Climatic Research Unit Hacked, Files Leaked 882
huckamania was one of many readers to write with the news that the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Unit was hacked, and internal documents released. Some discussion and analysis of the leaked items can be found at Watts Up With That. The CRU has confirmed that a breach occurred, but not that all 61 MB of released material is genuine. Some of the emails would seem to raise concerns about the science as practiced — or at least beg an explanation. From the Watts Up link: "[The CRU] is widely recognized as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change. Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students, the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models. An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server. Here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today: 'We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.' The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files. It contained data, code, and emails apparently from the CRU. If proved legitimate, these bombshells could spell trouble for the AGW crowd." Reader brandaman supplied the link to the archive of pilfered data. Reader aretae characterized the emails as revealing "...lots of intrigue, data manipulation, attempting to shut out opposing points of view out of scientific journals. Almost makes you think it's a religion. Anyone surprised?" And reader bugnuts adds, for context: "These emails are certainly taken out of context, whether they are legitimate or fraudulent, which adds to the confusion."
Some Funny Things About This Event (Score:5, Insightful)
The CRU has confirmed that a breach occurred, but not that all 61 MB of released material is genuine.
Rarely do I have enough time to generate 61 MB (let alone 61 compressed MB) of data, code and e-mails that serves my political/religious purposes. So if this is tampered data or correspondence, there would almost certainly be conflicting items inside such a large repository. I'm not saying it isn't possible, it just decreases the odds that this is a hoax.
'We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents'
Why? Why a random sampling? If you're going to serve up 61 MB zipped, it might as well be 61 GB zipped. Why not release both sets ("the good stuff.tar.gz" and "everything including the inane 'what's for lunch today?' e-mails.tar.gz")?
It's borderline hilarious that the claim is made that this is 'too important to be kept under wraps' followed immediately by the 'we'll decide what you see' cloaked by the equally hilarious word "random." Random? Really? You want me to believe that you printed everything out and put it on a big spinning wheel, blindfolded yourself and then threw darts at it? I mean, come on. Nothing in the political world is random. You would have done yourself much more justice saying you've released what you feel is relevant.
Being one, I know first hand that hackers are highly disorganized. But come on, why not torrent the whole set or wikileaks it or something? I mean, I'm almost waiting for a high quality Ford Fusion ad in PDF to surface right in the middle of the compressed file saying, "Doesn't this worry you enough to go green?"
Utter bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading random chunks of leaked data and E-mail is not the way science is done, nor policy made.
Let's see ALL the data, and let's not see the E-mail at all -- E-mail isn't data.
Otherwise, STFU, this isn't helping anything.
RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:5, Insightful)
Since some of the emails are sent from them, it's worth reading.
Link [realclimate.org]
For the specifics read the whole article. For a general summary, this excerpt will do:
"Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though."
Scepticism is universal (Score:1, Insightful)
Oversight (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Utter bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone else reveling in the irony of the hackers cherry-picking data to support their pre-conceived premises? :)
Re:Utter bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Email isn't science but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting. If the email says "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations" that would say a lot about how the 'science' is being done. Furthermore, random chunks of data isn't science, but it does have the possibility of revealing any number of things, anything from numbers not matching what is published to problems with software to inconsistent data.
I'm not saying that is what the leaked information says, nor am I saying that the leak is real; there isn't enough information to know that yet. But your instant dismissal of this because it isn't every piece of data ever collected is a little disconcerting in my opinion.
Random? by what measure? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or cherry picked?
Re:Utter bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Utter bullshit. (Score:1, Insightful)
ITT biased people calling reporters who report things they don't like biased.
Re:I would just like to point out.... (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's OK for slashdot to publish stores re: Sarah Palin's [slashdot.org] email getting hacked -- and linked to "what is, according to the story, STOLEN DATA", as you say.
I think it's all news worthy. Don't you?
In the spirit of transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre are just about to release their own personal e-mail histories as well.
Re:What I want to see (Score:2, Insightful)
Course if we had never passed the Clean Air Act we would have a buffer of particulates reducing sunlight getting to the ice. Not that I like smog...
Re:I would just like to point out.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the story (and the Palin one) is news worthy but not giving people easy access to the data.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody is a disinterested party.
Whatever your views on AGW, if you live on this planet you are not disinterested in this issue.
Anthropogenic Causes (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people who doubted AGW (humans causing the hockey stick graph, or the graph itself) are claiming this is some sort of smoking gun. I claim it's scientists being scientists, and failing at being politicians.
The very fact that this reveals some scientists are doubting some results is exactly what should happen in science. This is why there is a consensus [newscientist.com] among scientists. Doubting is a part of science and skeptics alike, but discovering the reasons for the doubt and changing a viewpoint when good, conflicting data are found are hallmarks of the scientist. Skeptics will cling to disproved data, hoping it somehow becomes true if they believe it hard enough.
There is no doubt that the earth is warmer, but mark my words: some idiot media personality will make claims to the contrary due to this. They thrive on confusion, and there's nothing more confusing (and humorous) than watching scientists wrestle with politics.
Oh, yes, this is the conspiracy of all time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:3, Insightful)
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though."
I think it is funny that people would begin to draw conclusions from data and e-mails that are not received in context or understood/interpreted as truth be told.
You could look up almost any e-mail from me and deduce all kinds of crap that isn't real, but if you're not me or the person who received it, you'll never know the truth unless you ask me to explain it.
The same goes for 'data'. Unless you've got a contextual explanation for all of the data, likely by those who collected it, it is pretty reckless to draw conclusions about it.
I'm a scientist, and in what I know, aside from what is published, raw data and notebooks (and e-mails in this case) are pretty hard to deduce 'truth' from without explanation.
Example: you could look at a note of me saying I discarded specific PCR amplified DNA sequences for organism X, Y, and Z. But if you don't have me there to explain the stuff you don't know, like that that they contained nonspecific amplification or maybe had messy chromatograms... well then you would never know. You might accuse me of tampering, though really you just don't know what is really going on.
This is why you can't just publish every damn thing that you did. It makes a big confusing mess. Instead, you take the data and your methods and results, provide discussion and interpretation, and then have peers review to make sure what you've done is reproducible and accounts for as many relative scientific facts as possible.
Re:Some Funny Things About This Event (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the emails say horrible things, it really doesn't help us much to find out about the truth.....these leaks will only help us if it helps us get access to the data.
Re:Some Funny Things About This Event (Score:5, Insightful)
The climate change denialists are a coalition of christian fundamentalist young earth creationists who see science as a threat to their religious beliefs, and tobacco companies who see science as a threat to their business plan. I think it is very likely that they would be motivated enough to create 61MB of hoax documents to further their cause
Comments like these bug me. Allow me to wax non-eloquent.
I could go on talking about it, but that's enough. As for tobacco companies, I wouldn't know.
And by the way... what do you think about Al Gore (and the rest)? He seems to be doing ok with his business plan. Or do you think that "corruption" is only on one side of this debate? That if you believe that humans are causing global warming you are obviously free from corruption ... and hypocrisy and greed and ... ?
Re:Scepticism is universal (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, Earth's climate has been changing for billions of years and will continue to do so. What Earth hasn't been doing for billions of years is supporting a single species who's civilization utterly depends on stable crop yields, stable weather patterns, and a stable climate. If humans go ahead and alter atmospheric chemistry enough to reduce rainfall and crop yields by 20% across several major agricultural regions, the Earth will be just fine with that. The atmosphere and climate have been changing for millenia. You know who won't be fine with it though?
Us.
As a species humans already appropriate well over half the productive ecological capacity on this planet (estimates I've seen range to as high as 90%), so anything we do to appreciably diminish that ecological capacity will hit one species particularly hard.
Us.
Earth, however, will soldier on, whether with a human population of around 10 billion, a dramatically reduced human population, or no human population at all.
Re:Why is climate science being politicized? (Score:0, Insightful)
You've clearly not been paying attention - GW has gone beyond a political issue and turned into a religious one for some of the far right. Apparently, Jeebus has a sad if you can't drive a giant Hummer the two blocks to church on Sunday.
Re:Some Funny Things About This Event (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, I would say skeptics of anthropomorphic global warming. There are nut jobs on both sides of the issue. However, as you describe it, I would be a "climate change denialist" who is an atheist, sees that science, and more importantly the scientific METHOD as mankind's only real hope for long term survival. I guess I do not fit the deluded masses of christian fundies. I take issue with the anthropomorphic global warming crowd for the following reasons.
Unwillingness to provide source data and methods used in their papers. (This is science, if you cannot replicate it, it never happened)
Continuing to both cite and regurgitate papers and findings that have been proven incorrect. (This is the Big Lie strategy, keep saying the lie often enough and loud enough, and everyone thinks it must be true)
and, IMO for the SCAREMONGERING that goes on in the press conferences. Its not part of their science, but at in my 30 years on this planet, I have been told that we are all gonna die real soon now many times, its getting to be as bad the fundies talking about the End Of The World.
Re:What I want to see (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, first off, the world gov are all pushing CO2 emissions as being the big thing.
Of course they are. All economic activity emits CO2. This is the next big power grab, and it will create the largest system of back scratching and kickbacks this world has ever seen... and may ever see. It really and truly doesnt get any bigger than this, folks.
Re:Scepticism is universal (Score:3, Insightful)
This is funny and telling because the "movement" even started calling it climate change instead of global warming
once the temps started to drop.
I assume CO2 caused the massive decrease in sunspots and the record breaking cold temps.
Re:Anthropogenic Causes (Score:0, Insightful)
Normally this thread would have hundreds of comments on this type of thread. This is not simply scientists failing as politicians. On the contrary,
it is out and out fraud on a Madoff scale.
The reason this thread is so quiet is all the AGW faithful know their cover is BLOWN. Forget it your bogus faith is DEAD.
If these grifters weren't on your side you would be calling for their heads on a stick. The only thing that will protect their lying asses is the the UKs desire vacuum every farthing from their citizens paycheck.
secrecy and data hiding (Score:5, Insightful)
The primary issue is that most climate science has not truly been scrutinize and reviewed. I've been reading the files and it's very damming. It's almost as bad as cold fusion. For example. In note 1075403821.txt Timo Hmeranta states.
One other thing about the CC paper - just found another email - is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.
So they are going to hide behind Intelectual Property Rights to keep their data from being reviewed!. Holy Fucking Shit! How can science do that and still remain respectable?
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it would be reckless to jump straight to conclusions from these messages. However, this does point to questions that nobody would otherwise know to ask. I guess the question is, should this organization be expected to explain unpublished comments from internal emails/
The thing about climate science is, it's really hard to get an independent dataset from which to test for reproducability of results. To me this makes it reasonable to expect more scrutiny into what the people who are in custody of that data do - not just into what they judge to be suitable for publication.
Re:Oh, yes, this is the conspiracy of all time (Score:5, Insightful)
You sound like you're arguing from information given to you by Al Gore. I'm not sure he's a trustworth source.
Since I think the Polar Bear thing is particularly funny (I think a lot of teen girls think they are so cute, in spite of the fact that they are apparently some of the most aggressive and violent bears), this is certainly not Fox News [ncpa.org]. nor are these folks. [telegraph.co.uk] But with proof like simply SEEING them so far off shore and presuming global warming is the reason, [sciencedaily.com] it's so obvious that any criticism must be wrong! I guess since the food that Polar Bears eat - like seals - are remaining completely stationary while the snow/ice presumably recedes. I've seen reports that polar bears can swim anywhere from 60 to 100s of miles, so apparently they aren't completely sure.
To me, the Polar Bear thing is a good example of someone seeing something and it getting blown completely out of proportion and people like Al Gore picking up on it and trying to use it for their own gain. Al Gore does not appear to be struggling financially.
Incidentally, from here [reason.com]:
Gore shows an animation of a polar bear (very reminiscent of the Coca Cola bears) swimming pitifully in the sea trying to haul itself up onto the last piece of ice floating in the Arctic Ocean. In 2002, the World Wildlife Fund issued a report warning that global warming was endangering polar bears. Arctic sea ice is thawing sooner and this means that the bears who hunt seals on the ice have fewer opportunities to feed themselves. This week saw an alarming report that hungry polar bears are turning cannibal. Yet, the WWF report itself found that most bear populations are either stable or increasing (see page 9 of the report). And remember, polar bears evidently survived when Arctic temperatures were warmer 6000 years ago. Of course, if predictions that the entire Arctic Ocean will be ice free in 100 year turn out to be right, then the polar bears will have a problem.
(emphasis mine)
That "ice free" bit was a link to "sciencedaily.com."
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:2, Insightful)
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though."
If there were a conspiracy very few people would have to be "in on it." Most scientists do their work on global warming because that is where the money is. Added peer pressure and other social factors keep many people in line. Do you really think George Soros or some other $villian simply goes around paying everyone off in person?
You paint a picture of a conspiracy that isn't relevant in any context except some terrible plot on a television show. Your statement is nothing but a strawman that is a crazier conspiracy theory than anything I've read about global warming. As if you know exactly how to plan a global conspiracy to make trillions of dollars and implement more authoritarian controls.
There is no need for any secret evidence to prove that there is a conspiracy trying to promote global climate change. You can read publicly available documents and statements from books like The First Global Revolution. [archive.org]
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill...All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
"The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself - when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose." (p.71)
Think of it like a pyramid. A few people at the top know everything. They have their lackies set up a system to control the flow of money, which trickles down to many different front companies, groups and scientists.
It's all about control and power.
The shame of it (Score:5, Insightful)
isn't that these files and this correspondence got hacked.
The shame of it is that hacking was necessary at all.
Transparency, People. We're debating public policy and making decisions for the benefit of all Mankind. Credibility is only hindered by opacity and closed data.
Re:Why is climate science being politicized? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean soaking the middle class.
The rich will stay rich because they will be collecting transaction fees from the climate exchanges as well as tax credits for green buisnesses.
The poor will be taken care of via transfer payments.
The middle class will pay for all of it.
Re:Utter bullshit. (Score:2, Insightful)
If the email says "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations" that would say a lot about how the 'science' is being done ... I'm not saying that is what the leaked information says ...
Oh, that's a neat trick. Here's another one for you:
If the email says, "Hey Bob, how did those live babies you ate for breakfast taste," that would say a lot about how Bob needs to be on death row. But I'm not saying that's what the leaked information says!
Re:Anthropogenic Causes (Score:3, Insightful)
The very fact that this reveals some scientists are doubting some results is exactly what should happen in science.
No, this reveals that some "scientists" are disappointed with the results and are actively withholding data and actively altering what data they do reveal in an effort to support the conclusion they want.
There is no doubt that the earth is warmer
I doubt this. Warmer than what?
Seems to me the earth was much warmer in the past and was plenty hospitable to various manners of life and has gone through more extreme changes on it's own accord, before humans even came into the picture.
The earth's climate is changing, as it tends to do.
Humans are not affecting it in any measurable way.
The change will be extremely slow and gradual.
The change will not destroy the planet.
The change may be an inconvenience for people, and certain species may go extinct.
There is nothing humans can do to stop it.
Re:Utter bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are hiding behind alleged confidentiality agreements they supposedly have with scientists who, according to them, provided some of the data. But they won't even so much as identify, as best I can tell today, those scientists, so that the data could be requested from them directly. Scientists who refuse to release raw data when serious questions are raised about their conclusions are not real scientists, and their work is entitled to no credibility whatsoever. As for due time, the House has passed an enormous "cap and trade" bill based on the conclusions of the global warming scare crowd... these scientists who refuse to release their data. I've got no problem waiting for more research... so long as we don't enact massive tax increases and other major interference in the economy while we wait. They are the ones demanding immediate action, however, so they have no right to say "let's wait for more data and more research" before releasing the data which they claim supports their fatalistic conclusions.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. 60 hours of cherry-picked sources from a paid-off thinktank is a perfect substitute for four years of college, two to four years of graduate school, and a decade or two in the field.
They flipped Finnish data upside down (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism (Score:3, Insightful)
Follow slashdot for a sufficient amount of time and you will see that whatever is "commonly accepted wisdom" is countered here by the kids who like to think they're smarter than everyone else and that they can see through the conspiracy -- although admittedly IIRC the Iraq War was pretty popular around 2002-03. It is a fairly typical right wing political reaction to just resist everything everyone else seems to be accepting in particular if it requires some sort of collective action, even if it actually was the rational thing to do.
The older I get, the less intellectual respect I have for most of /. tbh.
Data deletion and evading the law - "New Science" (Score:5, Insightful)
They go as far as telling others to delete information that (I reckon) could be incriminating.
"
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!"
CA is the principal "climate sceptic" website.
Of course, much effort is also dedicated to avoiding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
"PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !"
And so on.
Of course, they also find time to gloat of the death of "sceptics", etc. etc. All classy stuff.
"Science" indeed.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:5, Insightful)
what kind of a comment is that? Global warning has been debated so hotly it would be wonderful to see data that doesn't have a hand driven one way or the other by government. Those of us who aren't global warming specialists don't know what to believe other than to be concerned. implying that this person has a part of it is like saying that someone is interested in politics. Like it or not, these types of things involve every person on the planet, so, you know , everyone's interested.
I personally don't know what any of the truths are (note: I don't expect to be swayed completely in either direction by anyone posting here). But I think something's lost in all of this.
I don't know if humans are causing global warming... But if I emit less, and pollute the air less, I get to breathe cleaner air right? Also, how about we think about reducing energy usage to save on the energy bill?
That's good enough for me. I don't need to hear that we're destroying the environment (or not, or frankly whatever). I like paying less often at the pump, and I like not spending as much a month on my electric/gas bill. I also don't mind separating my trash.
Maybe I should've just said, "Can't we all just get along?"
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:5, Insightful)
When you read a large number of the e-mails, it becomes clearer and clearer just how much their data must be massaged and adjusted in order to reach the results they have. I don't say that their adjustments are good or bad, simply that the mere making of so many free-hand adjustments reduces the possibility that their conclusions are in fact correct. It's very hard to tell, without digging into the raw data which they won't release, how much of the claimed warming is really real, and how much shows up only because of the assumptions and conclusions and adjustments they have chosen to use.
Re:Oh, yes, this is the conspiracy of all time (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, if we are lucky, this will change things. I would like to see far far more openness about this issue. The world needs to see not just what is going on, and to understand why (or why not) this is true. Personally, I believe that looking out the window and seeing the ice (or lack thereof), etc should be enough to prove global warming. But even I have to say that it being mostly or all man-made can be hard to swallow. It seems only fair that if we are going to change a great deal that this be in the open.
Re:simple theory (Score:3, Insightful)
Here are two really simple theories:
1. Sun heats Earth with radiation in many wavelengths. Lots of optical-band + ultraviolet. /10s of thousands of years.)
2. Solar radiation interacts with matter on Earth and heats Earth.
3. Some of the heat re-radiates upwards away from Earth, but much of the radiation is now in
the lower energy infrared band, since some energy has gone into heating Earth.
4. CO2, methane etc molecules in atmosphere reflect infrared radiation back down to Earth, heating Earth more.
5. Humans are pumping lots of carbon out of the ground, and burning forests that store carbon. This carbon is being
released into atmosphere as CO2, methane etc. Increasing CO2, methane etc concentrations in atmosphere
(concentration of these molecules in atmosphere is roughly doubled so far compared to recent thousands
6. So there is now net heating of the Earth, due to this excess trapping of Infrared radiation by reflection.
Theory 2:
1. Oil companies and large corporate interests whose businesses rely on cheap fossil fuel energy are upset at the
prospect of having to change their ways. They will lose profits.
2. "Fat and happy" western consumers are enjoying their easy lifestyles fueled by a fossil-fuel burn of 400 years worth of stored
carbon per year. They don't want to have to walk or bus more, or eat local, even though it would prevent them getting diabetes
or a heart attack. It's too much work. Let the oil do the work.
3. Both of these interests are screaming in anger and denial that their comfy lifestyles need serious adjustment. Both of them
are in denial so they won't have to admit that they have been guilty of robbing future generations. Both of them are pleading
ignorance of the consequences, when the only way they could be that ignorant is by keeping their eyes shut and yelling really
loud.
Re:Your opinion is being manipulated (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm kind-of a little gob-smacked that you can think this. The PR has been all "warming" for a decade or more. Press releases for every paper, no-matter how ridiculous, linking {fill in the blank} to Global Warming have been routinely published, discussed and editorialised in mainstream media publications, with utter credulity and no raised eyebrow whatsoever. The sceptics have generally been dismissed or ignored.
I've noticed recently, however, say over the last year or so, that comments sections on "warmist" mainstream media articles are overwhelmed with sceptics. The public just don't believe it any more and the newspapers and media are starting to reflect that. I would say that the "warmists" have overplayed their hand, with barely credible predictions of disaster, exaggeration, blatant spin and a seeming inability to accept any criticism. Their proposed policy responses to this (possibly) imaginary problem are unrealistic. I don't think the general public are up for rolling back the industrial revolution, or enacting an economic scorched Earth policy for the benefit of one half of one degree, within the bounds of natural variation and quite possibly outside of the bounds of measurement error.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Utter bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see ALL the data, and let's not see the E-mail at all -- E-mail isn't data.
You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view, obstructing freedom of information requests, and campaign to discredit a peer reviewed journal that published something that disagreed with their public stance, right?
It seems to me that this would be the point of raising the objection. Its a classic double standard. On the one hand we can freely draw conclusions about the nature of the Earth's changes in temperature using a relatively limited set of data. On the other hand we are forbidden to draw conclusions about the content of these emails because we do not have the complete, unmodified, set of data.
They are smart enough to correctly draw conclusions, but no one else may do so.
Classic stuff, there.
Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I think the big thing that this data-dump shows is that it's actually a small group of tightly knit e-mail connected individuals that are driving a whole lot of the AGW effort.
Someone else wrote that this is all Exxon Astroturfing going on to make us knock out Copenhagen. In other words, arguing that a global conspiracy of oil-company funded individuals, like a meterologist in California and a retired statistician are all on payroll along with hackers in Russia, and new posters on SlashDot, are all working to convince us of a global conspiracy to promote AGW... These people are somehow secretly communicating behind the scenes, transferring billions of dollars of off-the-books money to individuals, all without anyone being able to point to a money trail.
On the other side, we have three groups, CRU, Mann/RealClimate and GISS, who have been clearly communicating and using their supposedly "neutral" Web Site (RealClimate) to promote one-sided views of the science, and apparently "fudge" the data until it matches their theory. These people openly receive grants of hundreds of millions of dollars every year, and have access to governments, prime ministers, and corporations, all of whose funding depends on perpetuating and establishing AGW as *the* science.
So, you'd have to believe it was all a big plan to release data on a minor Russian FTP site, found by accident on a blog almost no one reads, and then forwarded to a blog that *is* read often, in an un-threaded discussion while the site owner is on a trip overseas. This well coordinated group then uses these actual emails (admitted as valid and real by Phil Jones, head of CRU) to somehow concoct a story that a small group of climate scientists are colluding to support a theory by ignoring the facts, by using their own words to that effect.
On the one hand, you have individuals scanning through, admittedly, purloined emails and saying, "Whoa! What's going on here." Opposite that, you have the post on RealClimate today saying, "Move along, nothing to see here!" Some of those emails involve apparent schemes to transfer US funds overseas to avoid taxation. That alone is "something to see," despite what RealClimate is saying. And that's ignoring whether the science was done according to any standards of ethics.
We're talking millions of dollars in budgets from publicly funded programs. If there's even a hint of malfeasance in these documents, then a serious investigation should be started. I don't care which side is the global conspiracy. Only one side is spending *my money* to perpetrate it. The oil companies can spend however many trillion dollars they want without it coming out of *my* pocket.
Re:Utter bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe it or not (I know you won't) but not everyone who disagrees with you is on some big oil company's payroll. You are just as bad a conspiracy theorist as anyone else here.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:4, Insightful)
There's only one tiny little problem with your theory: the people at the top of your pyramid have no power whatsoever. Carbon emissions are steadily increasing. The flow of the control of money goes through -- guess whom! No, not the environmentalists, but the energy sector. Control and power? You're barking up the wrong tree.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to hack to get information (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think climate science is important and want to know more about it maybe you should spend some time GOING TO FUCKING SCHOOL.
Re:simple theory (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats how deeply they feel about maintaining their position. They have real data, direct observations of temperature, that disagrees with their theory and their thinking is that the direct observations must be wrong... but all that tree ring and ice core stuff must be right, of course.
You can't make this shit up.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't discussing the merits of papers. They are trying to get people (journal editors) fired, based on their perceived loyalty (or lack thereof) to 'the cause'.
Of course, that is when they aren't deleting data in order to prevent if from falling into the wrong hands, or conspiring to avoid the law in order to keep their data under wraps. Data that has now sadly been lost forever in a mysterious accidental deletion.
Or celebrating the deaths of "sceptics" (clearly these people are a bunch of dispassionate scientists).
And so on.
If this is Science as Usual (TM), then Science needs serious reform.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:3, Insightful)
The only question is why did he choose the words "hide" as opposed to "correct" and "decline" as opposed to "error" which the skeptics (of this breach) are trying to imply, that "hide the decline" has the same meaning as "correct the error".
Because it was in a private e-mail and people don't parse their words that carefully in private e-mails.
Perhaps it was even said tongue-in-cheek and the recipient would have understood from previous conversations that it was a joke. I could imagine two colleagues talking
A: "This data shows a decrease!"
B: "Yes, but if you look at it like this, it becomes clear that is an artifact."
A: "Oh. Well then how would I present that"
B: "I read a paper that had a technique that seemed useful, I'll email it to you when I get back to the office"
A: "You're sure it's not actual signal and the technique you are thinking of will just hide it"
B: (joking)"Well yeah, after all, Al Gore would -kill- us if we didn't 'hide' the true data to support the hoax!"
A&B: "Ha ha ha"
Email from B: "Here's how we could hide the data."
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you really telling us that you reject papers only because they contain data that does not fit the prevailing theory?
He's not, but this is a good example of how you can woefully misinterpret honestly-made statements.
What he's saying is that research that claims that well-tested, well-accepted principles are false is held up to a higher level of scrutiny than research that doesn't. This is only natural: if your research shows results that disagree with the results of multiple earlier studies, it is more likely that you have made a mistake than that the multiple studies have. If further scrutiny indicates that your research was rigorous, it will still be published.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:2, Insightful)
Anthropogenic (man-made) global Warming
Medieval Warm Period (a period from about 850-1100 of extremely mild weather. Grapes grew in London vineyards, Orange trees grew in Berlin and modern climate theory says it never happened.)
Re:Utter bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the email says "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations" that would say a lot about how the 'science' is being done.
What if the person sending the email to Bob is someone testing Bob's algorithm in a controlled test scenario where the outcome is already known, and therefore the algorithm not meeting expectations actually means that the algorithm is wrong and needs to be reworked? Then the quote wouldn't be quite the smoking gun, would it?
That's why context is essential.
Re:Some Funny Things About This Event (Score:3, Insightful)
If you object to my definitions, please feel free to offer your own. Or do you genuinely not recognize the difference between skepticism and denial?
My grasp of science is based on being a scientist. Yours, I suspect, is based on whatever garbage Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck spoonfeed into your otherwise empty brain.
Re:Utter bullshit. (Score:1, Insightful)
Other e-mails routinely discuss efforts to manipulate and massage the data to account for various political difficulties the data are causing them. For example, one e-mail discusses using a particular modifier to minimize a warming "blip" in the 1940s
Yeah, because if there's one thing the Global Warming Scientific Conspiracy wants to do most, it's to minimize evidence of global warming.
In fact, the 1940s warming blip has been discussed in the literature for some time now, as part of a debate over whether it's real or a data artifact. One of the most recent discussions of this debate is in this paper [nature.com], one of the authors of which is from the UK CRU group. Here they suggest that it is in fact a data artifact, and ought to be corrected so reflect less ocean warming than previously believed.
For some reason, skeptics froth at the mouth about how the surface temperature record ought to be revised downward due to supposed biases, but when climate scientists develop a downward revision due to actual biases, suddenly it's "damning evidence" from "fear mongerers".
More here [realclimate.org].
Re:Some Funny Things About This Event (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that pollution is bad - we should be limiting it out of general principles. What I'm undecided about is how bad. The level of discourse seems to have reached a point where no lay person can reach even a semi-educated, unbiased opinion because all data and analysis available to him is tainted by the sender.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:1, Insightful)
But, in the end, it doesn't matter, because you have a preconceived notion that AGW doesn't exist and that scientists are lying sacks of shit, and therefore confirmation bias will ensure that you will accept only those quotes/emails/documents/etc that confirm your belief, and you will disregard or suitably twist any other information that doesn't fit that bias.
Applying that disingenuous label to anyone who questions your methods or motives is exactly why AGW is a religious movement- whether its true or not.
Re:Here is a good run down on this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Some Funny Things About This Event (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course it's logically impossible to for a Christian fundamentalist-young-earth-creationist to be a scientist, Cannonballhead.
How is it logical to believe that the entire fossil record was put there by a God who's trying to fool everybody even though he loves us? There are so many fallacies in that argument that it makes my head spin.
This is the bizarro world I'm talking about: It's scientific to believe fairy tales, but real scientists all make stuff up because Al Gore is paying them all.
Shame on you.
My heart goes out to those researchers. (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel really bad for these researchers.
I have published only a few papers and would be mortified if my emails got released to the public. I am constantly joking around with other lab denizens about fudging stuff, and removing data that doesn't fit the expectations. The opportunity for out of context quotations is scary to contemplate. Not to mention all of the politically incorrect jokes about such-and-such a graph's sexual orientation.
If one of these guys said anything like that over the years of emails in this dump, they are in some deep shit for nothing. Image someone going through all of the comments for all of the code you have ever written just looking for any tiny detail to prove you're a hack.
"just added one to this variable now it works" = screwed.
"need to go back and fix this" = screwed.
"not sure why this works but it does" = screwed.
"Bob is an idiot, I am just going to comment out his code" = screwed.
Like Cardinal Richelieu said:
“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him”
Right or wrong, these guys are gonna get the shaft.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:5, Insightful)
This just in, Physiscists have no idea what causes gravity, Geologists can't tell from the shape of a planet what it's composed of, Astronomers don't know for certain how the Earth formed around the Sun.
You mistake the argument.
1. The Earth has warmed slightly - With solid records for only the last 150 years, (some of which may be questionable, see surfacestations.org) we don't know if this is unprecedented.
2. CO2 has risen since we've been measuring it. With only 100 odd years of instrumental record, we don't know if this is unprecedented.
3. Climate is hideously complex to model. We don't know what all the sources of CO2 are, nor where all the sinks are. Added to this is the intrinsicly chaotic form of weather in general.
4. We don't know what effect water, temperature, ice, etc. has on the total feedback of the system. It could be positive, it could be negative. We don't know. All the computer models are leaning positive (as heat goes up, heating goes up.) Recent studies are showing that it may be negative.
5. Arctic ice was declining in the early half of the decade. We don't know if this is unprecedented, as we only really have 30 years of records from satellites.
6. There is good evidence that a large part of the CO2 delta in the atmosphere comes from C14 poor sources. (Ancient carbon > 50,000 years old.) This could be from fossil fuels, or it could be from prehistoric sources such as melting permafrost. Again, this cannot be proven one way or the other.
Now, here's the leap you need to make (pick one):
1) CO2 increases from man are *CAUSING* the warming. (This is a hypothesis.)
2) CO2 increases in general are *CAUSED BY* warming (A lot of the proxy data for >150 years ago shows this.)
3) The warming is a natural process, but the CO2 has enhanced it to some extent. (This is arguably the most likely.)
4) The warming is a natural cycle, the CO2 increase has nothing, or very little to do with it. (It's a coincidence.)
Choose one of the above.
A physicist can't point at a some squiggle in a particle accelerator and say "that's the gravity particle" any more than a Pastafarian can point at the Great Noodly Appendage pushing down the apple on Newton's head and say, "That's proof of my theory." Gravity is a fact, the cause of gravity is a theory.
You're talking about an AGW bias, as if it were a fact. The equivalent "fact-bias" would be stating they have "a pro-thermometer bias." The idea that Anthropogenic CO2 is the sole cause of any warming is where the debate is.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:4, Insightful)
"It's very hard to tell, without digging into the raw data which they won't release, how much of the claimed warming is really real, and how much shows up only because of the assumptions and conclusions and adjustments they have chosen to use."
That's a big issue. Without releasing raw data there can be little science, where other people can try to replicate or falsify findings.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:3, Insightful)
While I've never seen anything like celebrating an opponent's death, in my social science experience, I've witnessed rampant conclusion-driven methodology.
"Do you think that because we included XYZ in our sampling that it's clouding the results?"
"Don't tell me what the data say; I know what's really happening and the data are wrong!"
etc.
The way science is funded is not amenable to honest science. If the track you're leading dries up, switching tracks isn't really an option because all the other tracks have people leading them already.
You make it sound like there's only one campaign (Score:5, Insightful)
You forget the massive PR campaign being waged on the side of the GW proponents.
Al Gore's been running around publicizing his new book in advance of Copenhagen.
You know, that book with the massive scientific impossibilities in the picture of what the Earth would look like due to GW.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:4, Insightful)
I would argue to everyone, that the word hide implies falsification or concealment. So the author was knowingly manipulatin data to conceal the truth.
Hey, you sound just like my psycho ex-g/f, who would stop in the middle of an argument to claim that the way I used some particular word could only mean exactly one thing, and it was the thing she wanted it to mean, and not anything else.
Psychotic, abusive people often think this way: they believe they have or can infer from a few words exactly what the original intent of the speaker was, whereas sane people know that we most of us choose our words poorly and sloppily and our utterances simply will not bear anything like such close psychotic analysis.
So sure he used the words "hide the decline", and all that means--unless you're on some kind of witch hunt and don't believe that stupidity explains far more than venality--is that he's being sloppy and casual about what he's doing to clean up a known issue with the data.
I often use the word "fake" when describing data analysis algorithms, as in, "We can fake an XYZ algorithm here," meaning that what I'm doing is not a true XYZ algorithm, but rather some known and valid approximation to it (usually done for reasons of computational efficiency.) Someone like you would see that, declare that I could only possibly mean one thing by "fake", and call me a fraud.
That would be childish, narrow-minded and stupid, and I don't see any reason to make a different judgment of what you're doing here.
Re:Your opinion is being manipulated (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously there are economic interests on both sides. What many people don't realise is that banks like Goldman Sachs are full-square behind policies like Cap & Trade. As traders they get to slice and dice contract payments, hedge them etc and make a huge amount of money. There are billions to be lost or gained either way and these institutions are powerful lobbies. I also think that the billions being funnelled into Global Warming research, on an institutional level, can't be dismissed entirely especially when you consider "pitching" for funding is always going to be more successful if the proposal maintains topicality. There are powerful motivations, conscious or subconsious, to promote your particular view whichever side you are on.
The only conspiracy theory on either side that I'm sympathetic to is the concept of energy security (as a national security issue). Actually conspiracy is the wrong word to use; I would say AGW is a convenient policy hook to hang your energy security hat on if you're a politician. Obviously others have different motives (the Greens for instance). Either way, the waters are muddy and although I believe temperature has increased, I don't believe Earth's climate system involves powerful positive feedbacks and so I don't believe the temperature projections that raise trivial temperature increases into catastophic warming scenarios. It is a question of belief of course, because the models are demonstrably wrong (although obviously not when they hind-cast!).
Re:Anthropogenic Causes (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why there is a consensus among scientists.
Consensus isn't science. At one time there was a strong consensus that blacks were less intelligent that whites. We reject that idea now.
The idea of consensus governing is so dangerous to the foundations of science because rejecting consensus is what got science going in the first place. We had Galileo and Copernicus as famous examples. In those days people would argue that something was true for no other reason than that Aristotle said it. That was the ultimate proof!
Then in later years, people realized, it doesn't matter who said it, how smart they were, or how many there were, they can still be wrong. And that is just as true today as it was in the days of Galileo. When the Royal Society in London was founded, it used as its motto to believe "on the words of no one." You had to present your evidence.
We need to keep the same standard today. If your argument can't stand on evidence alone, if you have to talk about 'consensus,' then you have lost touch with science and have entered the realm of those who we call religious: trust in a higher authority is what we know as faith. For me, I say, show me the evidence.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:3, Insightful)
More seriously, why is absence of the more delusional theories considered "more interesting" than signs of unscientific bias and exclusion of certain rival research?
It is more interesting because these delusional theories constitute the bulk of the "skeptical" argument these days. The accusation of bias and so forth is damning to the particular researchers involved, but so far I haven't seen anything that seriously calls into question the actual science of global warming, which is the important question.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:5, Insightful)
The Earth has warmed slightly - With solid records for only the last 150 years
CO2 has risen since we've been measuring it. With only 100 odd years of instrumental record
Why do you discount the ice core data?
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:2, Insightful)
Medieval Warm Period (a period from about 850-1100 of extremely mild weather. Grapes grew in London vineyards
LOL. There was no intervening time that grapes weren't grown in England. So saying they grew during a warm period is both true and meaningless. As is saying there was a warm period in Europe. Hint: This was not shared by the entirety of the globe.
modern climate theory says it never happened.
LOL. Seriously, you're causing AGW with all your straw-man burning.
It's actually funny how many of the standard anti-GW points are based on misunderstanding things we only know because of climatologists, then claiming the climatologists don't know about or deny the existence of those things.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:3, Insightful)
Applying that disingenuous label to anyone who questions your methods or motives is exactly why AGW is a religious movement- whether its true or not.
Equating people who are merely questioning methods or motives with people who are flat-out stating that the methods and motives are nefarious based on deliberately not understanding context is disingenuous.
There are people who are sincerely skeptical and ask questions, and who are unfairly denigrated as being biased. When the only questions being asked are rhetorical, though, that person isn't part of that group. Then, the "disingenuous label" fits perfectly and correctly.
What's the goal of the global warming conspiracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:3, Insightful)
If the RC article is right, why would whoever wrote that email pick such an unclear phrasing?
Because it wasn't unclear to the target audience of the e-mail. The e-mail was not written assuming its verbiage would be picked apart for signs of a conspiracy.
When applying Occam's Razor, you don't pull short on your cut.
Re:My heart goes out to those researchers. (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe because the "scientific evidence" that proponents like to quote is presented 100% on the basis that the details are accurate and give a full picture.
What you are saying is the opposite, that science is universally conducted based on widespread fraud and lies. You even say that this applies to all universities. In that case universities should have a radically different role than today.
"just added one to this variable now it works" = you should not be employed at a role where your views influence public policy.
Re:Your opinion is being manipulated (Score:3, Insightful)
My reference to rolling back the industrial revolution refers to the Green agenda, which at its heart is exactly that. I read Konrad Lorenz when I was a radical greenie at University, so I think I understand the general philosophy (anti-technocracy). I don't say it's shared by those Scientists (some of whom are activists, such as James Hansen) referenced in the emails, but I think it informs at least the extremist end of the AGW political spectrum.
On the economics of climate policy, "green jobs" and a "green economy" are a fantasy as long as green energy has to compete with fossil fuels. That it will do so in terms of global trade, will put the West at a big competitive disadvantage. The only solution here is to raise the trade barriers again. Either way, it's going to be more expensive than mitigation or adaptation (assuming worst case scenarios aren't realised - a reasonable assumption in my view).
On a philosophical level, adaptation is the only rational policy. It's served Humanity well for a hundred thousand years; I see no reason why it shouldn't continue to do so.
Re:secrecy and data hiding (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:1, Insightful)
If only this was true...
The leaked emails show these "leaders" in the field systemically attempted to replace science magazine editors who they don't agree with, and marginalizing the magazines where they can't get the staff changed. They discuss between themselves how to discrete the individuals publishing dissenting views, and how to block freedom of information requests for publicly funded research.
The emails paint a very unethical code of conduct. The ends DO NOT justify the means.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:2, Insightful)
... and all of the treering data falls apart if you allow that rainfall may also be a significant factor.
Re:simple theory (Score:3, Insightful)
"Its been cooling for a decade and there is even an email about it with one of those guys asking the other what they should do about the current evidence, with a hint that the instrumental record (direct observations!) must be wrong."
WRONG! I F&@#(G WANT TO KILL ANYONE WHO REPEATS THIS TRASH! DO THE F##$!#G GOOGLE SEARCH FOR IT!
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/hacked-hadley-emails-hottest-decade-on-record-and-the-oceans-planet-keep-warming/ [climateprogress.org]
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php [scienceblogs.com]
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/satellites-show-cooling.php [scienceblogs.com]
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:5, Insightful)
Good God, who made you up? Grant money flows to scientists whose results are published by respected journals, and cited by other scientists. Apparently, you missed the emails where the following was written:
"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...What do others think?"
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.""It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !"
Yes, this sounds like the scientific method at its best - try to shut up and demean anyone who disagrees with you, ensure that they aren't published or cited, and hence are shut out of the grant money gravy train. Meanwhile, hide your data from public view, and privately chat about how you manipulated it.
I'm no authority on whether AGW exists or doesn't, but the actions of those who claim it is true certainly don't fill me with any confidence.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:5, Insightful)
You can have billions of data points over several millenia and the only thing you can hope to prove is a strong correlation between A=CO2 levels and B=global temperature.
But you cannot prove or disprove that A causes B, B causes A - or an unknown C causes A and B. Because of the scientific method, you only have a hypothesis, which can only be judged from the quality of the predictions it made.
And here we come full circle: the theory of global warming predicts a global temperature increase over the next few decades. And then scientists urge us to do something to counter that. With large amounts of money and maybe even a reduction in our quality of life. Let's call this strategy of repentance R and the opposite strategy, doing absolutely nothing and keep on sinning S.
Now we can bring game theory into the fray:
Player Mankind M against Global Warming Theory(tm) W.
Mankind can play strategy SIN or REPENT while Global Warming can play the strategies HOT or NOT.
Now let's look at the payoff matrix:
(S, H) = it's now hot, Global Warming was right, but we saved billions of Dollars, Euros, Yuan and Rubles that happily multiplied on compound interest all those years. Let's spend the money on building dams, counter-desertificaton and storm shelters. And pour some money into researching fusion, we need it. Mankind will suffer, but certainly recover. Countries that pursued Repent anyway will now have a severe disadvantage.
(S, N) = it's cool, Global Warming was wrong. We saved uncounted billions of dollars and are probably on the way of building the spaceship for the Alpha Centauri victory condition. Countries that pursued Repent anyway now have a severe disadvantage.
(R, H) = it's now hot, but we don't know if Global Warming was right OR an unkown variable O (let's call it "Sun Output" just for kicks) was the reason. We spent billions and lost the equivalent of Earth's weight in Gold in missed compound interest. Anyway, we didn't spend enough so we lack the funds to build enough dams and shelters. Those few countries that bailed out of the plan now CAN build dams and shelters and will gain the upper hand.
(R, N) = it's cool now but we spend billions of dollars and missed a lot of compound interest. We either did enough or global warming was weaker than expected or the unkown variable C was decreasing as well. Spaceship victory condition is delayed for several centuries. Those few countries that bailed out of the plan will gain the upper hand.
As the scientific method can only disprove, (S, N) provides the only definite answer: Warming was wrong. All other outcomes are unreliable:
(S, H) could mean Global Warming was right or variable O was the reason
(R, H) could mean Global Warming was right, but we did too little, too late OR variable O was the reason.
(R, N) could mean Global Warming was right and we did enough OR Global Warming was wrong and we wasted oodles of money.
to That means
- even in 20 or 30 years, we will not know for sure if global warming was right.
- those who didn't pursue a Repent strategy will always have outpaced those who did
- defect is the dominant strategy for different factions of Mankind
- we either need a New World Order to force everyone in line or the defectors will laugh at us in any possible outcome.
Great. Just great.
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to map out a more complex scenario with two players, Mankind and Warming, where Mankind can "Repent" or "Sin", but Warming can play "Hot from CO2", "Hot from the Sun" or "Cold either way". I doubt the payoff matrix favors insane spending to Repent.
Anyway, the latest predictions I heard of our holy climate priests were an increase of 2 degrees centigrade in 2100. (no, not 2010). If the global temperature was a random walk with a delta of -0.1, 0 and +0.1 every year, we can and will obtain much greater deltas just by chance alone.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:5, Insightful)
I cant think of any context that would transmute
written "hide the decline"
into
meaning "correct an error"
Feel free to provide a context, a hypothetical context, a flat our fairytale if you like. But make us believe that a self-respecting scientist uses the word "hide" when they mean "correct" and "*the* decline" when they mean "*an* error". This would not happen if the scientist was a dyslexic mutant with Tourette's.
"Hide the decline" means covering a statistical trend and that is truly nefarious and unworthy of any scientist, no matter whose money sponsors the labcoats at this particular place. Even a real error correction would've needed more explanation on what exactly was the noise or error and what was the signal or trend, to make sure it wasn't the other way around.
Futzing results of statistical analysis is a great boo-boo in any but all cases and we caught AGW red-handed.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:3, Insightful)
When you read a large number of the e-mails, it becomes clearer and clearer just how much their data must be massaged and adjusted in order to reach the results they have.
That may be, but your selected quote doesn't demonstrate anything even remotely nefarious.
Here we have a group of scientists with a bunch of data, most of which meets what one would expect based on theory and related data. But then there's a blip. So what do you do? Do you assume your entire theory is incorrect or that your experiment is b0rked? Or do you try to understand the blip and determine if it's just an outlier or can be explained away based on known theory?
I would contend that the latter is far more rational than the former.
simply that the mere making of so many free-hand adjustments reduces the possibility that their conclusions are in fact correct.
I'm sorry, at what point did anyone claim to be making "free-hand" adjustments? That implies random, willy-nilly changes to the data in order to fit a model, and there's no evidence such a thing is happening. You're simply inferring that it is the case based on a bunch of informal emails that were originally part of a private conversation, combined with what I can only assume is an irrational distrust of science and scientists.
Far more likely is that you have scientists with a mass of data, and in that data they have outliers. So part of the analysis is to understand those outliers and try and "remove at least part of the ... blip" by applying sound reasoning and mathematics to the data.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:3, Insightful)
that is flawed at the core, anyone who works with trees knows rings only correlate with rainfall, period.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but this isn't so. Tree ring sizes are dependent on a variety of factors, many of which cannot be isolated from ring width alone. Temperature is just one factor and may not even be the most important limiting factor for growth.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:4, Insightful)
you should get your facts straight. anyone who's ever cut down a tree knows that thin rings correspond only to drought years and nothing but. no temperature correlation at all, whatever ivory tower bullshit you might come up with from someone whose never even been in a forest. of course, this well known FACT doesn't discourage people willing to spew nonsense to support their agenda
Re:My heart goes out to those researchers. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Some Funny Things About This Event (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientists proving doom from data they claim to have while they only provide the results, but swear they are correct.
How is this different from
Shamans proving doom from reading bones they claim to do while they only provide the results.
Are we back in the stone age yet? Which noob reset the server, dammit?
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:4, Insightful)
Before you start throwing around allegations of fraud, you better get your facts straight.
Fact: Mann et al have and continue to deny access to key data.
Fact: The '08 update of the 1998 report is also Mann's work, in part based on his hidden data.
Mann can publish all the updated reports he wants for the rest of his life; until ALL of the DATA is exposed to ANYONE that wishes to examine it his conclusions will be suspect. The longer it takes the access ALL of the data the less credibility (quickly converging on zero) Mann has. Extraordinary claims always require extraordinary evidence; good faith is not assumed and does not count.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:3, Insightful)
Allright, Game Theory Boy. Presumably you know what a Prisoner's Dilemma is. In that scenario, participants can (correctly) pick the strategy that maximizes their outcome, and yet still will achieve a societal result that's suboptimal for the whole system.
The key feature of a prisoner's dilemma is that participants ARE NOT COOPERATING. If they do cooperate, they can pick individual strategies that leaves society in a better position. So, the question is, is the human inhabitability of our planet worth cooperating for, or should we just throw up our hands and say, "let's just keep sinning"?
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the fuck would anyone publish their work in a journal with an editor that is busy exercising editorial control completely at odds with what most people in the field believe?
Why the fuck would anyone want to be published in the same forum as a wack-job?
There are fringe journals which published weird shit in every field. Some of them are even nearly completely fake (google for Vioxx and the journal created by the drug companies to distort the publication record on it). No one wants to be associated with them unless they share the biases of the editors.
The quotations are entirely reasonable and reflect a worry that Climate Research is a biased journal which gives undue consideration and billing to anti-global-warming nutters. The scientists in question are completely right that publishing in it would be elevating the trash shoe-horned in by the editor in question to a greater prominence than it deserves. Solution: boycott the journal.
Contrary to your belief scientists do not privilege all data as exactly the same. They have hunches, good reasons and suspicions about why some data is crap and should be ignored. Milikan's famous oil-drop experiment to determine the charge on an electron is backed by several hundred (IIRC) attempts which he deemed "failures" (see this [oxfordjournals.org]). There are MANY other examples.
Also, if you think science doesn't operate by the same politicking as any other human field then you've NEVER had ANYTHING to do with science. For a good outsider perspective you might try reading some of the sociological studies (e.g. David Hull's _Science as a Process_).
The models and the data which are claimed to support them are published for everyone to see and are open for refutation, examination and improvement. Science as an aggregate stumbles towards the truth even when individual parts are not perfect. It achieves this by clear, open statements of data and hypothesis which allows a clear basis for challenge or confirmation.
In other words, fuck all to see here unless you know nothing about how science works or are desperate to believe that global warming is not due to your fat ass.
Re:And my milkman is corrupt (Score:3, Insightful)
Atheists:
1) The starvation of Russia by Stalin.
2) The cleansing of China by Mao.
I don't even need to keep trying because the body count of those two buries probably every religiously motivated atrocity ever. Even "religiously motivated" wars and atrocities have little to do with actual religion and everything to do with using religion as a vehicle for whatever the land/property/wealth grab of the day is against whatever the easy target minority or country is.
Nothing Hitler or Mao or Stalin did was motivated by anything beyond the natural human lust for greed and power. That's what motivated the Spanish Inquisition and it's what motivates priests to shag choirboys (well, that combined the with the psychological craziness that comes from denying yourself your most basic evolutionary urge beyond eating and shitting). We like power. We like control. We'll use any convenient argument to obtain them. That's who we are and that's what we do.
Atheists sure are quick to blame God and religion for everything but really, it's the same on every side of the fence. The human element is the problem. They're lying, cheating, greedy self-interested fuckwads. All of them. Every last one of the little hairless baboon motherfuckers.
So please, stop trying to turn everything into an "us vs. them" or "we're good, they're bad." It's rarely that simple. In most human conflicts both sides are corrupt. There's no reason both sides can't be wrong.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok here is a posit....
Vikings build villages in Greenland 1,000 years ago. Those same villages got covered in ice and snow 900 years ago and the viking left cause it was cold as heck, nothing would grow and their animals starved.
Viking villages are just now being exposed that were buried under ice 1,000 years ago in Greenland.
So it is warmer now than when vikings were settling Greenland?????
It is like a robot having a dream and seeing the number 2.....
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:5, Insightful)
He says he chose the
Sure sounds like he's free-handing it to me.
Re:Utter bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but [The CERES data] are surely wrong.
That is, when they say that "the data is wrong," they meant the published data predicting warming, because its not matching whats observed. Consequently, this is what I learned when I was taught the scientific method.
Re:Anthropogenic Causes (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, to the general public, people were thinking power plants exploding and planes crashing. Yeah, Y2K was something real, but it was nothing like what got sold to the public.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:3, Insightful)
You have some really odd scenarios there.
For example, you make a rather LARGE assumption that the globe heating has zero impact on economics. Where'd the billions saved come from?
What if the desertification strikes the midwest of this country, the major producer for food? Those billions will be gone long before 20 or 30 years have elapsed. Anti-desertification measures? Applied to 1/3 of the country? That isn't going to be cheap and/or practical. Your also neglecting the advancement of invasive species into areas where they haven't been, thus no known predators to control them. What about the increased power needs for a warmed planet (AC in summer, pumping water into drought areas, etc.).
And that's just a few issues.
You have grossly oversimplified the problem.
~X~
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:4, Insightful)
And did you even bother to read the thread about WHY they did this?
One editor in particular, was pressuring several others into allowing shitastic research papers into the publication. The papers were terribly done, used questionable data, had specious conclusions, and overall should not have been allowed in any scientific publication. In other words, despite the peer reviewers and others saying they were crap, they got published anyway. This lead to 6 editors resigning over the publication of these shoddy examples of scientific research.
The point of a peer-reviewed journal is that it's peer reviewed. When others start making decisions what should be published or not IN SPITE OF WHAT THE PEER-REVIEWERS SAY, then contributing or citing other research from said publication becomes, at best dubious.
Context people. You can't read one paragraph or on email and get the whole picture. Not to mention that we don't have the whole story, only what the hacker wants you to see. And of that, we have no idea what parts are real or doctored.
~X~
Re:Lindzen vindicated (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lindzen vindicated (Score:3, Insightful)
When you learn you're on the wrong road, do you continue to drive on, or do you stop, re-evaluate, and then start again?
I'm not against change, I'm against using lies and falsified data on which to base decisions. Maybe you're OK with it, but I have a sneaking suspicion most people are not.
Re:Lindzen vindicated (Score:3, Insightful)
Climate science is real science. Weren't you just arguing that all science is messy, so we shouldn't use it? So using "REAL SCIENCE" would entail using messy science.
Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Science is messy, and when we find out we're wrong - or that it's been purposefully faked - you know, no longer real science - then you best stop listening to it, get yourself squared away, and start again.
and when we find out that stuff was made up, hidden, and lied about we STOP WHAT WE'RE DOING and re-evaluate?
When did we find that out?
On the 18th, when these files became available. And they confirmed that the "scientists" were hiding data, trying to delete information (for what reason, I wonder?), and simply made stuff up so that it "fits" better with their desired results.
When you learn you're on the wrong road, do you continue to drive on, or do you stop, re-evaluate, and then start again?
When did we learn that we're on "the wrong road"?
See above reply. Apparently you're OK with using bad data; hey, if you want to use it, then by all means! Go ahead and proclaim it loudly! Don't be surprised when you're ignored and rejected, though...
I'm not against change, I'm against using lies and falsified data on which to base decisions.
What lies and falsified data are you talking about?
See above. Check out the hundreds of other posts here identifying e-mails by these liars where they talk about skewing data to fit their models (you're supposed to build your model with data, not select your data to support your pre-determined model), where they hide problems with their models, where they conspire to delete data and models to avoid FOI requests.
If you want to base your life on lies and fraud, be my guest. To bury your head in the sand is your choice. These clowns have done a tremendous amount of damage to climate science by their decidedly illegal actions.
Pro-AGW or anti-AGW shouldn't matter; fraud and lies should be denounced and rejected within science as strongly as possible. These fraudsters have hurt the entire scientific community. Too bad you cannot see that...
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:2, Insightful)
The U.S. Government has funded over 90 billion dollars of studies since 1989. Collages and Universities in the U.S. receive over 4 billion a year. It's where the money is. If you want to run an experiment and it has a "bias" towards proving global warming...you are much more likely to get money for it. If your experiment does not include a "global warming" component, you are a lot less likely to get funding.
That right there is enough to drive things the wrong way. There is money to be made on this gravy train. This is no money to be made by telling everyone this train needs to be stopped. There is plenty of money for both good and bad science that says "hey lets see how much global warming is man made." Which is the wrong ax to grind in this argument.
The pursuit of truth has been left for the pursuit of funding dollars.
Re:Lindzen vindicated (Score:3, Insightful)
For or against AGW, doesn't matter. These guys massively harmed the scientific community as a whole, and with their position, they have poisoned any work many other honest researchers are doing. They are charlatans and definitely not scientists; researchers, maybe but not scientists.
And getting back to the origin of this thread, the IPCC report should be thrown away, because it is - in large part - based on this group. We're going to take literally trillions of dollars to fix a problem that is largely championed on bad science. That's bad for science as a whole, because it's a waste of a lot of money that could be spent on more science research.
These guys are bad for science as a whole; you wish to excuse them because they support your position. How about stopping and looking at the science critically, and looking at what these fraudsters did, and making the connection that MAYBE A LOT OF THE REPORTS PUSHED BY THIS GROUP ARE FALSE.
Take away what is based from Hadley CRU and you end up with a much more even ratio of AGW/non-AGW results. Meaning the science isn't close to being "settled", and there isn't "consensus" on what to do.
It's fraud, and you want to excuse it. There's no use trying to explain it any more, you'll simply excuse it. That's your loss, I would hope that people on /. would be a little more demanding in how science is done - you know, that whole scientific process thing. Apparently that's not the case, some want science done to support their pre-ordained conclusions. So be it.
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, you're right. Science Journals should publish papers from Flat Earthers because failing to do so would be "eliminating dissent". And yes, scientists should choose to publish their papers in journals with Flat Earther papers because publishing elsewhere would be "eliminating dissent". And yes, scientists must choose to subscribe to journals that publish Flat Earther papers because choosing not to pay for such subscriptions would be "eliminating dissent".
Global Warming Denialist and Evolution Denialists and other conspiracy theorists generally have their work rejected by publications because their papers are riddled with blatant errors and bogoscience. And scientists don't subscribe to journals that do publish papers riddles with blatant errors and bogoscience.
They laughed at Galileo.
They laughed at Einstein.
And they laughed at Bozo The Clown.
Bozo The Clown can scream "persecution" all he likes, it is proper for science journals to subject his papers to proper scientific peer review and to REJECT those papers if peer scientists identify specific errors in those papers. Any science journal that fails to preform rigorous peer review and fails to REJECT dubious papers is no longer a science journal - it is a non-science rag.
-
Re:more manipulated data (Score:3, Insightful)
And now to destroy your claim of "consensus", MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen from a few weeks ago. [youtube.com]
Oooo! Oooo! Can I play too?
Some people try to claim there is a scientific "consensus" that we landed on the moon.
Here's my link to destroy that claim of "consensus".
You only linked to a single supposed expert to destroy the global warming consensus claim. I link to more than a dozen supposed experts to destroy the moon landing consensus claim. I win!
-
Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (Score:3, Insightful)
Has anyone done a "follow the money" and established where the money is actually going?
It would be far more likely that it's going from the tax payers in "rich countries" to some already rich corporations and individuals. Even if any of it did wind up in poor countries it dosn't mean that it would actually do any "good". It certainly wouldn't be the first time that "foreign aid" turned out to be a "minus" for the recipient.