ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Riverwind]

This news item is particularily appropriate given the recent revelations from UEA.

India challenges Western data linking climate change, Himalayan melt

Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh released a report last week that says there is no conclusive evidence that climate change has caused the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. The report says that not all of the glaciers are receding at alarming rates and that a few are even advancing.

The report, an analysis of data from the past four decades, is part of India's efforts to produce a body of indigenous research assessments on the subject.

"So far, we have been depending on research conducted by the West on what is happening to our glaciers and environment," he said after releasing the report, which was prepared by a former scientist with the Geological Survey of India and included a disclaimer that it did not necessarily reflect the government's view.

...

Ramesh has said that much of the information derived from Western sources is "biased." He announced that India would set up 15 new weather stations to study long-term temperature data and would work with the Indian Space Research Organization for satellite mapping of glaciers.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Thanks for linking this portal to all the details....fascinating stuff. It appears that at least in the case of over reaching with tree ring correlations, there is a mad scramble to de-couple or explain the inconsistencies for 20th century data and the beginning of the last millennium's "dendrochronology".

Better still would be the delicious irony of such tree ring data exposing the hypesters for what some (but not all) may be, as others seem genuinely interested in getting at the "true" data without any such corruptions.

[madmax]

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.

Drifts off topic... sees a funny.... Freudian slip above.

[waldo]

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;

Much ado (within the denial world)… about nothing. As if it needed any reinforcement, the phrasing you use in your examples shows your own purposeful manipulation at work. Assuming some of the hacked emails haven’t themselves been manipulated (verification is underway), links to them are readily available… including, of course, the more “contentious” ones you’ve chosen to highlight.

A few comments… since you haven’t provided links to the actual emails you’re referencing in your summary, I’ll assume which ones you’re referring to… certainly, I expect you’ll correct/update as appropriate:

- re: “

Obstructing FOI requests by deleting data

”: relates to a single comment from one individual relative to the deletion of personal email associated to correspondence with one individual. By referring to email as “data” you (purposely) falsely imply scientific/measurement data. Without full legal interpretation, the hacked email comment is questionable on its own; however, in some jurisdictions, personal email is not subject to FOI… alternatively, in others, personal email (and associated image backups) are. I expect Jones may be called to comment further...

- re: “

Getting editors at peer reviewed journals fired for accepting sceptical papers

”: you can purposely pluralize but this relates to one specific journal and one specific editor. The journal is/was considered “biased” given a practice of publishing questionable papers. The hacked email in question speaks to bringing forward concerns about the publishing of questionable papers through the appropriate formal AGU channels. That’s it.

- re: “

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

”: From the hacked email/references that I’ve read, this would reflect on presentation of the data – not data manipulation… in regards the divergence issue within dendrochronology, in particular one proxy and divergence from temperature records after 1960. The study authors advise not using the data (after 1960) – that further investigation is required. The issue is well known so your “hide” reference is one of “hiding in plain sight”. Of course, you’ll also ignore the confirmation from the many other avenues… other than tree-ring proxies

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.

Your personal biased summation is... your personal biased summation.

... 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.

Many so-called sceptical papers are being published… you’ve offered several examples over past MLW threads. You’ve attempted to give them legitimacy by highlighting their peer-reviewed status. We’ve also had discussion concerning the deficiencies within peer-review and the significant distinction between peer-review and peer-response. The real problem you have is that none (any/few?) of the so-called sceptical papers can stand the real scrutiny that comes from peer-response. On your second point can you link to the specific hacked email you’re referring to when you speak to “deliberately deleting (analysis level) data”.

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.

At least you got one thing right…

Following your readiness to provide blog comment... a/the alternative take on the hacked emails:

[Riverwind]

relates to a single comment from one individual relative to the deletion of personal email associated to correspondence with one individual.

That is like saying it was only evidence that he held up a single bank he held up on a single day. That is no big deal. There are many emails that make the intent very clear: a willingness to delete information that was subject to a FOI request.

As for deleting data:

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt

The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there

is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than

send to anyone.

In any case, their desperate desire to prevent critics from accessing data via FOI is evidence that they are not honest brokers who are only interested in facts and there scientific opinions can't be trusted. Ultimately, this is the the real issue. Can we trust these people to do good science? The answer will be no for any objective reader of these emails.

The journal is/was considered “biased” given a practice of publishing questionable papers. The hacked email in question speaks to bringing forward concerns about the publishing of questionable papers through the appropriate formal AGU channels. That’s it.

The tone of the emails is clear. Anyone with who is suspected to be a 'sceptic' is presumed to be biased and therefore must be pushed out. Trying to pretend it was a 'legitimate' protest is nonsense. BTW Climate Audit documented this issue at the time. The so called biased editor only insisted on following the journal policies on comments. After he was ousted his replacement ignored the journals own policies in order to undermine the MM paper.

Here is another email that makes it clear that they acitively sought to undermine the peer review process:

PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame—he encourages the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about -- it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter—50+ people.Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work—must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.

It is mystery why anyone can claim that such actions are acceptable in a process that is supposed to be about science.

From the hacked email/references that I’ve read, this would reflect on presentation of the data – not data manipulation… in regards the divergence issue within dendrochronology, in particular one proxy and divergence from temperature records after 1960.

Leaving information out that would change the interpretation of a result is deception. You know it.

Many so-called sceptical papers are being published… you’ve offered several examples over past MLW threads.

Sure. But many sceptic papers are rejected out of hand. There are numerous scientists with long publishing track records who have suspected bias. We now have evidence for the reason why: the climate establishment threatens journals that dare to publish sceptical papers.

That said, I have made some reference to peer reviewed sceptical papers because I was pandering to your 'if it not in the peer reviewed literature then it can't be true' garbage. It has been clear to me for some time that the peer review process in climate science is biased.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

That is like saying it was only evidence that he held up a single bank he held up on a single day. That is no big deal. The intent is clear: a conspiracy to delete information that was subject to a FOI request.

Yours is a most silly analogy. My comment emphasis was in regards to your, once again, improper pluralization (re: requests) and to add context - which you didn't. Again, as I stated, there is a reference to deleting personal email correspondence from the one individual... personal email, not data. As I also stated, I expect Jones may be asked to comment further (assuming the hacked email is legitimate).

As for your most recent "deleting data" link, there is no conspiracy evident in that linked hacked email thread and the only reference to deleting anything is a "I think" phrase relative to a conditional being met. You don't know the timing involved relative to the email/conditional... relative to that timing you don't know if the condition was met... and you don't know if the "I think" progressed to action... but you're most eager to label conspiracy and deletion of data based on an "I think" within the hacked email. Of course, lost in all this is the context and sensitivities given what happened to that data improperly accessed from the FTP site coupled with the repeated pattern of actions/measures taken by McIntyre/McKitrick. It's all rather dated between the date of the hacked email and the actual FOIP processing dates... and moot anyway since the FOIP request was rejected principally on the basis of confidentiality agreements - but, certainly, your boy can still pursue a dead horse (hockey stick) if he really wants to.

In any case, their desperate desire to prevent critics from accessing data via FOI is evidence that they are not honest brokers who are only interested in facts and there scientific opinions can't be trusted. Ultimately, this is the the real issue. Can we trust these people to do good science? The answer will be no for any objective reader of these emails.

And where is your objectivity when you cast a wide inclusive net based on select individuals email correspondence... and where is your objectivity when you reject, flatly, the scientific evidence for AGW? In that regard, it really would be insightful to recognize your personal measure of, as you state, "good science" and "trustworthiness". In any case, you most certainly follow in the fine path of, as RC stated, using, "instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases, pulled out of context".

The tone of the emails is clear. Anyone with who is suspected to be a 'sceptic' is presumed to be biased and therefore must be pushed out. Trying to pretend it was a 'legitimate' protest is nonsense. BTW Climate Audit documented this issue at the time. The so called biased editor only insisted on following the journal policies on comments. After he was ousted his replacement ignored the journals own policies in order to undermine the MM paper.

Email tone? You're serious? In any case, the hacked email I read was in regards the assorted questionable papers that shouldn't have been published in the Climate Research journal - are you prepared to stand for those papers... certainly, we could have some fun with that. I've not seen the/a hacked email that brings the MM paper into question/dispute, relative to the Climate Research journal (link?).

Leaving information out that would change the interpretation of a result is deception. You know it.

Nonsense. Again, "hiding in plain sight" - the single proxy issue is well known and attributed to divergence... the authors most certainly didn't hide anything and they, themselves, highlighted the post-1960 data concern. That data was not included in the presentation, with full caveats outlined... and understood. Yours is the deception at play - you know it.

But many sceptic papers are rejected out of hand. There are numerous scientists with long publishing track records who have suspected bias. We now have evidence for the reason why: the climate establishment threatens journals that dare to publish sceptical papers.

That said, I have made some reference to peer reviewed sceptical papers because I was pandering to your 'if it not in the peer reviewed literature then it can't be true' garbage. It has been clear to me for some time that the peer review process in climate science is biased.

Nonsense - that didn't come from me... if anything, I was the one who highlighted the fallibility of peer-review and IIRC asking you pointedly if you thought peer-review was infallible. I also brought forward the significant peer-response aspect of the overall process. You've most certainly attempted to use the "peer-review" label in posturing for skeptic papers you've linked to... as you say, you know it.

You'll need to provide a better more complete foundation to your claim... what specific threats can you substantiate, what so-called skeptical papers, rejected out of hand, are you referring to? With such a significant claim, I would expect you could provide the official rejection notice/results inclusive of referee/reviewers comments that clearly show the bias towards and illegitimacy of respective rejections.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Perhaps just more politicing going on than first thought....?

[Riverwind]

As I also stated, I expect Jones may be asked to comment further (assuming the hacked email is legitimate).

Additional FOI requests have already been submitted. We will get confirmation of them soon enough.

As for your most recent "deleting data" link, there is no conspiracy evident in that linked hacked email thread and the only reference to deleting anything is a "I think" phrase relative to a conditional being met.

A FOI request by ClimateAudit for the CRU station data was later refused because the 'data had been deleted'. It will take a lot more disclosure on the part of alarmists to establish that there is no connection.

And where is your objectivity when you cast a wide inclusive net based on select individuals email correspondence.

These individuals represent the major players in the climate science community and they made it clear they would work to discredit anyone who expressed a sceptical view. You are fooling yourself if you think that the views expressed there are not widely held or that they did not have a significant influence on what science was annointed as 'good' science.

Nonsense. Again, "hiding in plain sight" - the single proxy issue is well known and attributed to divergence... the authors most certainly didn't hide anything

RTOFL. You are kidding right? The divergence issue basically shows their proxy reconstructions are bogus because trees do not measure temperature and they needed to hide it. The intent was to deceive the large number of people that would never look at the original literature or understand the implications of some dry footnote.

You'll need to provide a better more complete foundation to your claim... what specific threats can you substantiate, what so-called skeptical papers, rejected out of hand, are you referring to? With such a significant claim, I would expect you could provide the official rejection notice/results inclusive of referee/reviewers comments that clearly show the bias towards and illegitimacy of respective rejections.

You are really desperate. We have emails showing a concerted effort to keep skeptic papers out of the peer reviewed literature and you refuse to accept that it has likely happened without being provided even more evidence (which you would likely ignore too). Edited November 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

You are really desperate. We have emails showing a concerted effort to keep skeptic papers out of the peer reviewed literature and you refuse to accept that it has likely happened without being provided even more evidence (which you would likely ignore too).

No we do not. This really has gone on to far. I tell you what, please send all your mail folders to me, and see what I can cook up out of it.

But I expect nothing less than pure lies and hypocrisy from the pseudo-skeptics, not to mention now out-and-out theft. You really are a morally depraved lot.

[Keepitsimple]

No we do not. This really has gone on to far. I tell you what, please send all your mail folders to me, and see what I can cook up out of it.

But I expect nothing less than pure lies and hypocrisy from the pseudo-skeptics, not to mention now out-and-out theft. You really are a morally depraved lot.

True Believers - they look, but they do not see; they hear, but they do not listen. All we ask is that you consider that maybe - just maybe.....humans are NOT the driving force behind Climate Change. While you're at it, you might want to consider that maybe, just maybe.....some of these scientists might have strayed just a bit outside of what we might call traditional science (putting it kindly). Is that really too much to ask.......or do you really believe that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever - humans are the major driver behind Climate Change and there is simply no room at all for debate?

Edited November 22, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Riverwind]

No we do not. This really has gone on to far. I tell you what, please send all your mail folders to me, and see what I can cook up out of it.

Ah yes. The 'anybody would look bad if you looked at their e-mail' defense. That can excuse the cheering at the death of a sceptic or the various insults and slurs. It cannot excuse actions taken to evade the law or undermine processes that are supposed to protect the integrity of science.

But I expect nothing less than pure lies and hypocrisy from the pseudo-skeptics, not to mention now out-and-out theft. You really are a morally depraved lot.

That is rich. This is not a courtroom. Evidence is not ignored simply because how it was acquired. In any case, this information came likely from an anonymous whistle-blower - not a hacker. SteveMc explains here how the last email was dated the day before his FOI request was rejected by the university. The most plausible explanation is the material was prepared in order to respond to the FOI. When the FOI was rejected an insider who felt that his/her colleagues were breaking the law released it on the Internet. Of course, you probably think that whistle-blowers who put their jobs on the line to expose nefarious dealings are 'morally depraved'. Edited November 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[dlkenny]

Have you ever seen the documentary by the BBC called the Great Global Warming Swindle? There are a number of scientists and professors, some of which were disbanded by the IPCC for being skeptical who give not only a skeptical analysis of the science but hard data to back up their skepticism. Professor John Christy who was a lead author of the IPCC report was kicked out of the IPCC for suggesting that the data didn't back up the claims being made. Some other notables that appear are Professor Tim Ball of the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Ian Clark from the University of Ottawa, and Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT. Here's the link, it's a 9 part video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs

[Keepitsimple]

Have you ever seen the documentary by the BBC called the Great Global Warming Swindle? There are a number of scientists and professors, some of which were disbanded by the IPCC for being skeptical who give not only a skeptical analysis of the science but hard data to back up their skepticism. Professor John Christy who was a lead author of the IPCC report was kicked out of the IPCC for suggesting that the data didn't back up the claims being made. Some other notables that appear are Professor Tim Ball of the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Ian Clark from the University of Ottawa, and Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT. Here's the link, it's a 9 part video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs

It's been around for awhile. All of these people have been accused by the Alarmists of being in the pocket of "Big Oil". Perhaps now, people will start to listen. There's no harm in posting it again....it's been falling on deaf ears until now.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Smallc]

Have you ever seen the documentary by the BBC called the Great Global Warming Swindle?

It's not by the BBC. I believe the place that did it is called Channel 4.

[Pliny]

Was Al Gore wrong? The debate is not over?

As far as I can tell no one likes to see their life's work made worthless. Someone that spends all his time attempting to prove a theory of global warming would like to come up with some corroborating data. Now we just have to find who would be the source of funds wishing to see if the theory had any validity. And we find that government does most of the funding along with some corporate interests touting the latest in "green" technology.

It would be nice to see your life's work save the planet. You become a hero, a very important person and create a legacy for yourself. Is this what corrupts science?

Well, not entirely because failing to prove one's theories would not be corrupting it would just be disappointing work. It perhaps takes the desire to make one's work seem worthwhile PLUS a vested interest to ensure the correct results are found that corrupts it. The investor invests for a reason and doesn't like to see his investment end up in a waste can. Why do Governments invest in this research? Obviously, since they are not interested in profit, it is to protect the planet so we all don't face cataclysmic changes in our environment. They are so thoughtful and sagacious.

If what we get out of AGW research is just taking better care of the planet then there is no harm done really. But if we get political policy that insists upon redistributing the wealth of nations we will see some major shifts in the standards of living achieved in first world nations with correlating corruption, graft and poverty being institutionalized in "developing" third world nations.

There is really no evil in the world. There is only a conflict of self-interests.

But really where do the theories originate? Do they originate in science or is someone with a concern just willing to fund science to determine the theory valid? And for what reason would they like to know? Would it be to save civilization? Would they be concerned about their stake in the world?

A great deal is at stake. An unshakable belief in the scientific method would not tolerate fallibility. The scientific world is built upon that foundation. There is no room for the human element of self-interest, or selfish-interest, and I speak not only of individuals but established authority and the power of the heirarchy. There is no fallible human element in science. Scientists peer review their work but it seems odd that we may find it unacceptable that the police should investigate themselves but science could solely determine it's own validity void of corrupting human frailties by a process only they have a say in.

Well, it's another glorious day! Gotta go!

[wyly]

Have you ever seen the documentary by the BBC called the Great Global Warming Swindle? There are a number of scientists and professors, some of which were disbanded by the IPCC for being skeptical who give not only a skeptical analysis of the science but hard data to back up their skepticism. Professor John Christy who was a lead author of the IPCC report was kicked out of the IPCC for suggesting that the data didn't back up the claims being made. Some other notables that appear are Professor Tim Ball of the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Ian Clark from the University of Ottawa, and Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT. Here's the link, it's a 9 part video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs

Great Warming Swindle has been completely trashed, some of the scientists involved claimed their work was misrepresented and even data fraudulently tampered with...it was worthless crap...

[Riverwind]

Great Warming Swindle has been completely trashed, some of the scientists involved claimed their work was misrepresented and even data fraudulently tampered with...it was worthless crap.

There were a few issues but it certainly a more accurate representation of the science than "inconvenient truth".

[Shady]

Can we sue Al Gore, David Suzuki and other environmentalist groups for loss of wages due to their economy retarding policies? To start, the NDP should be disband.

[wyly]

There were a few issues but it certainly a more accurate representation of the science than "inconvenient truth".

issues?..deliberate tampering with scientific data, insinuating claims for scientists they did not make...FRAUD!!!

[Argus]

As for your most recent "deleting data" link, there is no conspiracy evident in that linked hacked email thread and the only reference to deleting anything is a "I think" phrase relative to a conditional being met. You don't know the timing involved relative to the email/conditional... relative to that timing you don't know if the condition was met... and you don't know if the "I think" progressed to action... but you're most eager to label conspiracy and deletion of data based on an "I think" within the hacked

Wow. Congratulations on sinking your credibility on this issue to even lower levels.

And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is

trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.

We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that

This guy is so clearly talking about hiding and deleting evidence only the crassest of unthinking acolytes would dismiss it so blithely.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

issues?..deliberate tampering with scientific data, insinuating claims for scientists they did not make...FRAUD!!!

Didn't Al Gore say it was perfectly fine to misrepresent data to make your case?

[Riverwind]

issues?..deliberate tampering with scientific data, insinuating claims for scientists they did not make.

They screwed up a graphic by filling in gaps in the data. They did not misrepresent any scientist's position - they only upset one scientist because teh scientist did not realize he was appearing in a skeptical documentary (and given the recent revelations he probably objected because he was afraid of being ostracized by the boys on the "team"). Most importantly, the makers corrected all errors in the DVD release - a vast improvement over Gore who still refuses to even admit IT had numerous errors and misrepresentations.

Perhaps the most important message from the e-mails is they demonstrate the culture of thuggery within the climate science community which stifled debate and prevented scientists from saying what they really thought.

[Argus]

But I expect nothing less than pure lies and hypocrisy from the pseudo-skeptics, not to mention now out-and-out theft. You really are a morally depraved lot.

One can see here the kind of creature who worships at the alter of climatism today, in their mindless zeal and anger at those heratics who refuse to bend knee and bow their heads to their climate gods, and clearly desire punishment and vengeance be visited upon them. Some of these fanatics have even suggested climate change deniers be prosecuted. They're the sort of folks who used to join religious cults in the 80s. Now climate change has become their cult.

[wyly]

They screwed up a graphic by filling in gaps in the data. They did not misrepresent any scientist's position - they only upset one scientist because teh scientist did not realize he was appearing in a skeptical documentary (and given the recent revelations he probably objected because he was afraid of being ostracized by the boys on the "team"). Most importantly, the makers corrected all errors in the DVD release -

FRAUD!!!no excusing it, any scientist that deliberately/knowingly partakes in fraud has his/her credibility forever ruined, the producers deliberately tampered with the evidence...only a denier would support this kind(lack) of evidence...

a vast improvement over Gore who still refuses to even admit IT had numerous errors and misrepresentations.

where was Al Gore's video ever presented by the scientific community as evidence of CC or he as an expert on CC???

Perhaps the most important message from the e-mails is they demonstrate the culture of thuggery within the climate science community which stifled debate and prevented scientists from saying what they really thought.

scientist have regularly debated each other for centuries that's how science progresses, oppose the consensus then publish and accept peer review, unsupported opinions don't cut it...those who supported African evolution of man were ridiculed and debated for decades but they stuck by their opinions until they won the day, good science always wins...

[Keepitsimple]

issues?..deliberate tampering with scientific data, insinuating claims for scientists they did not make...FRAUD!!!

Wyly.....that's encouraging news that you think that way about all the IPCC "Scientists" and their emails.......you're finally getting the message.