Climategate - Page 2

Originally Posted by jazzguru

So, the talk of redefining the peer review literature is insignificant?

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"

Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking the FOIA allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record (HadCRUT3) was valid science.

This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct.

Originally Posted by dmz

If these emails are representative -- if they have really cooked the books/code -- these scientists have set modernity back 50 years. They will have destroyed the credibility of the establishment, and brought outright anarchy on themselves.




Science needs no defense -- we don't argue about the distance of the Earth to the Sun. What the hell is wrong with free inquiry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Str...ic_Revolutions

Originally Posted by jazzguru

What is obvious is that you don't know the content of those papers any more than I do, and further investigation into this matter is clearly warranted.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

YES. EXACTLY.

Neither of us know the content of those papers. So they can't be evidence of any "smoking gun" of any climate change conspiracy (which does not exist, incidentally.)

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

We don't know the content of those papers. We don't know whether the evidence supports the existence of climate change, or doesn't, or why it's not suitable, or the context in which those findings were made and the paper drafted. We have no idea whether they're even talking about climate change findings or what the hell might be in them.

Originally Posted by dmz

The problem is that "science" is all about reproducing someone else's results. That's hard to do when you are hiding your data/code for everyone but your echo chamber.






HIDE THE DECLINE!!!


http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/

Originally Posted by franksargent

No climate scientist is hiding anything.
...

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Not to derail or anything, but I can't wait for someone to leak emails and internal memos about what happened (or is happening) with the banking bailout last fall and the "stimulus" this past winter/spring and the health care "reform" going on now.

Borrow at ZERO, then lend long to your citizenry this is as good as it gets!

A "scientific consensus" is not science. "Consensus" is a political word. Politicians reach "Consensus." Scientists reach "factual conclusions" based on evidence, no matter what the politicians or the opportunists or the true believers want them to reach.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.

The answer to all these questions is no. We don't.

Originally Posted by franksargent

No climate scientist is hiding anything.

You would need to understand the letter of the law with respect to IP and FOI restrictions that apply across multiple organizations that are legally binding.

Clearly something you have had no experience with, or expertise in.

Science is all about independent validation and verification.

Apply for a research grand, collect your own data and do your own analyses, and then submit your results to the peer review process.

Or collect all the vast amounts of freely available public domain data/code, do your own analyses, and then submit your results to the peer review process.

Or pay for the data from the original sources (NWS etceteras), do your own code development and analyses, and then submit your results to the peer review process.

Science is not about hand holding for the sake of hand holding.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Actually it could be, it just isn't until we know the contents of the papers.

Correct, and until we do know what was in those papers it is premature to draw conclusions in either direction. What we do have is an email excerpt indicating someone's desire to exclude certain papers from publication. Now we should get down to the why.

Originally Posted by dmz

To recap:

HERE IS A VERY IMPORTANT HEADLINE BECAUSE I AM TALKING TO DULL-WITTED PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW JESUS.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Right. And since we have no reason to presume any malintent, any conspiracy or any reason that they were trying to 'hide' anything for any reason, since we have no idea of the context and all of the scientists are conscientious, well-regarded and their findings concur with those of NASA and a federally-funded American climate study, let's put this email aside and move on to another one.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Come on. I'm prepared to discuss these one-by-one. Let's talk about Climategate. Let's discuss how these emails blow a hole below the waterline in the climate debate.

Next email please.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Let's not and wait until we find out what they excluded and exactly why.

Go for it.

From: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Something far more interesting
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:03:13 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Phil,

Of course I'll be happy to be on board. I think the opportunity for some
direct collaboration between us (me, and you/tim/keith) is ripe, and
the plan to compare and contrast different approaches and data and
synthesize the different results is a good one. Though sidetracked
by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with
you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with
manufactured biases/etc remains high priority. It sounds like it
would all fit into the proposal you mention. There may be some
overlap w/proposals we will eventually submit to NSF (renewal
of our present funding), etc. by I don't see a problem with that
in the least.

Once the collaboration is officially in place, I think that sharing
of codes, data, etc. should not be a problem. I would be happy to
make mine available, though can't promise its the most user friendly
thing in the world.

In short, I like the idea. INclude me in, and let me know what you
need from me (cv, etc.).

cheers,

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Climate change is absolutely real,

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

No. You're supposed to choose them. You believe that they are evidence of a conspiracy, when they are not, right?

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Actually I haven't drawn any conclusions yet since I haven't read them all yet.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

I do have the give the "climate change" promoters credit for something...they have been able to reduce things to empty statements like the one above that have the appearance of having meaningful content.

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant
here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere
to it ! Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if
you are. Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,
Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it
getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the
right emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be
the main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It
seems the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's
series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,
so will keep you informed. Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

We'll go through them one by one. This should be easy, because they are a scandal that prove that science is being twisted to dark ends. So come on.

Originally Posted by mumbo jumbo

'climate change is real' means 'it is a theory that human industry and agriculture and transport are changing the climate'.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

No need for you to wait for anyone. Why are you waiting? Go ahead and debunk them, one-by-one.

Originally Posted by Taskiss

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, for I am the great and powerful OZ!!

There, that will take care of that pesky peer review crap.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Let me explain in the most simple terms I can.

There is nothing to debunk.

These emails provide no evidence for any conspiracy.

Since these emails do not provide any evidence for any conspiracy, I cannot 'debunk' them.

All I can do is go through them, one by one, quoting them in full and writing the words 'This email does not provide any evidence for any conspiracy' after each one.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Which email would you like to discuss first? You choose, since I think that none of them do.

Originally Posted by dmz


Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot!
Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have
:-)

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Nice. Wizard of Oz. The curtain thing. Man behind the curtain. Great. Deftly slipped in. You've been on the internet before. I can tell.

Which of the emails in particular do you think means we can put our feet up and and declare that climate change is a fraud? Which email is the best evidence for a 'smoking gun'?

Which email would you like to discuss first? You choose, since I think that none of them do.

It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
...
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign.

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research,"
...
"Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

...
But the broader issue is the need to increase the public credibility of climate science. This requires publicly available data and metadata, a rigorous peer review process, and responding to arguments raised by skeptics. The integrity of individual scientists that are in positions of responsibility (e.g. administrators at major research institutions, editorial boards, major committees, and assessments) is particularly important for the public credibility of climate science. The need for public credibility and transparency has dramatically increased in recent years as the policy relevance of climate research has increased. The climate research enterprise has not yet adapted to this need, and our institutions need to strategize to respond to this need.

Originally Posted by franksargent

No climate scientist is hiding anything.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Is there anyone else here who wants to discuss the actual emails that are the subject of this thread?

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Let me explain in the most simple terms I can.

There is nothing to debunk.

These emails provide no evidence for any conspiracy.

...All I can do is go through them, one by one, quoting them in full and writing the words 'This email does not provide any evidence for any conspiracy' after each one.

Originally Posted by franksargent

Is there anything to discuss?

There are a bunch of apparently cherry picked emails, that's a given, none of which, BTW, appears in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

You're the one with the drive by thread, making ad hoc assumptions on largely out-of-context materials.

But just to humor you, have you ever worked for the government as either an employee or contractor?

Do you have any firsthand knowledge of IP and FOI issues in that regard?

I'm guessing no and no for anyone who has ever posted in PO, excluding myself, then the answers would be yes and yes, of course.

Originally Posted by dmz

To recap:

Environmentalism as Religion



http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speec...aseligion.html

Aliens Cause Global Warming



http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speec...alwarming.html

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Best, and worst defense of the utterly indefensible. Ever.

Originally Posted by Frank777

It is amazing the level that those drinking the climate change kool-aid will go to defend bad science.

Originally Posted by Frank777

I If these emails were representative of exchanges between Intelligent Design researchers, sargent and mumbo would be seething, cursing and demonizing any Christian within earshot.

Originally Posted by Frank777

It is amazing the level that those drinking the climate change kool-aid will go to defend bad science. If these emails were representative of exchanges between Intelligent Design researchers, sargent and mumbo would be seething, cursing and demonizing any Christian within earshot.

How is it possible to deny the intent of these emails?

"Stop in 1960 to avoid the decline" is fairly straightforward, even for ignorant leftists.

Originally Posted by taskiss

let's hear from the environmental and political activist george monbiot...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ate-scientists


or how 'bout myron ebell, the director of global warming and international environmental policy at the competitive enterprise institute...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112004093.html


and judith curry, a climatologist at the georgia institute of technology? Here's what she has to say...
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7826#more-7826


last august, cru stated they "lost" the original data used that led to the conclusions of the ipcc. Now we learn that some there would delete data before allowing it to be reviewed.

Yes, that's great and powerful oz speaking, the "man behind the curtain" who should be ignored. Just a man, fallible, not imposing at all. Oz, who speaks in stentorian tones worthy of one who speaks for "the scientific consensus!" says screw peer review and ignore the man behind the curtain.

"climate change" as a political topic is a fraud. Climate change as the changes the world has experienced since the beginning, the ever variable movement between glacial and interglacial cycles, is and always has been present since the world was formed, even before there were humans to complain about the process.