ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Riverwind]

The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit in the UK was hacked and about 150BM of documents and emails were posted online this week. This emails include correspondence between several leading climate scientists and talk about things like:

- Obstructing FOI requests by deleting data;

- Getting editors at peer reviewed journals fired for accepting sceptical papers;

- Manipulating data to 'hide' features which would undermine the political message;

The entire collection demonstrates that these scientists are a pretty unethical bunch that are more concerned about promoting the IPCC political agenda than with finding the scientific truth. So far the only response from alarmists has been that such talk is nothing but 'boys being boys' and whingeing about the fact that someone committed a crime to steal the emails (aside: I think it was and inside job made to look like a hack and that would mean we have whistleblowers - not criminals).

However, such excuse making does not negate the fact that we now have concrete evidence the sceptical papers are being kept out of the peer reviewed literature for no reason other than the fact that they are sceptical. We also have concrete evidence that the scientists responsible for maintaining one of the major global temperature datasets deliberately deleted data to make sure that it could not be analyzed by people that might find problems.

None of this surprises me because I have been researching this topic for years and it was painfully clear that the stuff revealed in the e-mails was going on even if there was no proof.

I realize that the AGW true believers in this forum will try to insist that none of this proves that AGW is wrong and they would be technically correct. However, all of our understanding of the science comes from data that has been collected, adjusted and interpreted by scientists - some of whom have been exposed in these e-mails. These interpretations have a signicant effect on what policies, if any, we may want to adopt to deal with the AGW issue and it would be crazy to make radical policy changes until we fully understand how much the corruption has affected the results.

Here are some links covering the issue:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_global_warming_conspiracy_its_silencing_of_the_sceptics/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_damn_professor_jones/

Edited November 21, 2009 by Riverwind

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So in essence the scientists are playing politics, is that really news worthy?

[Riverwind]

So in essence the scientists are playing politics, is that really news worthy?

So you feel that having editors of peer reviewed journals fired for accepting dissenting papers is not newsworthy? You feel that scientists willfully breaking FOI laws is not newsworthy? If so you have a very strange definition of newsworthy. Edited November 21, 2009 by Riverwind

[OddSox]

There is a huge amount of stuff becoming public - and very little of it looks good on these so-called scientists.

Apparently they believe in their cause, but does that justify the methods they have been using? They have conspired to withhold information, they refuse to release data to other scientists, they fudge data to match the results they're looking for, and they manipulate the so-called 'peer review' system to an extent that they have totally discredited the entire field of science, not just AGW.

Their defense? It's all been taken 'out of context'. Good luck with that.

[Smallc]

This is really going to shake trust in the scientific world....including mine. I was always iffy about this theory. Now I really don't know what to think.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So you feel that having editors of peer reviewed journals fired for accepting dissenting papers is not newsworthy? You feel that scientists willfully breaking FOI laws is not newsworthy? If so you have a very strange definition of newsworthy.

Think very carefully now....did I say that or did you?

What I said was .."So in essence the scientists are playing politics, is that really news worthy?"

What you believe to be my feelings and my definitions are entirely false and represent your own misguided approach to what was said.

I said what I meant and mean what I say. Scientists playing politics is not new, been going on for ages. Media hype and news creation has been gong on forever as well. Put the two together and you get a nice little story. How much was leaked on purpose on this or any other issue remains a question. One not to be resolved easily.

My point was that there was nothing new going on in my view. I believe a naive fool would believe that people getting fired for a dissenting voice is something new or news worthy. As to ANYONE breaking laws, that is something that happens every day in every nation on this earth. Scientists are not gods or priests and are just a prone to human error as the rest of us.

[OddSox]

Think very carefully now....did I say that or did you?

What I said was .."So in essence the scientists are playing politics, is that really news worthy?"

What you believe to be my feelings and my definitions are entirely false and represent your own misguided approach to what was said.

I said what I meant and mean what I say. Scientists playing politics is not new, been going on for ages. Media hype and news creation has been gong on forever as well. Put the two together and you get a nice little story. How much was leaked on purpose on this or any other issue remains a question. One not to be resolved easily.

My point was that there was nothing new going on in my view. I believe a naive fool would believe that people getting fired for a dissenting voice is something new or news worthy. As to ANYONE breaking laws, that is something that happens every day in every nation on this earth. Scientists are not gods or priests and are just a prone to human error as the rest of us.

You're kidding right? The politics of global warming has little to do with some scientist playing politics to push his study of 'purple-people eating salamanders in the Galapagos'. This is a multi-billion dollar industry - one of the main scientists quoted in the emails admits to receiving over $22 million for his research alone!

Do you actually think we should just ignore this, because it's business as usual?

[Riverwind]

My point was that there was nothing new going on in my view. I believe a naive fool would believe that people getting fired for a dissenting voice is something new or news worthy.

The problem is there are a lot of naive fools who insist that scientists are paragons of virtue and would *never* do anything like that. I have have lost count of the number of times where some alarmist tries to justify ignoring a sceptical argument by saying 'if it had merit it would be in the peer reviewed literature'. These emails are concrete evidence that such an argument is fallacious and that is why it is news worthy. That said, I agree it is not news worthy to those people who already understood that scientists are as corrupt as any other group of people.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The problem is there are a lot of naive fools who insist that scientists are paragons of virtue and would *never* do anything like that. I have have lost count of the number of times where some alarmist tries to justify ignoring a sceptical argument by saying 'if it had merit it would be in the peer reviewed literature'. These emails are concrete evidence that such an argument is fallacious and that is why it is news worthy. That said, I agree it is not news worthy to those people who already understood that scientists are as corrupt as any other group of people.

Thanks Riverwind! I did not mean to offend , but I did feel that I had to say it.

[Riverwind]

This is really going to shake trust in the scientific world....including mine. I was always iffy about this theory. Now I really don't know what to think.

Here is an essay by Ross McKitrick that talks about these issues and provides a constructive suggestion on how to reform the scientific process when it is used to make public policy decisions. Here is a quote that illustrates the gist of his position:

In Taken By Storm Chris Essex and I spelled out a detailed proposal for introducing balance into settings where scientific information is used to decide major policies. Suppose a municipality is trying to decide whether to ban lawn pesticides. Rather than forming one panel, a city should form two: one would be asked to produce the strongest possible case for the ban and the other the strongest possible case against. Then each team would be asked to write a rebuttal to the other’s. The final report would consist of all four documents, and would not contain an executive summary.

Let them be as biased as they like. Let them self-select their members and tilt together into their preferred position. Remember that for the process to be balanced does not require that the individuals involved be neutral, only that the contrasting points of view be well-represented. In the end the two teams’ reports will be set side by side. If they are evenly matched, so be it. That is the honest message of the science. And any process that fails to convey it is perpetrating a fraud on the public.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Riverwind

[OddSox]

Here is an essay by Ross McKitrick that talks about these issues and provides a constructive suggestion on how to reform the scientific process when it is used to make public policy decisions. Here is a quote that illustrates the gist of his position:

An interesting idea. But a problem remains - who judges the results? One of his conditions is that there is no 'executive summary', so by definition, a layman (or city council or whatever) could not reasonably be expected to make an informed decision. So, we'll need a third council of scientists, just to evaluate what the other scientists are saying. How do we make sure the third council is acting fairly?

[bush_cheney2004]

Thanks Riverwind! I did not mean to offend , but I did feel that I had to say it.

Agreed...I think your post only reinforces RW's point, namely that there is now demonstrable evidence that the behaviour has continued as before and is heightened because of the geo-politics and growing research funding involved. Earth sciences (aka geosciences) have never been more popular for budding "researchers" chasing grant money and the prestige of being published. All of which leads to shoot outs with journals at ten paces.

[Riverwind]

So, we'll need a third council of scientists, just to evaluate what the other scientists are saying. How do we make sure the third council is acting fairly?

We already ask untrained jurors to sort out the claims of dueling experts in criminal trials. Asking elected politicians to do the same is not much of stretch - especially since the competing arguments would be public knowledge. The important thing to remember is politicians are held to account for their decisions - scientists are not so if someone needs to make a policy decision it should be the politicians - not the scientists. Edited November 21, 2009 by Riverwind

[OddSox]

We already ask untrained jurors to sort out the claims of dueling experts in criminal trials. Asking elected politicians to do the same is not much of stretch - especially since the competing arguments would be public knowledge. The important thing to remember is politicians are held to account for their decisions - scientists are not so if someone needs to make a policy decision it should be the politicians - not the scientists.

Hmm, it might work. Probably better than the status quo, in any case.

[OddSox]

"Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709)"

http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg

Bottom chart is the IPCC version where the graph is stopped in 1960 - the top graph shows what the real figures indicate...they were apparently left out because they didn't support the theory!

Edited November 21, 2009 by OddSox

[Guest TrueMetis]

"Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709)"

http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg

Bottom chart is the IPCC version where the graph is stopped in 1960 - the top graph shows what the real figures indicate...they were apparently left out because they didn't support the theory!

Cause Tim Osborn is a climatologist

[Riverwind]

Alarmists have long insisted that a desire for funding would not influence the science. Sceptics know better. Now we have evidence.

Hi Phil,

is this another witch hunt (like Mann et al.)? How should I respond to the below? (I'm

in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million

employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here

in the UK - looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into

question (again) observed temperature increases - I thought we'd moved the debate beyond

this, but seems that these sceptics are real die-hards!!).

Kind regards,

Andrew

[Alta4ever]

Wow just wow,

Now what was said about big oil footing the bill for sceptics, and how their studies where tainted.

[Alta4ever]

Does anyone know where I could get a copy of the 64 mb of info, i would love to pour through it myself.

[Riverwind]

Does anyone know where I could get a copy of the 64 mb of info, i would love to pour through it myself.

Try the links here:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/

Some of the links have been taken down. Start from the bottom.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Riverwind

[OddSox]

Someone has posted a search engine of all the emails at http://www.anelegantchaos.org

Be warned - a lot of it is scary stuff. Their concept of 'peer reviews' seems to be extensive discussion on how to manipulate graphs so they convey the right impression and how to keep raw data out of the 'skeptics' hands.

Edited November 21, 2009 by OddSox

[bush_cheney2004]

Wow just wow,

Now what was said about big oil footing the bill for sceptics, and how their studies where tainted.

Indeed....the worm has turned.

[Alta4ever]

Indeed....the worm has turned.

Now its time for a classic pincer movement to crush them in a hammer and anvil.

[OddSox]

Cause Tim Osborn is a climatologist

Actually, yes he is, or at least he claims to be - http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/osbornt

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Besides, you don't have to be a scientist to add a few numbers to a chart...

[Guest TrueMetis]

Actually, yes he is, or at least he claims to be - http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/osbornt

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Besides, you don't have to be a scientist to add a few numbers to a chart...

Sorry thought it was a different person.