Climategate

KO.O. Stuff from 2009
User avatar
AaronCT
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:00 am
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Climategate

Postby AaronCT » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:46 pm

This is a very good (even if somewhat confusing at first) assessment of the "Climategate" email hack by someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

The CRU hack: Context
by Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt

The emails cover a 13 year period in which many things happened, and very few people are up to speed on some of the long-buried issues. So to save some time, I’ve pulled a few bits out of the comment thread that shed some light on some of the context which is missing in some of the discussion of various emails.
  • Trenberth: You need to read his recent paper
    on quantifying the current changes in the Earth’s energy budget to
    realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track
    small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes.
  • Wigley: The concern with sea surface temperatures in the 1940s stems from the paper by Thompson et al (2007)
    which identified a spurious discontinuity in ocean temperatures. The
    impact of this has not yet been fully corrected for in the HadSST data
    set, but people still want to assess what impact it might have on any
    work that used the original data.
  • Climate Research and peer-review: You should read about the issues from the editors (Claire Goodess, Hans von Storch) who resigned because of a breakdown of the peer review process at that journal, that came to light with the particularly egregious (and well-publicised) paper by Soon and Baliunas (2003). The publisher’s assessment is here.

  • HARRY_read_me.txt. This is a 4 year-long work log of Ian (Harry) Harris who was working to upgrade the documentation, metadata and databases associated with the legacy CRU TS 2.1 product, which is not the same as the HadCRUT data (see Mitchell and Jones, 2003
    for details). The CSU TS 3.0 is available now (via ClimateExplorer for
    instance), and so presumably the database problems got fixed. Anyone
    who has ever worked on constructing a database from dozens of
    individual, sometimes contradictory and inconsistently formatted
    datasets will share his evident frustration with how tedious that can
    be.
  • “Redefine the peer-reviewed literature!” . Nobody
    actually gets to do that, and both papers discussed in that comment –
    McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003) were both cited
    and discussed in Chapter 2 of 3 the IPCC AR4 report. As an aside, neither has stood the test of time.
  • “Declines” in the MXD record. This decline was hidden written up in Nature in 1998
    where the authors suggested not using the post 1960 data. Their actual
    programs (in IDL script), unsurprisingly warn against using post 1960
    data. Added: Note that the ‘hide the decline’ comment
    was made in 1999 – 10 years ago, and has no connection whatsoever to
    more recent instrumental records.
  • CRU data accessibility. From the date of the first
    FOI request to CRU (in 2007), it has been made abundantly clear that
    the main impediment to releasing the whole CRU archive is the small %
    of it that was given to CRU on the understanding it wouldn’t be passed
    on to third parties. Those restrictions are in place because of the
    originating organisations (the various National Met. Services) around
    the world and are not CRU’s to break. As of Nov 13, the response to the
    umpteenth FOI request for the same data met with exactly the same
    response. This is an unfortunate situation, and pressure should be
    brought to bear on the National Met Services to release CRU from that
    obligation. It is not however the fault of CRU. The vast majority of
    the data in the HadCRU records is publicly available from GHCN (v2.mean.Z).
  • Suggestions that FOI-related material be deleted
    are ill-advised even if not carried out. What is and is not responsive
    and deliverable to an FOI request is however a subject that it is very
    appropriate to discuss.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... k-context/

And an informative chart (the debunks the "Hockey Stick is Broken Myth") from today's New York Times.
Image
"Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the liar by truth." ~The Buddha

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." ~Mark Twain

User avatar
AaronCT
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:00 am
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Re: Climategate

Postby AaronCT » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:05 pm

Here are some examples of some of the more "damaging" (and skillfully edited) emails for reference purposes.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... egate.aspx
"Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the liar by truth." ~The Buddha

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." ~Mark Twain

User avatar
SusieQ
Site Admin
Posts: 4333
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:10 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Climategate

Postby SusieQ » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:05 pm

I can't understand why people fight so hard against the global warming theory. It's kind of like the theory that the earth was flat, so you can't explore or you will fall off the earth, yet some were brave enough to go any way. (Well, it made sense when I first thought of it.) My point is that so much research points to the earths warming and isn't it better to work towards fixing that than doing nothing at all, just in case? I would hate to be one of those naysayers in 20 to 30 years who has to explain to a much different world why they stood in the way of protecting our planet. Of course, if they are like billy, they won't be around anyway, so guess that's one reason they don't care.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
-John Kenneth Galbraith

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs, who, however, has never learned to walk forward.
-Franklin D. Roosevelt


Image

User avatar
AaronCT
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:00 am
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Re: Climategate

Postby AaronCT » Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:11 am

The top three things in the minds of most denialists is "I", "me", and "mine". Anything that has the possibility of getting in the way of those three things becomes the object of scorn and ridicule whether it is based on science or not.

...And BTW, the first person who mentions Al Gore after this point (the fallacy known as reductio ad Al Goreum) loses the argument. ;)
"Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the liar by truth." ~The Buddha

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." ~Mark Twain

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5946
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Climategate

Postby BrooklynBilly » Tue Dec 08, 2009 10:19 am

AaronCT wrote:The top three things in the minds of most denialists is "I", "me", and "mine". Anything that has the possibility of getting in the way of those three things becomes the object of scorn and ridicule whether it is based on science or not.

...And BTW, the first person who mentions Al Gore after this point (the fallacy known as reductio ad Al Goreum) loses the argument. ;)


Frankly I find most of it to be a big joke, a charade for all of the I'm here to save the world extremists . Academics, petty UN bureaucrats, politicians, green entrepeneurs( like Al Gore, sorry Aaron), third world countries looking for bigger handouts for the imagined damage done to them by first world CO2 emitters and those who want to see more government control over everything.
I'm willing to bet that nothing comes out of Copenhagen other than the spending of $250 million and some great parties. Until we see unemployment back at reasonable levels nothing will come out of Congress or the EPA for that matter.
Meanwhile it's 27 degrees here in Marin, 2 degrees in Lake Tahoe and they had a foot of snow yesterday. I'm breaking out my board.
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

User avatar
AaronCT
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:00 am
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Re: Climategate

Postby AaronCT » Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:35 pm

Your reptilian-mind based level of disdain for Al Gore just wouldn't let you resist mentioning his name would it Billy? :lol:

BrooklynBilly wrote:
AaronCT wrote:...And BTW, the first person who mentions Al Gore after this point (the fallacy known as reductio ad Al Goreum) loses the argument. ;)


Frankly I find most of it to be a big joke, a charade for all of the I'm here to save the world extremists . Academics, petty UN bureaucrats, politicians, green entrepeneurs( like Al Gore, sorry Aaron), third world countries looking for bigger handouts for the imagined damage done to them by first world CO2 emitters and those who want to see more government control over everything.
I'm willing to bet that nothing comes out of Copenhagen other than the spending of $250 million and some great parties. Until we see unemployment back at reasonable levels nothing will come out of Congress or the EPA for that matter.

This is from the "About Us" section of a site called skepticalscience.com. I think it says it pretty well.

Skeptical Science was created by John Cook, an ex-physicist (majoring in solar physics at the University of Queensland). My interest in global warming began when I got into some discussions with a skeptical family member who handed me a speech by Senator Inhofe. It took little research to show his arguments were misleading and lacking in science.

Since then, I've scoured peer reviewed scientific literature in an attempt to penetrate the political agendas and cherry picking. I've noticed two patterns in global warming skepticism. Firstly, many reasons for disbelieving in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism (or sometimes just plain dislike for Al Gore). As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove".

Beneath the politics is a more elemental instinct - an aversion to alarmism. We've been burnt before. The media predicted an ice age in the 70's which never eventuated. Y2K was going to destroy society - it was barely a hiccup. And I won't deny there are alarmists in the global warming camp. Urgent cries that the ice sheets are on the verge of sliding into the sea. Or emotional pleas to save those cute little polar bears. Sadly, alarmists seem to be the loudest voices in the global warming debate. But that doesn't change the science underneath.

So I ignore the distracting politics and ad hominem arguments. Instead, I concentrate on the science. And I noticed when the discussion did get to science, the same flawed skeptic argument continue to propagate through the blogosphere, Chinese whispers style. This website is an attempt to examine all the scientific arguments that reject AGW.


BrooklynBilly wrote:Meanwhile it's 27 degrees here in Marin, 2 degrees in Lake Tahoe and they had a foot of snow yesterday. I'm breaking out my board.

That's the weather not the climate. Have fun.
"Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the liar by truth." ~The Buddha

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." ~Mark Twain

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5946
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Climategate

Postby BrooklynBilly » Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:47 pm

I see you and raise you one.

by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley | November 30, 2009

THE WHISTLE BLOWS FOR TRUTH
The whistleblower deep in the basement of one of the ugly, modern tower-blocks of the dismal, windswept University of East Anglia could scarcely have timed it better.
In less than three weeks, the world’s governing class – its classe politique – would meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world’s wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a pen, on the pretext of addressing what is now known to be the non-problem of manmade “global warming”.

The unnamed hero of ‘Climategate’, after months of work gathering emails, computer code, and data, quietly sent a 61-megabyte compressed file from one of the university’s servers to an obscure public message-board on the internet, with a short covering note to the effect that the climate was too important to keep the material secret, and that the data from the University would be available for a short time only.
He had caught the world’s politico-scientific establishment green-handed. Yet his first attempts to reveal the highly-profitable fraud and systematic corruption at the very heart of the UN’s climate panel and among the scientists most prominent in influencing it’s prejudiced and absurdly doom-laden reports had failed. He had made the mistake of sending the data-file to the mainstream news media, which had also profited for decades by fostering the “global warming” scare, and by generally denying anyone who disagreed with the official viewpoint any platform.

The whistleblower’s data file revealed, for the first time, the innermost workings of the tiny international clique of climate scientists, centered on the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, that has been the prime mover in telling the world that it is warming at an unprecedented rate, and that humankind is responsible.

REVEALED: THE ABJECT CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE
The gallant whistleblower now faces a police investigation at the instigation of the University authorities desperate to look after their own and to divert allegations of criminality elsewhere. His crime? He had revealed what many had long suspected:

- A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all scientific research.

The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.
The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.
The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.
They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.
They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled.
They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.
They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.
They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent.
THE NATURE ‘TRICK’ TO ‘HIDE THE DECLINE’ IN TEMPERATURES
Among the most revealing of the emails released to the world by the whistleblower was one dated November 1999. In that email, Professor “Phil” Jones of the CRU wrote to Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, the authors of the infamous “hockey stick” graph that falsely abolished the medieval warm period:
Almost immediately after the news of Climategate broke, Professor Jones told Investigative Magazine’s TGIF Edition that he “had no idea” what he might have meant by the words “hide the decline”. He said:

“They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”

A few hours later, the science hate-crime website created by the Team cobbled together a jumbled, snivelingly self-serving, and entirely different pretext:

“The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction [the ‘hockey-stick’ graph of pre-instrumental temperatures over the past 1000 years in the Northern Hemisphere], and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s [another prominent member of the Team] maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem” … and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al. in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so, while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.”


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/l ... ts-issues/
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

User avatar
AaronCT
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:00 am
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Re: Climategate

Postby AaronCT » Tue Dec 08, 2009 10:50 pm

Thank you for illustrating my point in the previous post. :)

BTW, here's another quote by that author.

"there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."

Good source there Billy!
"Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the liar by truth." ~The Buddha

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." ~Mark Twain

User avatar
dejapig
Site Admin
Posts: 7312
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:36 pm
Location: Houston & Phoenix

Re: Climategate

Postby dejapig » Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:30 am

:lol: Good reveal, Aaron!
Be who you are & say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter & those who matter don't mind. --Dr. Seuss
Keith Olbermann rocks! --dejapig

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5946
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Climategate

Postby BrooklynBilly » Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:41 am

AaronCT wrote:Thank you for illustrating my point in the previous post. :)

BTW, here's another quote by that author.

"there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."

Good source there Billy!


That's right Aaron, as usual, attack the source when you don't like what they have to say. The science behind the AGW theory is questionable and you don't want to believe it.

BTW I don't know when the esteemed Lord Monckton expressed those thoughts regarding AIDS and AIDS carriers but he was not alone in thinking that way in the early stages of the AIDS epidemic.
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5946
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Climategate

Postby BrooklynBilly » Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:21 am

Philbert wrote:
BrooklynBilly wrote:
AaronCT wrote:Thank you for illustrating my point in the previous post. :)

BTW, here's another quote by that author.

"there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."

Good source there Billy!


That's right Aaron, as usual, attack the source when you don't like what they have to say. The science behind the AGW theory is questionable and you don't want to believe it.

BTW I don't know when the esteemed Lord Monckton expressed those thoughts regarding AIDS and AIDS carriers but he was not alone in thinking that way in the early stages of the AIDS epidemic.



Judging by the seeming popularity of the proposed "Kill the Gays" legislation in Uganda, I'd say 'that way if thinking' is still around...


It was a panicky time that aroused a lot of fear.
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

User avatar
dejapig
Site Admin
Posts: 7312
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:36 pm
Location: Houston & Phoenix

Re: Climategate

Postby dejapig » Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:45 am

I call bullshit, billy. Your source is a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Those views were from 1987; early-ish in the epidemic, yes, but still unsupportable. Promote FEAR FEAR FEAR instead of dealing with the root cause. He considered isolating between 1.5 and 3 million people in the US as "not altogether impossible" and another 30,000 people in the UK as "not insuperably difficult." Oh, that's helpful. :roll:

From wiki:
The article was highly controversial, with The American Spectator's then assistant managing editor, Andrew Ferguson, denouncing it in the letters column of the same issue.

Also from wiki:
During the autumn of 2009, Monckton embarked on a tour of North America to campaign against the December 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference. His warning that US President Barack Obama intended to sign a treaty at the conference which would "impose a communist world government on the world" was picked up by numerous commentators on the American right and "rocketed around the fringe" of right-wing websites, prompting Glenn Beck to invite him on his radio show again. Writing in Salon, Alex Koppelman criticized Monckton's assertions about the conference's framework for negotiation as being "woefully inaccurate. And that's a nice way of putting it." The St. Petersburg Times's PolitiFact.com described his assertions as "not only unsupported but preposterous" and awarded him a special rating of "britches on fire". Ethan Baron of the Canadian newspaper The Province criticized Monckton's assertions as the product of a "whacked-out, far-right ideology, combined with an ego the size of the Antarctic ice sheet."

How is considering the source not relevant?
Be who you are & say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter & those who matter don't mind. --Dr. Seuss

Keith Olbermann rocks! --dejapig

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5946
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Climategate

Postby BrooklynBilly » Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:11 am

dejapig wrote:How is considering the source not relevant?


Because you ignore everything he has to say and remain ignorant and mired in your own biases. AGW is a scam!
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

User avatar
dejapig
Site Admin
Posts: 7312
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:36 pm
Location: Houston & Phoenix

Re: Climategate

Postby dejapig » Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:02 pm

AGW is a scam because billy chooses to ignore credible scientists who say otherwise and remain ignorant and mired in his own biases. :lol:
Be who you are & say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter & those who matter don't mind. --Dr. Seuss

Keith Olbermann rocks! --dejapig

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5946
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Climategate

Postby BrooklynBilly » Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:05 pm

Philbert wrote:
BrooklynBilly wrote:It was a panicky time that aroused a lot of fear.



As opposed to what? NOW? Same factors involved. A dominant Republican Pary backed by religious fanatics and supported by a supine Coporate Media. Only the names have changed...and in the case of the Bushies...not even that.


It was panic on a level never seen before in this country. When it was thought that AIDS was going to spread to the heterosexual community and that it was easily transmitted millions were horror-struck. Most thought that we would no longer be able to have sex with strangers and live to tell about it.
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet


Return to “2009”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests