H1N1 and Climate Change

[Michael Hardner]

That is the problem we have in climate science. The wrong doers were exposed by citizens and now all of the 'climate science brass' are lining up to help the guilty whitewash events. My position is I am not going to accept a whitewash and until I see serious changes in the scientific institutions that have failed us I will suspect all results that cannot be independently replicited by people who are not part of the old boys network.

That's not exactly accurate. The leaked emails have prompted an investigation - nobody has been accused of doing wrong yet. You're asking for changes even though a wrong hasn't been established, on the basis of the individuals involved nor in the wider scientific community.

[Michael Hardner]

You speak for many of us.....skeptics - not deniers. It's unfortunate that Waldo has been so utterly duped by the CC establishment.

I think that Waldo, like me and many others are simply tired of the loud volume of baseless complaints that come from the paranoid American far right. They see conspiracy in everything, and never recant or admit they're wrong. This is akin to the pain similar leftist types cause to right-of-centres on this board.

Paranoid and baseless politics of both stripes is the real enemy, here, and the solution is for more reasonable types to start calling on their own team on it. The Republicans in the US are finally starting to call out the crazies, as they see that they're becoming impossible to control and are a political cancer.

Debra Medina is one of the so called "crypto-libertarians" who is running for governor of Texas on a platform of effective secession from Texas, if you can believe it. She will not support NAFTA, she will usurp federal law. Running for the Republicans, of all things.

Ft. Worth Star-Telegram "Debra Medina makes GOP debate more interesting - and possibly crazier"

they threaten to create yet another losing third party out of the Tea Party movement. Thus, I must convince these folks that their agenda is both wrong and wrongheaded

[Keepitsimple]

That's not exactly accurate. The leaked emails have prompted an investigation - nobody has been accused of doing wrong yet. You're asking for changes even though a wrong hasn't been established, on the basis of the individuals involved nor in the wider scientific community.

Change IS required. There have been plenty of accusations of wrong doing and the emails speak for themselves.....at a minimum, they constitute a departure from the traditional scientific approach of proving and disproving - not being afraid of having your theories challenged. More likely, it seems obvious that there has been manipulation, distortion and in some cases - outright fabrication disguised as "adjustments". In fact, this cadre of IPCC gateway scientists demonstrated a paranoia towards people who would challenge their work. But the emails are only a public (now) confirmation of much that was known but not reported. We simply can no longer stand idly by and take the IPCC position as gospel. It must be continually challenged - as all science must be. But the sad fact is, we can also no longer completely trust the accuracy and completeness of their conclusions.

[Keepitsimple]

More of the temperature stations (thermometers) that I was asking Riverwing about:

NASA AND NOAA CAUGHT IN CLIMATE DATA MANIPULATION;

NEW REVELATIONS HEADLINED ON KUSI-TV CLIMATE SPECIAL

Climate researchers have discovered that NASA and NOAA scientists improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9pm. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6pm EST on January 14th at www.kusi.com.

Climategate comes to the United States in this new report by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo. They discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D’Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and cherry-picking the location of weather observation stations. The report is available online here.

The number of actual weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures calculations was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 now. “That leaves much of the world unaccounted for. The greatest losses were in areas where, NOAA and the other data centers claim the warming was the greatest like Siberia and Canada," according to D'Aleo, who adds "In these regions, NOAA 'estimates' temperatures based on stations that may be 700 miles away.

E.Michael Smith notes "When doing a benchmark test of the program, I found patterns in the input data from NCDC that looked like dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold locations." Smith says after awhile, it became clear this was not a random strange pattern he was finding, but a well designed and orchestrated manipulation process. "The more I looked, the more I found patterns of deletion that could not be accidental. Thermometers moved from cold mountains to warm beaches; from Siberian Arctic to more southerly locations, and from pristine rural locations to jet airport tarmacs. The last remaining Arctic thermometer in Canada is in a place called 'The Garden Spot of the Arctic,’ always moving away from the cold and toward the heat. I could not believe it was so blatant and it clearly looked like it was in support of an agenda,” Smith says.

This problem is only the tip of the iceberg with NCDC data. “For one thing, it is clear that comparing data from previous years, when the final figure was produced by averaging a large number of temperatures, with those of later years, produced from a small temperature sampling with lots of guesswork, is like comparing apples and oranges,” says Smith. “When the differences between the warmest year in history and the tenth warmest year is less than three quarters of a degree, it becomes silly to rely on such comparisons,” added D’Aleo who asserts that the data manipulation is “scientific travesty” that was committed by activist scientists to advance the global warming agenda.

Smith and D'Aleo are both interviewed as part of a report on this study on the television special, "Global Warming: The Other Side" seen at 9 PM on January 14th on KUSI-TV, channel 9/51, San Diego, California. That program can now be viewed via computer at the website http://www.KUSI.com..

[eyeball]

I really don't care if 99% of RCMP officiers are upstanding individuals - it is the system that is supposed to catch the wrong doers which is broken and that means none of them can be trusted.

That is the problem we have in climate science. The wrong doers were exposed by citizens and now all of the 'climate science brass' are lining up to help the guilty whitewash events. My position is I am not going to accept a whitewash and until I see serious changes in the scientific institutions that have failed us I will suspect all results that cannot be independently replicited by people who are not part of the old boys network.

We now know of at least two sciences/institutions, which wield a considerable amount of influence on some of our most important policies, that cannot be trusted. How many more are likewise untrustworthy? DFO for starters certainly comes to my mind.

So what about the wrong doers in economics and their whitewashing of events that have lead us to our present unsustainable state? Why should we take anything the old boy network in that science has to say seriously?

[waldo]

There is enough evidence out the to demonstrate that these people are not worthy of trust. That is the opinion of many people and if these so called scientists wish to change that the opinion they are going have to stop acting like arrogant prima donnas that have something to hide. Re-doing the datasets using algorithms that can be replicated by people who are not part of the old boys club is a good start.

and yet... somehow... these guys "miraculously" have managed to replicate the NASA GISS dataset (GISTEMP). They have no affiliation with anyone... they've received no funding and are accountable to no one. Their work is completely open source and available to everyone.

It is our opinion that the GISTEMP code performs substantially as documented in Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372., the GISTEMP documentation, and other papers describing updates to the procedure.

about that casting of your world-wide conspiracy net...

[waldo]

Yada yada yada. I guess in your world scientists can't possibly be vain humans who put career and funding ahead of the truth and the public interest. If they are not acting the way the should then it must be a "conspiracy". It is nonsense and you know it.

buddy, it's your expressed conspiracy - one you've explicitly painted through your relatively recent MLW posting history. Your statements are there for all to read... you've cast a very wide net, indeed. If you want a redo, if only to narrow the reach of your net, please help yourself. For now, would you like a recant on your expressed world-wide conspiracy?

My position is I am not going to accept a whitewash and until I see serious changes in the scientific institutions that have failed us I will suspect all results that cannot be independently replicited by people who are not part of the old boys network.

that's been your position long before Hackergate

[waldo]

That's not exactly accurate. The leaked emails have prompted an investigation - nobody has been accused of doing wrong yet. You're asking for changes even though a wrong hasn't been established, on the basis of the individuals involved nor in the wider scientific community.

Michael, don't let facts get in the way...

[Riverwind]

That's not exactly accurate. The leaked emails have prompted an investigation - nobody has been accused of doing wrong yet. You're asking for changes even though a wrong hasn't been established, on the basis of the individuals involved nor in the wider scientific community.

They are guilty of interfering in the peer review process in order to suppress views they don't like. They are guilty of unreasonably withholding data and methods in order to prevent critics from replicating their work. They are guilty of putting their desire for a politically convenient message ahead of scientific accuracy. Whether the technically violated the terms of the FOI laws is not the most important issue. The biggest problem is their actions demonstrate that their scientific judgement cannot be trusted and our scientific institutions were not able to root out this intellectual corruption on their own.

[waldo]

I think that Waldo, like me and many others are simply tired of the loud volume of baseless complaints that come from the paranoid American far right. They see conspiracy in everything, and never recant or admit they're wrong. This is akin to the pain similar leftist types cause to right-of-centres on this board.

Paranoid and baseless politics of both stripes is the real enemy, here, and the solution is for more reasonable types to start calling on their own team on it. The Republicans in the US are finally starting to call out the crazies, as they see that they're becoming impossible to control and are a political cancer.

certainly, I'll agree with an element of that. We see a lot of that loud volume you speak to, a lot of noise generated from the skeptic/denier side as they scurry about parroting from their favoured blogs. And, of course, we've had the conspiracy laid forth before us... with the absolute naming of "persons/organizations/institutions/journals/etc./etc./etc."

[Riverwind]

these guys "miraculously" have managed to replicate the NASA GISS dataset (GISTEMP)

Big deal. They managed to write a different program that takes the same inputs, applies the same algorithms and produces the same results. Other people have done that too. The issue is at hand is whether choice of input data and algorithms introduce biases that affect the results.

This guy was also able to get the GISTemp to run and he has a much less sanguine opinion on its worth:

I must admit, it has turned out to be more (and worse) than I expected when I started this journey. But a job once started must be carried to a conclusion…

As to motive and goal of the GIStemp designers. On the one hand, I cherish Hanlons Razor and try desperately to find a way to attribute this mess to stupidity rather than malice. For a long time I could make it fit. It just took a lot of stupidity.

Lately, and most especially with the world wide thermometer deletions, seeming timed in just such a way as to continue a warming trend in the product even in the face of a cooling reality, peaking just as Copenhagen looms… I find the quantity of stupidity needed to do the deed and the exquisite timing of the arrival of that stupidity, first in the code, then in the thermometer counts after the code was released and could no longer be tuned; I find it begins to approach infinity…

...

And finally, the places in the code that are parameterized and show clear tuning (places where a knob can be turned and the result observed, that now have the knob pegged at a position that shows more warming…) those places are footprints in the snow showing what the designers were thinking and doing.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

They are guilty of interfering in the peer review process in order to suppress views they don't like. They are guilty of unreasonably withholding data and methods in order to prevent critics from replicating their work. They are guilty of putting their desire for a politically convenient message ahead of scientific accuracy. Whether the technically violated the terms of the FOI laws is not the most important issue. The biggest problem is their actions demonstrate that their scientific judgement cannot be trusted and our scientific institutions were not able to root out this intellectual corruption on their own.

I will wait for the investigation to see what they have to say for themselves.

[Riverwind]

I will wait for the investigation to see what they have to say for themselves.

To be effective, any investigation much be done in a public forum and must include effective cross examination. The investigations launched so far look like whitewashes because they will give no one the opportunity to cross examine the claims. i.e. the people involved will be allowed to spin whatever tales they want without being forced to answer any tough questions or to address the concerns of the sceptics who have been on the receiving end of their scientific malfeasance.

What you seem to missing here is the problem is not what individual scientists have done - the problem is the scientific institutions that appear to be incapable of rooting out intellectual corruption on their own. Restoring faith in the scientific institutions is going to take a lot more than a secret inquiry set up by the institutions who are suspect.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

What you seem to missing here is the problem is not what individual scientists have done - the problem is the scientific institutions that appear to be incapable of rooting out intellectual corruption on their own. Restoring faith in the scientific institutions is going to take a lot more than a secret inquiry set up by the institutions who are suspect.

Don't we need to determine if there were individual misdeeds first ? I don't see any option than to wait for the investigation.

[Riverwind]

Don't we need to determine if there were individual misdeeds first?

We are dealing with breaches of ethics - not law. There is no rule book or other document that must be consulted to determine whether they crossed the line. There are no technicalities or context that will excuse the individuals involved for the acts which are well documented online. It all comes down to what standard for professional conduct and ethical behavoir that we expect from scientists doing work that is used to set government policies.

As far as I am concerned they have not met the standard that I expect. But it does appear that the climate science community does not share my standards of ethical behavoir and that tells me that I can only expect more of such behavoir in the future from them. The only difference is they will get better at hiding their shenaigans from the public.

That said it is possible that the investigations will live up to my standards and will make appropriate findings. However, I am not optimistic. For example, the Penn State investigation will be conducted entirely in private and no third party observers will be allowed to witness the proceedings. This is pretty clear sign of a desire for a whitewash.

I think it is worth contrasting it with the YVR incident. In that case, the RCMP officers have very specific rules they needed to follow when using force and we needed an investigation to determine whether those rules were followed and whether the officers deserved any sort of punishment. However, we did not need any investigation to determine that RCMP failed to live up to our expectations of professional conduct. The video made it pretty clear that they were too quick to resort to the taser and if the individual officers did not break any rules then the rules needed to change.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Riverwind

[Guest TrueMetis]

They are guilty of interfering in the peer review process in order to suppress views they don't like.

Not proven.

They are guilty of unreasonably withholding data and methods in order to prevent critics from replicating their work.

Not proven.

They are guilty of putting their desire for a politically convenient message ahead of scientific accuracy.

Not proven.

I'm pretty sure I have read the emails you are refering to and they don't say anything like that.

Whether the technically violated the terms of the FOI laws is not the most important issue. The biggest problem is their actions demonstrate that their scientific judgement cannot be trusted and our scientific institutions were not able to root out this intellectual corruption on their own.

No they didn't you are just jumping to conclusions.

I will wait for the investigation and assume innocence until proven guilty.

[Riverwind]

Not proven.

This is not a criminal issue. There is no 'innocent until proven guilty'. We are dealing with ethical issues and on that point the emails are unambiguous evidence that they acted unethically and that their scientific judgment cannot be trusted. If these scientists want the public to trust their judgement then the onus is on them to prove that they acted ethically.

So tell me what you thought of the RCMP after seeing the YVR video? Did you suspend your sense of judgement and insist that you could not form an opinion based on the video evidence until the investigations completed? Would you have accepted the results of the inquiry if the the inquiry concluded that such actions were perfectly acceptable police practice?

Somehow I doubt you would. In the YVR case the only place where judgement needed to be suspended was on whether the individual RCMP officers followed proper procedures as defined at the time (i.e. calling for the officers to charged with murder was uncalled for). There was no need to wait when it comes to determining whether the incident represented a failure of policing and that changes were needed.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Riverwind

[Guest TrueMetis]

This is not a criminal issue. There is no 'innocent until proven guilty'. We are dealing with ethical issues and on that point the emails are unambiguous evidence that they acted unethically and that their scientific judgment cannot be trusted.

They are not even close to unambigous evidence.

[Riverwind]

They are not even close to unambigous evidence.

You obviously have not read the emails or simply don't understand the context behind them. I suggest you do more than read the talking points produced by the alarmists. There is a book out now which looks at the emails in detail a shows why they are not something to be ignored.

For me this comment best illustrates the fundementally unethical character of the scientists involved:

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep

them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

For me there is no debate. A scientist who thinks that they are entitled to suppress science that they disagree with is not ethical. Any scientist who refuses to acknowledge the obvious ethical violations in that statement deserves no respect.

You can find more background on that comment here.

Contrary to the spin of Prinn and others, it is a matter of fact that Trenberth and Jones kept Michaels and McKitrick (2004) out of the AR4 First Draft. (I searched and confirmed this.) As an IPCC peer reviewer, McKitrick and another reviewer (Vincent Grey) vigorously objected to the exclusion.

The only question the investigators should be asking why the scientists involved were allowed to get away with what they did for so long and what changes are necessary to prevent it from occurring in the future.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Riverwind

[Guest TrueMetis]

What is your point he thinks the paper is "garbage" and doesn't want it put into a journal. The Paper was published anyway. The First one also talks about a Good paper that he is trying to convince the author to be published. While the second email talks about a report about NCEP being wrong and a report coming out on it.

When it comes down to it I see nothing wrong here. Even the bit about keeping it out you can't be sure about because we don't know this guy for all we know he was joking, or just blowing off steam.

Edited January 17, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Riverwind]

What is your point he thinks the paper is "garbage" and doesn't want it put into a journal.

Did you even read the second link I gave?

1) Its not talking about a journal - the IPCC report which is supposed to cover all peer reviewed literature. He has no business trying to keep a paper out of the IPCC report simply because he does not like it.

2) He was not joking. The papers were kept out of the first draft of the IPCC report. There were only included after repeated protests by SteveMc and RossMc (read the link for more detail on Jones's malfeasance).

3) It does not make a difference whether the papers were included in the end - it is the fact that they even considered that to be an option which is problem.

When it comes down to it I see nothing wrong here.

That is your opinion. It is not mine and it is not the opinion of many others. I do not trust these scientists and see no reason to. I am not interested in excuse making or rationalizations. If the institutions conducting the investigations choose to whitewash the events and pretend that there is nothing wrong then I will take that as evidence that the scientific establishment is corrupt and cannot be trusted to provide reliable scientific advice. I hope it does not come to that because I believe the system can be fixed if there is a willingness to confront the obvious problems. Edited January 17, 2010 by Riverwind

[waldo]

There is enough evidence out the to demonstrate that these people are not worthy of trust. That is the opinion of many people and if these so called scientists wish to change that the opinion they are going have to stop acting like arrogant prima donnas that have something to hide. Re-doing the datasets using algorithms that can be replicated by people who are not part of the old boys club is a good start.

and yet... somehow... these guys "miraculously" have managed to replicate the NASA GISS dataset (GISTEMP). They have no affiliation with anyone... they've received no funding and are accountable to no one. Their work is completely open source and available to everyone.

It is our opinion that the GISTEMP code performs substantially as documented in Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372., the GISTEMP documentation, and other papers describing updates to the procedure.

about that casting of your world-wide conspiracy net...

Big deal. They managed to write a different program that takes the same inputs, applies the same algorithms and produces the same results. Other people have done that too. The issue is at hand is whether choice of input data and algorithms introduce biases that affect the results.

no - your intent was to continue to cast your global conspiracy aspersions... continuing to allege that all "things are being hidden"... your specific words were, "using algorithms that can be replicated". NASA has made everything behind GISTEMP and ModelE completely available and the guys I linked to (at clearclimatecode), while updating to Python and going open source, showed you wrong on all counts... they highlighted the full transparency from NASA, they emulated the algorithm - while realizing the same NASA GISTEMP result. Did I emphasize open source enough for you? That certainly allows your merry band of denying miscreants full opportunity to contribute positively... but that's certainly not their inclination - or intent... is it? OR... hey now... they could actually put all their bottled up denying energy toward actually producing their own processed dataset, their own algorithms (without your alleged biases)... and, of course, their own results to disprove the global temperature warming trend and publish it. I mean, what's the problem - what's stopping your denier crew from doing exactly that?

[Riverwind]

NASA has made everything behind GISTEMP and ModelE completely available and the guys I linked to (at clearclimatecode), while updating to Python and going open source, showed you wrong on all counts

Where did I say that NASA had not released its code? The NASA code has been available for a while thanks to the efforts of SteveMc and his blog but people have only recently been able to do any analysis with it.

The issue with GISTemp is the UHI adjustments are crap an only succeed in averaging the UHI across all cells instead of removing it. There is also the issue with the choice of stations which is not adequately explained. Bottom line: releasing code that shows the algorithms are crap does not give us any more reason to trust the dataset.

their own results to disprove the global temperature warming trend and publish it. I mean, what's the problem - what's stopping your denier crew from doing exactly that?

Because the climate scientist's old boys network would dismiss it just like they dismiss any other research that does not follow the AGW playbook. However, it is possible that fallout over climategate will make it harder for fixers to do that so I expect to see some efforts on that front but it will take some time.

Your problem is you think that these scientists deserve to be trusted. Why? Trust is earned - not demanded. What did they do to earn the trust that you demand? Where is your evidence that the system for assessing science within the field of climate science is objective and reliable? Don't bother pointing to other discplines were is it possible to verify theories with real world experiments. In those fields reality is always the final abitrator. When it comes down to climate science is nothing but opinion and any displine that is largely based on opinion is extremely subject to group think.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Riverwind

[waldo]

There is enough evidence out the to demonstrate that these people are not worthy of trust. That is the opinion of many people and if these so called scientists wish to change that the opinion they are going have to stop acting like arrogant prima donnas that have something to hide. Re-doing the datasets using algorithms that can be replicated by people who are not part of the old boys club is a good start.

whatever points you think you can make over hackergate and CRU data, per your typical standard all-inclusive approach, you extend to include NASA, NOAA, JAM, etc., in your fabricated whack-job global conspiracy.

The entire incident over the diurnal drift is one of the reasons why I think Christy and Spencer have a lot of credibility as scientists. In this case they missed something in their analysis and when someone pointed it out they accepted the criticism and fixed the data. IOW - they acted like scientists are supposed to act.

really... how courteous of you to extend that consideration to them over their actual documented data failings... particularly given what they attempted to use that data for in U.S. Congressional hearings. And yet, even though you can't point to, or haven't pointed to, any actual problems with the CRU data, you have difficulty extending that same courtesy, even though (as you pointed out), on their own volition they've started an initiative to redo their own HadCru dataset. I note you continue to avoid my pointing out the latest Christy acknowledged problem/issue with the UAH data - how equally convenient, for you.

I also note you aren't willing to offer up citation support for your cooling trend position... is there a problem?

About your stated cooling trend position - and your continued inability/want to support that stated position... there's a rather expected tit-for-tat now playing out concerning Christy/Spencer's UAH data - isn't there? Oh my! Your team is being accused of "Hiding the Incline"

I'm particularly taken with this blog account that highlights the antics Spencer has been using past/present... of course, all the 'to do' has finally brought forward Spencer's response where, of course, he denies any such intent - notwithstanding his shifting trend scales, without initially acknowledging it, or rationalizing it... allows a downplay of the temperature trend incline and an ability to play with the endpoints. Of course, his now stated rational is most interesting in that he claims he wanted to eliminate the so-called outlier 1998 year data, and feared he would be accused of "hiding the decline since 1998"... interesting that it took him until Dec 2009 to finally do so (by changing scale) - very interesting, indeed. Should I also mention that 'UAH predictions' show the month of Jan, 2010 will be the warmest on record!

In any case, I guess your team's Christy/Spencer won't be providing the support for your stated cooling trend - will they? Still waiting...

[waldo]

Where did I say that NASA had not released its code?

nice - if you don't want the failings of your global conspiracy net to be highlighted... don't continue to cast it so wide. Certainly, someone should take up the denier cause and presume to improve on GISTEMP... how's that going? Oh right, as you say below (I presume with a straight face), the "old boys network" is holding them back!

Because the climate scientist's old boys network would squash it just like the squashed any other research that does not follow the AGW playbook. However, it is possible that fallout over climategate will make it harder for fixers to do that so I expect to see some efforts on that front but it will take some time.

Your problem is you think that these scientists deserve to be trusted. Why? Trust is earned - not demanded. What did they do to earn the trust that you demand? Where is your evidence that the system for assessing science within the field of climate science is objective and reliable? Don't bother pointing to other discplines were is it possible to verify theories with real world experiments. In those fields reality is always the final abitrator.

you bleat on about peer-review interference... even though your trumped up nonsense over your stated Hackergate examples has been shown to have no foundation. You also continue to ignore the many stated references to the significant number of 'skeptic papers' that are published - oh my! In your world, just how are these skeptic papers being published... it just can't happen... bleat, bleat, bleat! Just so we're clear. You're saying that if... if... the most significant denier impact could be realized, that all the temperature trend data (surface, ocean, satellite, etc.) could be shown to be falsified... that actual global warming could be disputed... it would never get published. Never! Because, the "old boys network" wouldn't let it happen. Again, about that global conspiracy of yours