ClimateGate and the Climatati

[waldo]

So you feel that having editors of peer reviewed journals fired for accepting dissenting papers is not newsworthy?

Since your scurrilous accusation was quoted again - recently... already discussed - already dispatched in previous MLW posts:

- reference your claims towards editor Saiers and the journal GRL - here

- reference your claims towards editor de Freitas and the journal Climate Research - here & here

A little hint: "he deserved it" is not a defense for murder and "the paper was junk" is not a defense for blackmailing journals.

no journals were blackmailed - no matter how hard you try to distort the truth - the events.

- in the case of GRL/Saiers, the single hacked email speaks to following the available process that exists throughout peer-review, finding/gathering evidence of editor bias (if it existed) and suggesting it be brought forward through the proper channels within the AGU. All above board - all following the designed procedures, as intended, to bring forward suggestion that an editor might hold bias in which papers are being published. Was any of that actually done... since it's my latest understanding that Saiers actually completed his full term - i.e. was not fired. In any case, that "firing" wouldn't occur, if it actually did... without a full investigation and analysis by the AGU. I asked you previously - I'll ask again... are you prepared to state that the AGU itself was complicit in the firing of the GRL editor, Saiers (if, in fact, he was even fired)?

- in the case of Climate Research/de Frietas, no editors were fired... de Frietas was not fired. The publisher chose to stand behind his journals (improper) publishing of that infamous Soon/Baliunas paper. All the editors that resigned, did so because they wanted the publisher to formally announce that the journal did not stand behind the paper... that's how bad the paper was. All this is layed out in the previous posts, including all the attempts to use that paper for political gain (Sen Inhofe / Bush admin)

why continue your charade?

The emails were clear. These "scientists" decided that they did not like the papers published a journal because they supported a sceptical point view and they decided to threaten the journals and editors instead of doing what any ethical scientist has done in the past: publish a rebuttle.

Bullshit - peer review was followed... rebuttal came forward - resoundingly. Show the threats... show the threats or quit your bloviating nonsense. You prefer to continue your charade rather than answer the single question asked of you several times now... the one you refuse to answer. Do you claim the AGU itself was complicit in helping to foster your specious claims of "blackmail, intimidation, conspiracy and corruption"? Somehow, to you, following a designed procedure, one intended to bring forward concerns of editor bias... is a conspiracy. Anything else that transpired falls under the purview of the AGU. So, again: Do you claim the AGU itself was complicit in helping to foster your specious claims of `blackmail, intimidation, conspiracy and corruption"?

[wyly]

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.

and why should they...how comfortable would you be going into surgery knowing your surgeon consults bloggers with no medical background on the best surgical procedure for your ailment and have to justify his methods to them...and if your surgeon is in Orthopedics you expect him/her to be consulting other Orthos and not Dermatologists...

[Riverwind]

Do you claim the AGU itself was complicit in helping to foster your specious claims of `blackmail, intimidation, conspiracy and corruption"?

The AGU is nothing more than the scientists who run it. Given the evidence it is not reasonable to claim that they were impartial.

What you fail to understand is the UEA emails have exploded the myth that scientists are trustworthy. It is not enough to *claim* that they are just a few bad apples. The climate science community must *demonstrate* that this is true. Denial is not an option.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

how comfortable would you be going into surgery knowing your surgeon consults bloggers with no medical background on the best surgical procedure

There is a huge difference between applied science (medicine and engineering) and theoretical science because applied science has immediate effects on people's lives. Climate science is a theoretical science and there is no excuse for not engaging outsiders.

[Michael Hardner]

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

The scientists should not have to teach people about science. They need to be discussing these points with peers. If there are no scientists that are willing to take up the skeptics' banner then that is a problem, and the question is "why" ?

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.

You're talking about something else now. I thought we were talking about existing studies that didn't provide data and formulae.

For example, sceptics feel that the Briffa MxD is junk because the assumption 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.

You need to be as clear as we expect the scientists to be. I don't know what you mean, but changing assumption means republishing or changing the whole study and that's not what we're talking about. If they publish the data and the graphs match, or largely match then they have done what the skeptics have asked.

"Taking years to sort this mess out" isn't necessary and if public skeptics want to be part of the process, they will need to act responsibly and help move things forward.

The worst scenario is that there ends up being an expectation that skeptics such as the 9/11 truthers deserve a say in the debate. Such people aren't true skeptics, as they will never been convinced of anything.

[eyeball]

It will take years to sort this mess out and figure out how much the science has been corrupted by ideology.

Its probably too late. The coincidence of a world beset with such hugely intractable, interconnected issues and problems and the public's growing loss of faith in virtually every institution that might deal with them is uncanny, the timing is almost exquisite. We're sitting ducks for just about any type of global challenge that might require a collective effort to solve.

[Riverwind]

The scientists should not have to teach people about science. They need to be discussing these points with peers. If there are no scientists that are willing to take up the skeptics' banner then that is a problem, and the question is "why" ?

Because it is not in their interest to support research avenues that undermine their ability to get funding and promotions. SteveMc has asked scientists to collaborate on papers and was turned down because such collabortion would be 'career limiting' for the scientists.

You're talking about something else now. I thought we were talking about existing studies that didn't provide data and formulae.

I said that open access to data is only the start. The real issue is how scientists deal with the problems that are discovered by people using the data.

If they publish the data and the graphs match, or largely match then they have done what the skeptics have asked.

No. The sceptics are asking that data be made available and when problems are found the scientific conclusions must be revisted. It is not enough to provide data and then ignore the feedback Edited December 2, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

There is a huge difference between applied science (medicine and engineering) and theoretical science because applied science has immediate effects on people's lives. Climate science is a theoretical science and there is no excuse for not engaging outsiders.

calculating interplanetary space missions based on computer models is theoretical science by your definition...rising sea levels, arctic summers being two weeks longer than 30 years ago effect peoples lives so are applied science again by your... definition...man inadvertently or deliberately adjusting climate warmer or cooler is applied science on a grand scale...

[Michael Hardner]

Because it is not in their interest to support research avenues that undermine their ability to get funding and promotions. SteveMc has asked scientists to collaborate on papers and was turned down because such collabortion would be 'career limiting' for the scientists.

Well, then why have scientists at all ? They can't be trusted, but the skeptics can ?

There's nothing yet to support the allegation that the scientific community's prime directive has been compromised. And in any case it's just not practical to expect scientists to respond to bloggers.

There has to be another way to ensure that more consideration is given to other points of view.

I said that open access to data is only the start. The real issue is how scientists deal with the problems that are discovered by people using the data.

No. The sceptics are asking that data be made available and when problems are found the scientific conclusions must be revisted. It is not enough to provide data and then ignore the feedback

But there have to be controls on feedback. It's not practical to have 100% public, unlimited, open-ended inquiry made by the public. It's a waste of time and energy, and won't satisfy all the skeptics in any case.

[Riverwind]

calculating interplanetary space missions based on computer models is theoretical science by your definition.

Nope. That is engineering and those models go through a lot of testing and validation before they are used. Waving hands to explain away 8 years of declining temps is not an acceptable response for engineers using computer models.

man inadvertently or deliberately adjusting climate warmer or cooler is applied science on a grand scale.

The claim that there is a connection between observed changes and man's activity is theoretical science.

[Riverwind]

Well, then why have scientists at all ? They can't be trusted, but the skeptics can ?

It is all about processes. Set up the right processes to ensure that sceptical views are given a fair shake then we will be able to have confidence in the scientists. Continue with the current model where the self appointed guardians of the 'consensus' seek to suppress dissenting views then trust is lost.

There's nothing yet to support the allegation that the scientific community's prime directive has been compromised

Maybe in your opinion. But a lot people looking those emails disagree. Scientists that refuse to acknowledge that reality make things worse.

But there have to be controls on feedback. It's not practical to have 100% public, unlimited, open-ended inquiry made by the public. It's a waste of time and energy, and won't satisfy all the skeptics in any case.

Nobody is saying all the sceptics have to satisfied. However, we do have a problem were legimate criticisms - even when published in the peer review journals - are ignored. Edited December 2, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

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.

well, of course... your selective anal parsing would interpret exactly that... emphasis on interpret. Just to make an equally anal parsing point concerning interpretation of the link you just put up - could one suggest, interpretation is in the eye of the beholder

- I'm pretty sure they're just asking for a neutral discussion of the science that you've done that is relevant to the issues being reviewed by the committee (after all this is the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, not the U.S. Senate, etc). Oh my, how telling... Mann suggests to Briffa the intent is simply a neutral discussion of the science.

- My greatest fear is that McIntyre dominates the discussion. Its important that they hear from the legitimate scientists. Oh my, how telling... Mann expresses a desire that legitimate scientists be heard from... that the doofus McIntyre doesn't dominate. Separate the mutual (warranted) animosities of both individuals towards each other (Mann versus McIntyre) and all this is an "expressed desire". Oh my, an "expressed desire" that legitimate scientists be heard from!

- I know you can argue this various ways but the sceptics are starting to attack on this "non neutral" stance, and the less public I am at the moment the better I think. Oh my, Briffa, an actual working scientist has a preference not to get caught up in the politics... he mentions the pressures of work and expresses reservations about appearing before the NAS panel. Oh my!

- I think you really *should* do this if you possibly can. The panel is entirely legitimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in the whole Barton affair. The assumption is that an honest review of the science will buttress us against any attempt for Barton to continue his attacks (there is some indication that he hasn't given up yet). Especially, with the new Science article by you and Tim I think its really important that one of you attend, if at all possible. Mann offers suggestion that Briffa should appear... the history of the described "Barton affair" is well understood, well documented. Mann suggests an honest review of the science will reinforce their overall position against the Barton attacks. Oh my! An honest review of the science!

- 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 All rightee... your "smoking gun". You're claiming the NAS (National Academy of Science) was complicit... you're claiming someone (?), anyone (!!!) stacked the NAS panel... cause you read a single word reference to Mann suggesting the panel is "solid". Oh my, the panel consists of persons (primarily) who will, as he says in his opening email within the thread... engage in neutral discussion of the science. Oh my! Neutral discussion of the science! That diversion away from the neutral discussion of the science should be able to be held in check - oh my!

But really, your interpretation... my interpretation - whatever. Is this really the foundation you presume to hold up as challenging the integrity of scientists?... of the science?... of challenging the veracity of the overwhelming consensus of scientists that AGW Climate Change exists? Is this it? Is this anal line-by-line hacked email parsing the basis of your priori that scientists are corrupt, unethical, dishonest - blah, blah, blah!

[Michael Hardner]

It is all about processes. Set up the right processes to ensure that sceptical views are given a fair shake then we will be able to have confidence in the scientists. Continue with the current model where the self appointed guardians of the 'consensus' seek to suppress dissenting views then trust is lost.

Maybe in your opinion. But a lot people looking those emails disagree. Scientists that refuse to acknowledge that reality make things worse.

Nobody is saying all the sceptics have to satisfied. However, we do have a problem were legimate criticisms - even when published in the peer review journals - are ignored.

I think the best way to ensure that this happens is for publishing scientists to make the supporting data available, and for mitigating parties to act between the public skeptics and the publishing scientist. I would say that we want mitigating bodies to come from the world of science, otherwise it's a circus.

[Riverwind]

All rightee... your "smoking gun". You're claiming the NAS (National Academy of Science) was complicit... you're claiming someone (?), anyone (!!!) stacked the NAS panel.

It was Mann's work that was under scutiny. If the panel was unbiased he should have been really worried. But the email makes it clear that he was not - he believed that the fix was in and the lone sceptic would be marginalized.

Now Mann could have been misinformed but the record shows that the NAS panel whitewashed the issue by agreeing that Mann's work was garbage yet trying to minimize the damaged with irrelevant claims about 'other studies'.

[Shady]

the public skeptics and the publishing scientist.

I don't think that dissenting views should be referred to as "skeptics." If anything, I'd call the scientists ignoring their own data, that doesn't reflect their global warming view as skeptics. Skeptics of their very data that doesn't reflect their beliefs.

[waldo]

The AGU is nothing more than the scientists who run it. Given the evidence it is not reasonable to claim that they were impartial.

What you fail to understand is the UEA emails have exploded the myth that scientists are trustworthy. It is not enough to *claim* that they are just a few bad apples. The climate science community must *demonstrate* that this is true. Denial is not an option.

and there we have it... one of the more damning statements of anything you've said to date... based on hacked email anal line-by-line parsing that has nothing... nothing... within it.

you are now formally announcing that you feel the AGU was complicit (in your, and the parroting denialsphere claims). You are attacking the integrity of the AGU and by attached inference, the integrity of the complete world-wide community of scientists that AGU represents. Your denial, your malicious claims know no bounds! Shameful - your pomposity appears unlimited.

AGU - the worldwide scientific community that advances, through unselfish cooperation in research, the understanding of the Earth and space for the benefit of humanity.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think that dissenting views should be referred to as "skeptics." If anything, I'd call the scientists ignoring their own data, that doesn't reflect their global warming view as skeptics. Skeptics of their very data that doesn't reflect their beliefs.

Free free to provide suggestions as to how to label the parties.

The problem is how to design the process of paper publication to ensure that dissenting views are adequately considered.

[Shady]

you are now formally announcing that you feel the AGU was complicit (in your, and the parroting denialsphere claims). You are attacking the integrity of the AGU and by attached inference, the integrity of the complete world-wide community of scientists that AGU represents. Your denial, your malicious claims know no bounds! Shameful - your pomposity appears unlimited.

AGU - the worldwide scientific community that advances, through unselfish cooperation in research, the understanding of the Earth and space for the benefit of humanity.

This is the post of a global-warming true believer, who's world is crumbling around them.

[waldo]

I don't think that dissenting views should be referred to as "skeptics." If anything, I'd call the scientists ignoring their own data, that doesn't reflect their global warming view as skeptics. Skeptics of their very data that doesn't reflect their beliefs.

Which data... which data not reflective of global warming... which data is being ignored?

You earlier trotted out a few links, didn't actually bother to offer comment about them, and then held them up (against wyly, I believe) with inferences of "lying"... a word, an inference that had rarely been offered previously by anyone (other than the unsupported (and easily refuted) lie claims made by Riverwind towards RC). If it's pertinent and helpful... make sure to advise which data in the context of these hacked emails... or in general, if not related.

[waldo]

This is the post of a global-warming true believer, who's world is crumbling around them.

crumbling!

[Riverwind]

you are now formally announcing that you feel the AGU was complicit

I am saying they are no longer entitled to the presumption of innocence.

[Shady]

Which data...

This data...

University of East Anglia's influential Climatic Research Unit, CRU has been forced to admit that it dumped "the original raw" climate data used to bolster the case for human-caused global warming, while retaining only the "value-added" - read: massaged - data.

In short, the CRU dumped the scientific data, but archived information that supports its conclusions. "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years," wrote Times environment editor Jonathan Leake.

Link

[waldo]

The problem is how to design the process of paper publication to ensure that dissenting views are adequately considered.

One shouldn't buy into the denier claims that they aren't having their dissenting views considered - published. Many... many... so-called papers from skeptics get published. And then they enter the arena of peer-response and are held up to the community of legitimate scientists you have the mettle to actually comment or, in turn, offer challenge with separate paper submissions. That's the way the system is designed - it works. Riverwinds own whine about Pielke Sr. is testament to this... we've already discussed this... Pielke was miffed that his offered comment in regards an existing published paper was getting no response from the community. So... he interprets a conspiracy at play... without any foundation to support it. But hey now... Pielke did exactly what the system allows - was designed for. Pielke, together with others (in co-authorship) extended beyond his ignored comment and went forward and actually published a related paper. The paper was published... and it stood forward for all to recognize and/or challenge.

[Shady]

And then they enter the arena of peer-response and are held up to the community of legitimate scientists

The so-called community of legitmate scientists have been exposed as bullying, bias, scale-tippers. The process is rigged.

[waldo]

I don't think that dissenting views should be referred to as "skeptics." If anything, I'd call the scientists ignoring their own data, that doesn't reflect their global warming view as skeptics. Skeptics of their very data that doesn't reflect their beliefs.

Which data... which data not reflective of global warming... which data is being ignored?

You earlier trotted out a few links, didn't actually bother to offer comment about them, and then held them up (against wyly, I believe) with inferences of "lying"... a word, an inference that had rarely been offered previously by anyone (other than the unsupported (and easily refuted) lie claims made by Riverwind towards RC). If it's pertinent and helpful... make sure to advise which data in the context of these hacked emails... or in general, if not related.

This data...

University of East Anglia's influential Climatic Research Unit, CRU has been forced to admit that it dumped "the original raw" climate data used to bolster the case for human-caused global warming, while retaining only the "value-added" - read: massaged - data.

In short, the CRU dumped the scientific data, but archived information that supports its conclusions. "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years," wrote Times environment editor Jonathan Leake.

Link

Wait... I just noticed your new signature... here, chew on this: ... I can't play much longer Shady... real work awaits... must save the world, ya know!