ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Wild Bill]

This thread strongly reminds me of what happened to Galileo, one of the earliest 'deniers'.

Ippur se move, I guess.

As Monty Python once said "WHO would expect a Spanish Inquisition?"

[Keepitsimple]

Interesting rapport between Riverwind and Waldo. In the context of leaked emails where the internet and columnists for MSM (but not the MSM itself yet) have accused this cabal of IPCC gatekeeper scientists of serious misdeeds - .....Riverwind has conducted a rational discussion relating to the impact on Climate Science. After all, this handful of "scientists" controls most of the "studies" and data that form the basis of IPCC reports. The "thousands" of scientists who purportedly contribute to the IPCC are filtered through the questionable ethics of these few people.

Waldo on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge any misdoings at all....this is all business as usual to Waldo....which speaks volumes about his own standards of ethics and/or his religious unwavering belief in AGW and the IPCC process. It's humourous to see his little laughing icons attached to his patronizing posts. He's a perfect example of the unthinking alarmist. It's actually important that he continues to post.....with each one, it demonstrates the arrogance of true-believers and makes rational people understand how such closed minds have allowed this fiasco to get as far as it has.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Riverwind]

you explain away the Christy/Spencer UAH (multiple) dataset errors as, as you state, "believed to be correct at the time".

Do you actually understand why these errors occurred? When the satellite measurements were originally produced they did not taking into account that the time the satellite crossed the equator gradually changed which affected the temperatures being measured. Someone (I don't know who) discovered the problem and the data was fixed. This is how science works. Usnig this error to attack the Spencer/Christy simply bizarre.

a while back we danced back and forth around some specious McIntyre claim, until you finally relented and accepted that McIntyre was wrong

No - the only people that were wrong are the alarmist bloggers who don't actually read what SteveMc said about the data.

The bottom line on this story: Briffa finally provided the data himself when the Philosophical Transactions journal told him his excuses were irrelvant and he had to provide the data. There are even emails by Briffa's peers complaining about this requirement. The fact that a journal like Philosophical Transactions took SteveMc's side should provide most people with an independent opinion on the merit of the different sides.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Riverwind

[Shady]

Either way most of the things people are talking about have been taken out of context.

What exactly do you feel has been taken out of context? Can you provide an example please.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Bottom line is that we can't change what has already happened. Adapt or die.

[Shady]

Bottom line is that we can't change what has already happened.

If anything has actually happened.

[Michael Hardner]

It is an obvious grasp at creating a personal legacy encouraged by political opportunism.

That's a leap. Even if somebody lied, you don't know what the motivation is.

[Michael Hardner]

Waldo as per KeepItSimple's note:

Waldo on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge any misdoings at all....

Is this the case ?

Although I haven't seen anything in the emails that (to me) calls into doubt the entire community of climate change science, they have caused significant damage to the public faith. I've looked at this situation, and my assessment is:

- Given the seriousness of this topic, scientists need to raise the bar in making their papers easily accessible and understandable to a broad audience.

- Scientists need to publish the data that they used and their formulas so that peers (and the public too) can replicate the results of studies.

- The emails need to be investigated by the universities where these scientists are employed, for wrongdoing.

- A general public forum needs to review the dissemination of scientific information in the GW/AGW sphere and establish recommendations for corrective action.

What do you think ?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think the entire thing is buried in male bovine excrement. The sky is falling was a childrens tale, nothing more. At least until recent times.

[Riverwind]

Given the seriousness of this topic, scientists need to raise the bar in making their papers easily accessible and understandable to a broad audience.

This is a one-way flow of information. Scientists need to accept that outsiders can contribute to science and they need to engage these outsiders constructively. This does not mean they need to respond to every crank with a blog but it does not take very long to figure out which bloggers have something useful to say.

See also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8388485.stm

The key lesson to be learnt is that not only must scientific knowledge about climate change be publicly owned - the IPCC does a fair job of this according to its own terms - but that in the new century of digital communication and an active citizenry, the very practices of scientific enquiry must also be publicly owned.

Unsettling as this may be for scientists, the combination of "post-normal science" and an internet-driven democratisation of knowledge demands a new professional and public ethos in science.

And there is no better place to start this revolution than with climate science.

[Michael Hardner]

This is a one-way flow of information. Scientists need to accept that outsiders can contribute to science and they need to engage these outsiders constructively. This does not mean they need to respond to every crank with a blog but it does not take very long to figure out which bloggers have something useful to say.

See also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8388485.stm

It's not practical to have the publishing scientists engage with outsiders, any more than it is to have the government's Cabinet reachable by email. It's up to skeptical scientists to use crowdsourcing as a tool to go through larger amounts of data.

ADDED: Your link seems to reflect a new realization in thinking people everywhere (very post-McLuhan by the way) that new media needs to be harnessed and used positively.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[Riverwind]

It's not practical to have the publishing scientists engage with outsiders, any more than it is to have the government's Cabinet reachable by email.

They don't really have a choice. If a blogger like SteveMc can show that a paper is junk then refusing to acknowlege it undermines the credibility of the scientists involved in the eyes of the public.

Here is another quote:

In certain areas of research - and climate change is certainly one of these - the authenticating of scientific knowledge now demands two further things: an engagement with expertise outside the laboratory, and responsiveness to the natural scepticism and desire for scrutiny of an educated public.

The public may not be able to follow radiation physics, but they can follow an argument; they may not be able to describe fluid dynamics using mathematics, but they can recognise evasiveness when they see it.

Where claims of scientific knowledge provide the basis of significant public policy, demands for what has been called "extended peer review" and "the democratisation of science" become overwhelming.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

I have never been a fan of Newt Gingrich but he is has some good stuff to say here:

In response to these recent revelations, Congress should open an investigation into the degree of bias in the climate change community (including the journalists that report on the topic) toward suppressing research that shows slower or negligible global warming trends, or points to different causes than greenhouse gasses. It should investigate whether worthy scientific studies contradicting the global warming conclusion have been suppressed from peer reviewed literature. If Congress is going to consider legislation based on supposed scientific consensus, it has every right to conduct inquiries into whether that consensus is genuine.

Furthermore, Congress should allocate resources to reassemble raw weather data from around the world and make it publicly available so independent scientists can verify the legitimacy of the "adjusted numbers" of the Climate Research Unit. The United States - indeed, the world, deserves an answer as to whether the adjusted data used by the IPCC (and Al Gore, with whom they shared the Nobel Prize in 2007) can be trusted. If the Climate Research Unit's adjusted numbers cannot be trusted, the IPCC needs to explain how the exclusion of such unreliable data from its scientific analysis affects the IPCC's current conclusions and recommendations about global warming.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/gingrich_statement_on_climateg_1.html

Edited December 2, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

They don't really have a choice. If a blogger like SteveMc can show that a paper is junk then refusing to acknowlege it undermines the credibility of the scientists involved in the eyes of the public.

Did you read my post ?

It's not practical.

Why not have skeptical scientists take up the best points that the bloggers come up with ?

Here is another quote:

[Keepitsimple]

Waldo as per KeepItSimple's note:

Is this the case ?

Although I haven't seen anything in the emails that (to me) calls into doubt the entire community of climate change science, they have caused significant damage to the public faith. I've looked at this situation, and my assessment is:

- Given the seriousness of this topic, scientists need to raise the bar in making their papers easily accessible and understandable to a broad audience.

- Scientists need to publish the data that they used and their formulas so that peers (and the public too) can replicate the results of studies.

- The emails need to be investigated by the universities where these scientists are employed, for wrongdoing.

- A general public forum needs to review the dissemination of scientific information in the GW/AGW sphere and establish recommendations for corrective action.

What do you think ?

From the very beginning, the official IPCC mandate was as follows: "The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.". So right from the start, we have a government-funded body that is biased towards gathering information that supports a pre-conceived conclusion. Given such a targeted mandate, is it any wonder that studies that do not relate to human-induced factors would be given short-shrift?

1) Raising the bar......the bar should always have been very high due the potential impact on the world. As many scientists state - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". With claims ranging from natural climate change to Armageddon, and the potential to disrupt economies, if not society itself, we should be demanding that these scientific "projects" follow all the rigour and review that can be mustered.

2) Publishing data and programs.....It's a travesty that these handful of gatekeeper "scientists" have prevented full disclosure. Full and open scientific review in conjunction with complete IT auditing and statistical verification is a must: Computer models are complex and like commercial software, should be subject to quality control that verifies that the programs are doing what they were intended to do. Source data cannot be "lost".....what mentality would allow an environment that was devoid of backup for the most important data in Climate Science? Much of what goes on in Climate Science is based on statistics and algorhythms. Let unbiased statisticians verify the work.

3) Universities investigating emails......it would be best if a completely independent, outside source did the investigation. The University would be likely to protect it's own, and certainly would be biased towards protecting its reputation. There may be strong enough evidence for a criminal investigation with regards to attempts to avoid FOI requests.

4) General public forum for corrective action......I agree. We need to get this right - or as right as we can. The IPCC is flawed - the mandate is flawed and the gatekeeper approach minimizes the actual views of the many scientists who contribute studies. In summary, heavy emphasis is placed on studies than lean towards APG. These studies are then filtered through the pre-conceived mindset of a handful of gatekeeper scientists such as Phil Jones and Michael Mann. These filtered results are then further interpreted by non-scientist IPCC personnel to create a summary report. Each step of the process becomes more and more biased and narrow. In addition, major datasets and resulting graphs and presentations must be vetted by independent auditors and statisticians.

In short....it's a mess - always has been. But a final qualifier....as always, this does not mean that humans do not contribute to Climate Change.....the question has always been - how much? Greenpeace, the Sierra Group, WWF, the IPCC, and Suzuki will always adhere to the Armageddon approach.....this is because they KNOW what is best and only a crisis can provide the motivation for change. That in itself, should alert all of us to take a cautious but complete approach.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Riverwind]

Why not have skeptical scientists take up the best points that the bloggers come up with?

Actually, that is one way to engage with outsiders. The trouble is it is not happening now because the climate science community sees bloggers like SteveMc as a threat and choose to engage in ad hom attacks.

In any case, some posters insist on ignoring the corruption of the peer review process revealing in those letters. Here is another scientist explaining why this corruption goes way beyond the people caught in the emails:

Astrophysicist Professor Nir Shaviv says hes not surprised at all by Climategate, whether its the revelation that data was destroyed to prevent checking, or evidence that sceptics were blocked from publication:

(F)rom what Ive read in blogsphere, the e-mails did not reveal anything I didnt think was happening anyway (though it may help the general public get a glimpse of that)....

An editor of one of the more prominent journals wrote a colleague of mine that any paper which doesnt support the anthropogenic GHG theory is politically motivated, and therefore has to be rejected.

There are many more examples. As I said, these e-mails do not surprise me. They just provide a window to whatever I had thought was happening anyway.

The UEA email are the tip of the ice burg and we need to get to the bottom of it. Claims that the scientific basis for CAWG is not affected by these revelations are extremely premature. It will take years to sort this mess out and figure out how much the science has been corrupted by ideology. Edited December 2, 2009 by Riverwind

[Pliny]

That's a leap. Even if somebody lied, you don't know what the motivation is.

I know their motivation is to improve something in their lives, Michael. I could assume their activities are purely altruistic but altruism can only be viewed through a personal lens and thus in it's purity is merely an attempt to please everyone which in it's end pleases no one. If the individuals involved in this were true to their science they would abandon their political positions, present the data and allow politicians to do what they feel is necessary. Unfortunately, these scientists themselves have abandoned science and become political servants in the manufacture of some global ideological Utopian civilization driven by science. They have taken it upon themselves to be the driving force behind global politics. What are their motivations? Utopia. Not much different than the promise of Heaven. It is what Waldo would want for us all if we could just open our eyes and see. Science will advise our politicians who will lead us to the promised land. Our previous political advisers have all proven to be charlatans - the Pope, the priests, the Imams, our moral guides are all disproven liars and are solely obstacles in our civilized progression. A new dawn of enlightenment is upon us.

[waldo]

They don't really have a choice. If a blogger like SteveMc can show that a paper is junk then refusing to acknowlege it undermines the credibility of the scientists involved in the eyes of the public.

buddy, your hero McIntyre is repeatedly shown to be the bumpkin he truly is... we can again go back up and down the complete history of MBH - it won't make a bit of difference (to you) as you'll never accept the actual outcome... that MBH was sound and Mann was vindicated. You can ignore... that McIntyre ignored... the uncertainties and caveats that MBH explicitly put in their original paper. You can ignore that McIntyre's "ta da" didn't "break the hockey stick", and in fact made no actual difference to that original MBH reconstruction (MBH showed as much when applying McIntyre's "ta da" to their original paper/reconstruction ... others showed as much... and others continue to show as much). This most recent fallacious McIntyre attempt with Briffa truly exemplifies the fool McIntyre is... and the real vindictiveness McIntyre holds to... holds to, for being shown for the bumpkin he truly is.

[wyly]

A horrific example of Godwin's Law at work.

not even close...it's case of slap and get slapped back...

[waldo]

It's not practical to have the publishing scientists engage with outsiders, any more than it is to have the government's Cabinet reachable by email. It's up to skeptical scientists to use crowdsourcing as a tool to go through larger amounts of data.

a very astute point. Dealing with the denialsphere does impact real scientists doing real research... they repeatedly get drawn into the bogus claims of the deniers that get rocketed around the denialsphere... and... invariably into the mainstream by agenda driven journalists/organizations. On that note I find it telling that none of the usual suspects here has touched the post I put up concerning the lobby group CEI and their (before Hackergate) attempts. Most telling.

[Riverwind]

that MBH was sound and Mann was vindicated.

ROTFL. Just found this in the emails. It appears that the NAS panel was stacked and designed to come to a predetermined conclusion.

In an email fron Mann to Briffa

>> The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing

>> this, and the other members are all solid. Chrisy is the token

>> skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check:

As time goes one it is becoming clear that the climate science community has failed to provide the public with an honest and fair assessment of the science. People like the folks at RC who continue to deny this further undermine the credibility of the field.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Riverwind

[Pliny]

An editor of one of the more prominent journals wrote a colleague of mine that ”any paper which doesn’t support the anthropogenic GHG theory is politically motivated, and therefore has to be rejected”.

Exactly what I would think of a paper that supported GHG "theory". It is a theory. Any political support for a "theory" should be questioned.

The problem is that a greater percentage of scientific R&D cannot be divorced from political economics. Thus political influence must be a consideration and theoretical claims cannot be looked at without a jaundiced eye.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, that is one way to engage with outsiders. The trouble is it is not happening now because the climate science community sees bloggers like SteveMc as a threat and choose to engage in ad hom attacks.

Right, but we're past that. We're talking about solutions here, and I don't think having scientists respond to hundreds and thousands of skeptics is practical. Instead, have that point of view taken up by skeptical scientists.

In any case, some posters insist on ignoring the corruption of the peer review process revealing in those letters. Here is another scientist explaining why this corruption goes way beyond the people caught in the emails:

The UEA email are the tip of the ice burg and we need to get to the bottom of it. Claims that the scientific basis for CAWG is not affected by these revelations are extremely premature. It will take years to sort this mess out and figure out how much the science has been corrupted by ideology.

I don't think it needs to take years. They should be able to either produce the data in those studies and publish it, or retract or republish the paper.

[Michael Hardner]

I know their motivation is to improve something in their lives, Michael. I could assume their activities are purely altruistic but altruism can only be viewed through a personal lens and thus in it's purity is merely an attempt to please everyone which in it's end pleases no one. If the individuals involved in this were true to their science they would abandon their political positions, present the data and allow politicians to do what they feel is necessary. Unfortunately, these scientists themselves have abandoned science and become political servants in the manufacture of some global ideological Utopian civilization driven by science. They have taken it upon themselves to be the driving force behind global politics. What are their motivations? Utopia. Not much different than the promise of Heaven. It is what Waldo would want for us all if we could just open our eyes and see. Science will advise our politicians who will lead us to the promised land. Our previous political advisers have all proven to be charlatans - the Pope, the priests, the Imams, our moral guides are all disproven liars and are solely obstacles in our civilized progression. A new dawn of enlightenment is upon us.

You don't know that. You can't see into somebody's heart.

[Riverwind]

I don't think having scientists respond to hundreds and thousands of skeptics is practical.

There are maybe 5-10 blogs where scientific sceptics gather and only 2 major ones. Any scientist with the will could engage sceptics constructively.

I don't think it needs to take years. They should be able to either produce the data in those studies and publish it, or retract or republish the paper.

It is not that simple. A lot of studies depend on assumptions which are disputed by sceptics. It will take time to get these objections into the peer reviewed literature and assess how they impact previous work.

For example, sceptics feel that the Briffa MxD is junk because it is wrong to assume that late 20th century divergance is something that only occurred in late 20th century. Reproducing the study will not resolve this issue. It will be necessary to drop this series and create new reconstructions that do not depend on it. That takes time.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Riverwind