read it and weep.
I’ll repeat – those questions about a particular statistical method were more of a real contribution to science than the entire Wrecking CRU has made. The CRU has, in fact, spent years impeding the progress of science in general and climate science in particular.
I’ll leave you with what I believe to be an appropriate quote :
“[…] the contents of the hack contain nothing to prove that basic theory of AGW is false.”
Scientific challengers have no duty to prove a theory false. To the contrary, its proponents have a duty to prove it is true. Preferably by means of verifiable scientific methods applied to verifiable scientific evidence. If that hurdle is too high, the theory fails.
What is Ross McKitrick’s “agenda” and what is your evidence? Given that he’s an academic economist, maybe his “agenda” is to publish economic sciece? Going on his publication record, mind you.
If your asking me – I don’t care. I do, however, care when M&M are dissed for doing “real science” by those who have apparently contributed far less. And – NO – I won’t be getting paid for this. In fact, they don’t even know who I am.
But I’ll give you another of my favorite quotes – one that is also appropriate because “science” is not restricted to those who can pass the gatekeepers for the peer reviewed journals :
Jim Owen, that question was directed at Greenaway. He’s the one claiming McKitrick has “an agenda”. Seems to me McKitrick’s “agenda” is to publish lots of good papers on topics that are highly relevant. SCAAAARY!
No. No theory can be proved to be true. A theory can ONLY be PROVED to be false. And it the “challenger’s” responsibility to do so.
The proponents responsibility is to provide ALL the information necessary to replicate – EXACTLY as they produced their results.
As the proponent in this case, CRU failed in that responsibility. The climate community now has the responsibility to falsify what CRU has done. Which will then lead to a new “theory”, which will in turn require falsification by others. And so on.
That is how science progresses. And it’s confirmed by history. I’d suggest a good course re: History of Science or Philosophy of Science. It’s would be an eye-opener – for a lot of people.
Following a brief conversation at CA I have been researching when/how the speculation started that identified Overpeck as the researcher that sent Deming the infamous email.
After a lot of searches I have found that quite a lot of the speculation is in fact via Steve McIntyre at CA and Steve’s only real source appears to be somebody called Andre who has been a frequent poster at UK Weatherworld and elsewhere. The speculation apparently started in late 2005 following an article by Deming titled “GLOBAL WARMING, THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE, AND MICHAEL CRICHTON�S �STATE OF FEAR�. Deming then repeated the statement at the U_S_ Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Hearing in 2006.
Steve M referenced Andre in an early post
See Posted Sep 9, 2005 at 6:03 AM
http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/23/more-on-mbh98-cross-validation-r2/
When I do Google searches then CA comes up regularly. Others have since gone with that speculation but I have not located anyone else claiming Overpeck as early as 2005.
The original UK Weatherworld post is no longer available and I cant find it on the Internet Archive. However Andre has made other posts and for me his arguments appear to only be based on the content of a paper Overpeck wrote in 1998 and the fact that he was an author of the IPCC TAR both of which are highly circumstantial. See
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=94740
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=154058&page=8
I am starting to get a feel for the timeline of events and it looks to me like the earlier 2003 Climategate email between Mann and others including Overpeck re “contain the MWP” is a very red coloured herring. This email exchange preceded Deming’s statements and is therefore unlikely to be related to the 1995 email because in 2003 it was not a known issue.
Because people have allowed themselves to get fixated on Overpeck as the email author based on one persons speculation they have ignored some further information provided by Deming since. He has pointed to one of the authors of a recent Obama report
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming3.html
The list includes Overpeck but also some other well known names and at least one of these was in play around 1995. Personally I take the 2008 Climategate email as evidence that it is less likely to be Overpeck. I think it unlikely he is misdirecting and that his confusion about whether it could have been him is genuine.
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/production-team
I expect the 1995 email is real but the actual context would be of interest. The other question would be whether Deming has retained it otherwise why would he have not released it?
clivere,
So ask him. What’s the probability that someone in 2009 still has records of emails from 1995, or that they had them in 2003 or 2005? Quite low, I suspect.
.
Thank you for your research.