Climategate (GW email leak)

[Dudde]

I never referred to Fox news. I don't give a crap what they say there. There are plenty of legitimate skeptics out there who have no association with Fox news.

Cmon DH, we're obviously not talking about them then:

because it's the Foxnews Denialists I have in mind that are the only ones capable of reading these emails in a certain light.

 

The Exxon-Mobil thing is interesting though, I was probably not paying attention when that was called out, I have to wonder how many other companies are doing the same, I'll have to check around and see if there are any updates to that

[D H]

Pangloss and Swansont have repeatedly tried to bring this thread back to addressing the what this means as far as climate science, and what it means as far as Science in general. You guys have repeatedly ignored the issue and have instead focused on what the likes of Limbaugh and Beck have to say on the subject. Just because people whose politics you disagree with are pouncing on the subject does not mean the subject is invalid.

[iNow]

No, but the data does.

[bascule]

Pangloss and Swansont have repeatedly tried to bring this thread back to addressing the what this means as far as climate science, and what it means as far as Science in general. You guys have repeatedly ignored the issue and have instead focused on what the likes of Limbaugh and Beck have to say on the subject. Just because people whose politics you disagree with are pouncing on the subject does not mean the subject is invalid.

 

I know you have done this before and apologize for making you do it again, but perhaps you could state your beliefs as to the current conclusions of climate science in general?

 

Do you believe that anthropogenic climate forcings, whatever form they may take, are having a deleterious effect on the climate system which is endangering the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people? (not to mention untold animal species)

Edited December 12, 2009 by bascule

[iNow]

Yet more lies and intentional attempts to mislead readers coming from McIntyre have been exposed:

 

http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/

[Pangloss]

Just because people whose politics you disagree with are pouncing on the subject does not mean the subject is invalid.

No, but the data does.

 

Which is why it needs to be available for testing. All of it. All the time.

[iNow]

Which is why it needs to be available for testing. All of it. All the time.

 

From what I've read, the only data which was deleted was deleted back in like 1980... a full 20 years (two decades) before anyone even requested it, and WELL before the denialism nonsense took hold.

 

If you have information which suggests otherwise, I'd welcome reading it if you're willing/able to share it.

[swansont]

Which is why it needs to be available for testing. All of it. All the time.

 

There's a problem with making data available to just anyone: Data are like old dynamite. If you don't know what to do with it you are going to get a bad result, and someone else has to clean up the mess.

 

We already have the problem of amateurs arguing climate change on the op-ed page, where it gains an air of legitimacy, but in reality is not at all screened for accuracy, and there is no seeming penalty for errors, misrepresentation or outright lying. Which is why science frowns on doing it that way — you get the Pons and Fleischmann fiasco, only amped up because of the political nature of the situation.

 

Now add to that making all the data available. Incorrect analyses will be done by people who have an agenda to come up with a particular answer, who will, unsurprisingly, come up with that answer. It will not harm them that the analysis is crap, because they are not scientists, so they have no stake in a scientific reputation for doing good science. And the actual scientists will have to take time to rebut and refute the findings, which means time where they aren't doing their actual jobs.

 

You want the data? Go to school and get trained like the rest of the scientists, and establish a professional reputation. Make it so your livelihood will be affected if you spew forth crap in journals. (This doesn't mean toeing some imagined line, it means doing careful work). Once you have professional stake in not lying, you can have the data.

Edited December 12, 2009 by swansont
typo

[D H]

Emphasis mine:

I know you have done this before and apologize for making you do it again, but perhaps you could state your beliefs as to the current conclusions of climate science in general?

 

Do you believe that anthropogenic climate forcings, whatever form they may take, are having a deleterious effect on the climate system which is endangering the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people? (not to mention untold animal species)

Curious choice of words, bascule. Beliefs normally are something relegated to the domain of religion, not science. Are your religious beliefs in this matter getting in the way of your scientific objectivity?

 

Regarding my thoughts on this matter, our release of massive quantities of CO₂ into the atmosphere almost certainly result in some changes in the climate. How big an effect this represents is a matter of debate, as is whether the net effect is deleterious overall. That this is the biggest problem facing humanity? I'm trying to keep an open mind, but right now, I don't think so. The leaked emails certainly didn't help this religious cause.

[iNow]

While the emotive response of our populace to AGW certainly has similarities to the concerns of nuclear weapons and other similar issues, that's primarily because the likely outcome can be so deleterious to our way of life and our own likelihood of survival... It would be a supremely "high-impact" event.

 

Is it not warranted to act in the most responsible way possible on an issue like this... Or, as recently put, to "Go Cheney on this Problem?"

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html

In 2006, Ron Suskind published “The One Percent Doctrine,” a book about the U.S. war on terrorists after 9/11. The title was drawn from an assessment by then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in the face of concerns that a Pakistani scientist was offering nuclear-weapons expertise to Al Qaeda, reportedly declared: “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.”

 

Soon after Suskind’s book came out, the legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who then was at the University of Chicago, pointed out that Mr. Cheney seemed to be endorsing the same “precautionary principle” that also animated environmentalists. Sunstein wrote in his blog: “According to the Precautionary Principle, it is appropriate to respond aggressively to low-probability, high-impact events — such as climate change. Indeed, another vice president — Al Gore — can be understood to be arguing for a precautionary principle for climate change (though he believes that the chance of disaster is well over 1 percent).”

 

<...>

 

When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.

 

If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

 

But if we don’t prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. And that’s why I’m for doing the Cheney-thing on climate — preparing for 1 percent.

[npts2020]

If there was no belief involved in any of this, there would be no debate. Personally I believe what I see, less snow in places than 40 years ago, earlier maple syrup season, ticks and other wildlife in places where it used to be too cold for them to survive, etc. The science seems only to back this up.

[bascule]

Curious choice of words, bascule. Beliefs normally are something relegated to the domain of religion, not science. Are your religious beliefs in this matter getting in the way of your scientific objectivity?

 

Well as you are not an atmospheric scientist, can you actually claim authority beyond your personal beliefs regarding perhaps the most complex dynamical system that science has ever attempted to study? Or are you, like myself, an atmospheric science layman?

 

Regarding my thoughts on this matter, our release of massive quantities of CO₂ into the atmosphere almost certainly result in some changes in the climate. How big an effect this represents is a matter of debate, as is whether the net effect is deleterious overall. That this is the biggest problem facing humanity? I'm trying to keep an open mind, but right now, I don't think so.

 

I don't think it's the "biggest problem facing humanity" either. I'm also curious who in these forums are making that claim.

 

AIDS, cancer, these are far bigger concerns than global warming. However as humans we can address multiple problems simultaneously.

 

As an aside: I find your ad hominems regarding belief/religiosity for climate science rather out of place. I am curious how you would feel if I said the standard model is a lie to hide the truth that the balance of forces in this universe, which can all be reduced to Qi/Chi, should be based around the structure of the Platonic Solids. Why do you religiously defend your belief in the standard model?

[swansont]

Guilt by association and poisoning the well are fallacies. Equivocation is a logical fallacy, too, as is appeal to ridicule, so perhaps we can all dispense with the theatrics and posturing and stick to the topic.

[Mr Skeptic]

There's a problem with making data available to just anyone: Data are like old dynamite. If you don't know what to do with it you are going to get a bad result, and someone else has to clean up the mess.

 

We already have the problem of amateurs arguing climate change on the op-ed page, where it gains an air of legitimacy, but in reality is not at all screened for accuracy, and there is no seeming penalty for errors, misrepresentation or outright lying. Which is why science frowns on doing it that way — you get the Pons and Fleischmann fiasco, only amped up because of the political nature of the situation.

 

Now add to that making all the data available. Incorrect analyses will be done by people who have an agenda to come up with a particular answer, who will, unsurprisingly, come up with that answer. It will not harm them that the analysis is crap, because they are not scientists, so they have no stake in a scientific reputation for doing good science. And the actual scientists will have to take time to rebut and refute the findings, which means time where they aren't doing their actual jobs.

 

For one, that only works if you know you are right and have made no mistakes. Which is rather presumptuous. "We'll only give you the data if you agree with us" just doesn't sound right. Would not this setup generate papers in favor of AGW regardless of the actual science?

 

So what if some people misinterpret the data? Even intentionally? Sure, they will waste time if they bother to prove them wrong, but in doing so will build up support for their cause, and show that the people opposing them are a bunch of liars. As it is, they can't defend themselves because the data is not available to their opponents, giving much credence to cries of conspiracy.

 

You want the data? Go to school and get trained like the rest of the scientists, and establish a professional reputation. Make it so your livelihood will be affected if you spew forth crap in journals. (This doesn't mean toeing some imagined line, it means doing careful work). Once you have professional stake in not lying, you can have the data.

 

Do they make available the data to all actual scientists, regardless of whether or not they are climatologists, since they would have a stake in not lying?

[D H]

Why do you religiously defend your belief in the standard model?

I don't. I wouldn't be overly surprised if the LHC comes up with something that contradicts the standard model.

[swansont]

For one, that only works if you know you are right and have made no mistakes. Which is rather presumptuous. "We'll only give you the data if you agree with us" just doesn't sound right. Would not this setup generate papers in favor of AGW regardless of the actual science?

 

That's not what I was saying. Agreement isn't a prerequisite, but having the appropriate background to analyze the data should be. Scientists disagree all the time, even about proper/valid analysis, but what they don't have to do is waste a lot of time teaching the basics or correcting fundamental mistakes. They also do this in journals, where some of the problems can be addressed before publication.

 

So what if some people misinterpret the data? Even intentionally? Sure, they will waste time if they bother to prove them wrong, but in doing so will build up support for their cause, and show that the people opposing them are a bunch of liars. As it is, they can't defend themselves because the data is not available to their opponents, giving much credence to cries of conspiracy.

 

How's that working so far, without the data being easily available? Are people ignoring the amateurs' analyses, and tuning out the blather after their credibility has been dashed? They post/publish some point, and it gets refuted, and they just move on to the next one. And being shown wrong doesn't stop others from repeating the refuted point ad nauseum, and if you repeat a point enough, people remember it even if they know its been refuted. They forget the refutation first. (People still think Al Gore claims to have invented the internet)

 

Do they make available the data to all actual scientists, regardless of whether or not they are climatologists, since they would have a stake in not lying?

 

I don't know if they do, but I doubt it.

[Pangloss]

From what I've read, the only data which was deleted was deleted back in like 1980... a full 20 years (two decades) before anyone even requested it, and WELL before the denialism nonsense took hold.

 

If you have information which suggests otherwise, I'd welcome reading it if you're willing/able to share it.

 

Just to clarify I wasn't talking about deleted data, I was talking about collected data that exists at places like NASA and NOAA but hasn't made available to scientists who want to work on it. I should say, however, that I have no other info on this, and what I posted was someone else's claim. Perhaps it's not true that FOA requests have been denied, or that NASA, NOAA and NCSC have withheld their data from internal and external scientists.

 

 

You want the data? Go to school and get trained like the rest of the scientists, and establish a professional reputation. Make it so your livelihood will be affected if you spew forth crap in journals. (This doesn't mean toeing some imagined line, it means doing careful work). Once you have professional stake in not lying, you can have the data.

 

I think this ivory tower approach is wrong and creates an atmosphere of elitism and separation from the public, but again just to clarify the link I posted earlier was, at least in part, talking about scientists unable to access data.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Pangloss

[Peron]

 

Turns out it's all a scam!!

[D H]

You want the data? Go to school and get trained like the rest of the scientists, and establish a professional reputation. Make it so your livelihood will be affected if you spew forth crap in journals. (This doesn't mean toeing some imagined line, it means doing careful work). Once you have professional stake in not lying, you can have the data.

That flies in the face of government policy. There is nothing in neither Obama's Open Government Initiative nor the Freedom of Information Act that says the government will only release data to 'smart' people. There are legitimate reasons for the government to restrict access to data; the FOIA recognizes nine such reasons. That someone is too dumb to understand the data is not one of those nine reasons.

 

BTW, much of the massaged climatology and meteorology data are available, even to dumb people. The raw data, not so much, and the algorithms, even less so.

[swansont]

That flies in the face of government policy.

 

It's not the only opinion of mine that flies in the face of government policy.

[iNow]

 

Turns out it's all a scam!!

 

I know this thread has grown rather quickly, but I already shared that back in post #42.

[bascule]

I don't. I wouldn't be overly surprised if the LHC comes up with something that contradicts the standard model.

 

Well there we have it. Quantum physics is a lie designed to fit the political agenda of the UN so the scientific conspiracy can secure international funding for BS projects like LHC. Quantum physicists don't have a clue what they're actually talking about. They intentionally fabricate data so they can continue to secure grants and push their own agendas. I'm just glad you're one of the few who can come out and admit it.

[JohnB]

Sorry to take so long, but RL has a habit of getting in the way.

 

Concerning divergence.

Who is making that assumption? Laymen?

No, actually. I perhaps should have said "roughly" linear, but the result is the same. Temperature is deduced from proxies on the basic assumption that there is a roughly linear relationship between tree ring size and temp. As Loele 2008 shows, this assumption is false.

 

If you care to dispute the point, would you like to link to something that shows that this assumption is not used? And perhaps educate us all on the basic assumptions used in dendroclimatological calibrations?

Nonlinearities! That makes tree rings as a proxy worthless. Let's just toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Strawman. I didn't say they were useless. I said I would prefer others with a firmer grounding were used.

 

Tree rings are still our best bet for annual variability and as such should get more research funding to try and solve the divergence problem. Until that time, there are other, less problematical proxies.

Look, I don't know what your spooky FUD deleted data is all about. Some people are douchebags. Just because some people are douchebags doesn't make the science wrong. It would be helpful in responding to this stuff if you could provide a link/context for a graph like this, rather than "some random douchebag deleted his data... SEE!" (graph, not real data)

Another strawman. I used that graph for the explicit purpose of showing, as it did quite clearly the divergence problem. I said nothing about deleted data and couldn't care less. I even made the point that within the context of the Loehle article if the post 1960 odd part were reversed it would be accurate.

 

Please read what I write.

Or provided your model output matches expected tree ring results?

Are you impying that there is no "divergence problem"? Numerous papers would seem to disagree with you.

 

He got it off of Climate Audit' date=' a site run by Steve McIntyre.

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ephen_McIntyre

 

 

Now... Just to be clear, it's rather obvious that we should all take Steve's word as gospel since he has worked as a director in mineral exploration for 30 years, with ties to CGX Energy, an oil and gas company, as a "strategic adviser." If we can't trust him to accurately reflect the science of global climate change, then who can we trust? [/quote']

 

As DH pointed out. "Poisoning the well". As well as being utterly irrelevent to the topic of divergence. So aside from the logical fallacy, your point was?

 

Neither of you have responded in any meaningful way to the divergence problem, would you care to try again?

[Peron]

I know this thread has grown rather quickly, but I already shared that back in post #42.

 

Oh, I didn't have enough time to go through all the posts.

[JohnB]

POL. Fair enough comments as far as they go.

 

The problem I see is this.

 

We calibrate the rings to the instrumental record. Let's be generous and call it 150 years. We find that there is correllation between the rings and temps for 100 of those years.

 

So we throw out the 1/3 that doesn't fit, commenting that there must be some unknown factor that messes things up. Then we use what's left to describe with incredible accuracy what the temps were 2,000 years ago.

 

Does this seem like reasonable science to you? What are these unknown factors? How can we be certain that they did not come into play in the past?

 

It is only reasonable that if you can't tell what unknown factor messes things up a mere 20 years ago you cannot in any way be certain that the same factor didn't do the same thing 1,000 years ago.

 

See what I'm getting at? The error bars must become large, so large that reasonable conclusions regarding past temps relative to the modern period become guesswork.

 

Put another way. If I could show a correllation between temps and the population of London for 100 out of the last 150 years, would you accept it as a valid temp proxy? I bloody wouldn't.

 

Also, why would they track so well for the previous instrumental record?

If you consider the actual record, this isn't too hard. 1960 was before the current warming period. How many things would "track well" if they only had to show an increase from 1880-1940 odd and then level off a bit? Cars? Sea bird migrations? City populations?

 

To write off the fact that 1/3 doesn't track well with a hand waving excuse about "unknown factors" is just poor science in my book. I'd like to see anyone try that sort of reasoning with the Tax Office.

 

Also, nobody said that there aren't other proxies. I've said twice in this thread that I would simply prefer others be used until the divergence problem can be cleared up. (Which answers your first question.)

 

Edit to add;

This isn't about something in the tree rings changing. This is the relationship beween rings and temp reversing itself. Not a minor thing I would think. I hope that there is a secondary relationship that can be found, perhaps a chemical in wood that is more plentiful when things are (for example) warm. Such a thing would then tell us whether tree rings were getting thinner because it was getting warmer or colder. Such a discovery would, I believe, remove the divergence problem. As the problem is being actively investigated I expect something to turn up. I hope it's sooner rather than later.

Edited December 13, 2009 by JohnB