Climategate (GW email leak)

[swansont]

(shrug) Okay, let's assume that we only have to pay our proportional share. The US economy is generally estimated at around $15 trillion (corrected, thanks iNow), so that's basically 20% of the total. Call it an even (gulp) $1 TRILLION dollars added to our $3 trillion annnual budget. This at a time when we're already spending a couple trillion a year over the budget.

 

Is the proposed spending all via the government? The article is paywalled, so I can't check, but that doesn't sound right.

[Pangloss]

To POM:

 

"Afford" is a matter of opinion. The reality is that Congress is not going to be able to submit another trillion dollar expense in the current political environment.

 

Even if such a thing were possible, I don't think you are taking into consideration the vast impact it would have on the daily lives of human beings who don't share your pessimism. And if you don't think that matters, watch what happens when people of lower economic status begin to pay the toll for your ideological expectations. The media won't LET them suffer, and you will be to blame, not some vast conspiracy of oil.

[Pangloss]

Yes, that's what you said when we first met six years ago, but I'm still waiting with my bib on and my fork and knife ready to go.

[JohnB]

Discussing to which journal you want to submit an article is somehow devious? Discussions about the relative prestige of journals as well? I read those emails, and without the spin it sounds like people genuinely concerned that a crappy article got published, and they want to make sure better science gets presented.

So, out of curiousity, how many journal editors do you feel you can "lean on"? Are you suggesting that it's alright for certain persons to circumvent the usual process of scientific debate because they think they're right?

 

I'll freely admit that there is a difference in perception here. I'm not from science, I'm from business.

 

I hold science to a higher standard than I do my business competitors and I'm deeply disappointed when a science fails to meet even those standards. A business that followed the data retention standards that are accepted by some for climate science would find it's CEO in jail or facing heavy fines.

 

It is even more disappointing when a science itself does not keep to it's much espoused principles. How many times have we told people that replicability is the basis of good science? How many times have we told people in pseudoscience to produce data? How many calls to "Show us the maths" have there been?

 

My point is that CRU fails to meet any of these requirements. To the extent of persons there actively obstructing attempts to get the data.

 

Sorry for the rant, but it really bugs me that some aspects of climate science have such low standards that it couldn't get itself out of the "pseudoscience" forum here. It shouldn't be that way.

[D H]

Regarding the purportedly lost data, remember the adage "never attribute to malfeasance that which can be explained by simple human stupidity." In preparation for celebrating the 40th anniversary of the first landing on the Moon NASA asked the archivists to resurrect the high-definition footage of the landing. The response: "Umm, it looks like we lost it."

 

If something as important as the only high-def recording of the Moon landing can be lost, how big a stretch is it to imagine failing to keep tabs on some raw data of interest only to a few scientists? This is particularly so given that the salient points of those data were retained and given that the CRU did obtain that data from elsewhere. The CRU personnel had no expectation that they were supposed to be the keepers of that raw data.

[D H]

This spate of discussions regarding peak oil is off-topic to the main thrust of this thread. A new thread on this side-topic is in order.

[iNow]

Agreed.

[bascule]

Regarding the purportedly lost data, remember the adage "never attribute to malfeasance that which can be explained by simple human stupidity."

 

I expressed these same sentiments myself at the beginning of the thread, although they hit home a bit more for me as digging up climate data from ancient media used to be one of my many roles at my previous job.

[Pangloss]

This spate of discussions regarding peak oil is off-topic to the main thrust of this thread.

 

Quite right, and I think the reason it keeps happening is that this is a common problem amongst many GCC advocates. That sidebar about getting people out of suburbia and into high-density housing is another example. Everything is lumped together in a grand scheme of reshaping society whatever the cost, and if you question them on any one issue you are assumed to oppose all of them (and an idiot, eat a facepalm ).

 

Politically speaking, I think this is revealing and significant. I think it substitutes for logic in some people's minds, and it serves as a means to an end for others.

 

 

People like Pangloss won't believe it (or climate change) until they truly see it with their own eyes.

 

This is an incorrect recollection of my position on these issues.

[Pangloss]

I disagree, there was some annoyance in my last post, I admit, but my point was definitely relevant. This is the Politics sub board and the intersection of science and politics as it pertains to Climategate is absolutely on point. I started this thread, so damned right it's on point.

 

You pulled all the stops out to unload on me the moment I showed up, and you promptly shifted your vicious ad homs from DH to me. I've no idea what's gotten into you or why you're dragging yourself into the mud like this. I don't excuse any ad homs DH may have perpetrated on his own, but even if he did two wrongs don't make a right, and I'm hardly the only one who's noticed this change in your behavior.

 

But hey, far be it from me to stand in your way. Here, let me give you a hand with your attempt to reach Peak Post Count by showing some examples of your ad homs towards DH and myself just from the last few pages.

 

Oh you're really that recalcitrant are you? Far out! Which particular email seals it for you, or are you just borrowing the 'vibe of the thing' from Fox News? Have you heard anything we've said?

 

You can't imagine a world without fossil fuels being a world without immense suffering. I can. Your world must include some kind of Olduvai theory Malthusian catastrophe as an absolute inevitability sometime soon after peak oil, gas, and coal... because to you peak fossil fuels seems to equal peak energy.

 

I will fight this hope destroying meme with everything I have in me after meeting a father whose 19 year old son committed suicide over the Malthusian nightmares he believed in so desperately, because the threats are real but the outcome is only inevitable if people like you rule the world...people with so much emotional (or financial) investment in fossil fuels that they just cannot imagine a world without them.

 

Or have you just clicked your ruby slippers together again?

 

DH said so.

 

And all in the name of your own political bias and objectives.

 

Nothing you have said really reflects on the science, but instead just reflects what a narrow and biased political universe you inhabit.

 

People like Pangloss won't believe it (or climate change) until they truly see it with their own eyes.

 

So what the heck are you on about?

 

The suffering would be unbearable! Oh the humanity! :doh:

 

you'll be eating your words here.

 

old buddy old pal

 

How does that make you feel? All nice and snug and secure, that your breakfast relies on transport to you from a fuel being increasingly imported from overseas?

 

you've just done a DH

Edited December 24, 2009 by Pangloss

[Pangloss]

Nope, it's an opinion, and it's allowed, respected (or else), and in fact encouraged on this subforum. Unless it's directed at a member of this forum as an attack.

 

Also, while we're on the subject, I reject the skewed and manipulative use of the phrase "ad hominem" (at several points in this thread) to somehow equate attacks on members of this forum with politically incorrect opinions on world events that are not aimed at any member of this forum. It's a poor excuse for reasoning, I'm tired of seeing it around here, and I will simply not tolerate your effort to marginalize dissent and ridicule it. Not while I have something to say about it.

Edited December 24, 2009 by Pangloss

[Pangloss]

IN that case, my opinion is that New Urbanism is the BEST city plan EVER, and should be MANDATED on all. And you have to respect that, it is my opinion. I don't even have to supply evidence for or a rationale for what I say, it is my opinion and you will respect it, or else.

 

That's absolutely right, and I'll say it right now: I respect your opinion on this matter, probably a lot more than you realize, as I have tried to tell you in the past. But if you want to start a thread on New Urbanism and extoll its virtues with supporting evidence, please go right ahead. Some will disagree with your conclusions, but that's okay. You are absolutely right in pointing out that those with evidence are more likely to be believed than those without any. But that's the end of it -- we can't force people to change their minds, and we won't berate them when they fail to do so.

 

Thanks for understanding.

[swansont]

So, out of curiousity, how many journal editors do you feel you can "lean on"? Are you suggesting that it's alright for certain persons to circumvent the usual process of scientific debate because they think they're right?

 

I don't know any journal editors. But I don't see that anything was circumvented here. An article, viewed as flawed, was going to be published. A rebuttal was published — the discussion, as I read it, was whether it should be a response or an article on its own merit.

 

I've been involved in trying to shoot down a flawed article, and the description is accurate — you write your objection, and the authors' response is there. Basically, it was "here's the flaw" and "no, we don't think it was a flaw," and the latter lacked sufficient scientific discussion. Someone outside the field might not appreciate the subtlety of the mistake, which is not uncommon, but those in the field knew it, and thanked us. So I understand the strategy of writing the article as a stand-alone piece.

 

Science isn't compromised here. There were political machinations, and this seems to be a no-win situation. The scientists are slammed for engaging in politics when those around them are, and slammed for being ineffective in dealing with politics when they try to let the science speak for itself.

 

 

I'll freely admit that there is a difference in perception here. I'm not from science, I'm from business.

 

I hold science to a higher standard than I do my business competitors and I'm deeply disappointed when a science fails to meet even those standards. A business that followed the data retention standards that are accepted by some for climate science would find it's CEO in jail or facing heavy fines.

 

It is even more disappointing when a science itself does not keep to it's much espoused principles. How many times have we told people that replicability is the basis of good science? How many times have we told people in pseudoscience to produce data? How many calls to "Show us the maths" have there been?

 

My point is that CRU fails to meet any of these requirements. To the extent of persons there actively obstructing attempts to get the data.

 

Sorry for the rant, but it really bugs me that some aspects of climate science have such low standards that it couldn't get itself out of the "pseudoscience" forum here. It shouldn't be that way.

 

Again, how was the science compromised by arranging to have a rebuttal article published alongside a supposedly flawed original article? I don't see how any of your objections apply to this case.

[Pangloss]

POM, I'm not going to argue our system with you in the midst of this thread. If you want to discuss it any further you know where to reach me.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

POM: There is no longer an infraction system, and any moderation decisions to be made about this thread (or any other thread) will be made by moderators not directly involved in the discussion. We dislike biased judgments just as much as you do.

[JohnB]

swansont, thanks for the reply. As I understand the system it has three basic steps.

 

1) Original article is published.

2) "Comment on" original article is published.

3) "Reply to Comment on" is published.

 

It is also my understanding that in general the original authors are sent a copy of the "Comment on" so that they can prepare a reply and both the comment and reply are published together.

 

Publishing a "Comment on" as a new article is a political machination directly intended to circimvent the "Right of Reply" of the original authors. (An intent stated in the emails) It is therefore an attempt to circumvent the system.

 

I also note that the Addendum to Douglass et al was "lost" for 4 months and when resent to the editor it was immediately sent to Santer et al. Is this normal proceedure? The Addendum explained why RAOBCORE V 1.2 was used rather than the later versions. (A central argument of the Santer paper)

 

I also note that RC use this as an argument as well, without mentioning the Addendum that is in their possession. Such action can only be called "false and misleading" in my book. (AFAIK, the Addendum has not yet been published by the journal.)

 

One of the main arguments for having "faith" in the scientific method is that it has accepted proceedures that make it "self correcting". If you allow the process to become corrupted, then the argument no longer holds.

 

It doesn't matter who was right, Douglass or Santer, let both sides publish in the normal way and let the readers decide. It was the attempt to deny the right of reply that was wrong to me.

 

I don't know if the US has it, but down here in a court case hiding evidence, collusion on arguments, improper divulgence of information, etc bring you up on charges of "Attempting to pervert the course of Justice". I see "Attempting to pervert the due process of science" as only slightly less heinous.

 

Maybe the world outside academia works differently, but if an editor/publisher was passing one companies information to that company's competitors, there would be a Securities Commission investigation and prima facie on the emails that show improper collusion, there would be jail time involved for all concerned.

 

That business should have a higher ethical standard than science is just wrong.

[swansont]

The rules for each journal can be different there is no overall bureaucracy that oversees this. The paper was accepted, but it could be that the reviewers were not thorough, or an editor approved the paper despite objections of reviewers. I don't know.

 

There is no "right of reply." People publish articles all the time that overturn previously-accepted science. If an article has one or two small mistakes, a comment might be appropriate. But you'll note that one other concern was a word limit that would apply to comments. This is ignored by Douglass and Christy in their spin-fest article.

 

Publishing articles that attempt to overturn previous experiments is nothing new. It's a basis of science.

 

Publishing articles on the same topic, in the same issue, by different authors happens, too. Often the authors will agree to this themselves — I was just reading some notes by an author who did this very thing: they asked the journal to delay their paper so that the two papers could appear together. Journals publish issues that are all on one sub-topic, which is not an accident of people submitting all at the same time.

 

As far as the "insider information" angle, I think that the existence of the ArXiv system quashes that. Authors send pre-prints around all the time, and for several years there has been an online repository.

 

The bottom line here is that there is a scientific process and publishing processes for announcing results. The science is unaffected here — this is all on the publishing side. And it was a matter of getting an article fast-tracked, which is completely within the power of the journal to do, if they choose. Mostly it's about the whining of some authors who were embarrassed because the larger community does not hold much regard for their contribution. D&C complain about the comment about how they should lose their jobs for fraud, and think that it's about following peer-review rather than the quality of their research, as well as a number of other things that leave me questioning their reading skills.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It has now been determined that the scientists involved broke the law by refusing to release data to climate skeptics.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

[swansont]

The complaint to the ICO was made by David Holland, a retired engineer from Northampton. He had been seeking information to support his theory that the unit broke the IPCC’s rules to discredit sceptic scientists.

 

It's not clear to me from the wording that this was a request for climate data, or some other information. In any event, the ruling does not challenge the veracity of the data.

[bascule]

I liked the Kissinger quote in the comments of the article swansont linked:

 

"University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small"

[CharonY]

It is sad because it is true.

[jryan]

As has been the contention of most skeptics for over a decade, it isn't the "science" of global warming that is in question, but the statistics that underlay the proofs.

 

So many skeptics have been shouted down by the consensus for not being expert climatologists while all many were doing was pointing out that there are severe statistical flaws in the models, and even right down to the smoothing of raw station data.

 

If an astrophysicist tells me that 2+2=7, I don't need to be an astrophysicist to call him on his error.

 

As such, there are many scientists and mathematicians with statistical prowess equal to and exceeding that of the climatologists at CRU, GISS, Hadley, and so on. They should have been heeded rather than demonized or targeted for black balling.

 

It's the MATH not the SCIENCE.

 

Given that, there is a very thorough dissection of CRU emails that cast a shadow on many of the defenses thrown abouot for the folks at CRU, as well as Mann, and it's looking more and more like James Hansen and the IPCC will fall before this is all over as well.

 

Such defenses include:

 

This was isolated... it wasn't.

 

This was only a few scientists... it was quite a few.

 

They weren't influential... They were the gatekeepers for the IPCC

 

And so on.

 

After reading the following link in it's entirety it should come as no surprise that the IPCC-AR4 is quickly being discovered to be chock full of unsubstantiated claims to rival the Himalayan Glacier fiasco. These Climategate emails show with great detail a group of IPCC gatekeepers that squashed opposition at every opportunity while failing in their due diligence on anything that remotely supported their preconceived notions of global climate...

 

Climategate E-Mails - Commentary by John Costella

 

 

The effect of all of this is hard to understate. The common understanding of climate change in the general culture is drawn from the IPCC-ARs over the years. Whether as journalistic interpretations on the AR itself, or the even more watered down journalistic interpretations of the Summary for Policy Makers (itself a summary of the IPCC-AR.. and a politically driven one at that).

 

Not the least of the outcomes of the Climategate scandal is it proves very clearly that the primary complaints by skeptics such as Richard Lindzen, and agnostics such as Steven McIntyre and Anthony Watts were completely founded in stark reality and not the product of some mysterious deal with Big Oil or misstatements of fact. Lindzen was absolutely correct that the IPCC was a political loony bin -- though he was vindicated more with the recent revelations of WWF non-scientific non-peer-reviewed studies cited as fact throughout the IPCC-AR4 -- and Steven McIntyre's campaign to crack open the very insular and opaque surface temperature clatch.

[jryan]

Hey, the Himalayan Glacier thing is a HUGE relief! That was the worst case scenario as far as I was concerned, and I'm glad it's now been pushed back 300 years apparently... still waiting to see more solid 'peer review' work on it.

 

But your paragraph above is a huge generalisation. "Squashed opposition"? Surely you mean 'attempted to', and then the paper they attempted to squash (because it was crap that might confuse the public) was published anyway, and lo and behold! was found to be crapeth anyway.

 

I'd love to see you point to a specific email that you find to be the most condemning, and we'll see if it even remotely compares to the anti-science conspiracy that involves hundreds of millions of dollars that was actually run by Exxon (not 'attempted' by Exxon, but actually happened and is well documented), and ended up warping the Bush regime's attitude to climate. If you've got anything on climate gate that comes near to 1/10th of the anti-science FUD and propaganda put out by the Bush regime, I'll be astonished.

 

 

 

I would suggest you read the entirety of the link, POM. I'm not going to play your game of slicing up the emails into "most condemning" so you can argue simpler sound bites when the emails need to be taken as a whole.

 

So go read it and then we can discuss the entirety of the emails and the authors interpretations of them. Even individually, if you would like. But I would rather you use the knife to cut your own arguments.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The science may still be sound, but the way the Anglia researchers chose to defend it was rather unfortunate.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The Times article I linked to states that the complaint against the researchers was lodged too late for prosecution to be possible -- there's a six-month limit. So not under Freedom of Information Act grounds, at least.