Frequent commenter Wakefield Tolbert has the latest on the thermonuclear mushroom cloud enveloping the research boys over at Hadley CRU. The first efforts to contain the radioactive fall-out have been advanced with the aid of the New York Times. As it is all good stuff, I have moved our discussion to a post all its own.
The science boys over at Hadley CRU basically explained to the journalists of the New York Times:
“We’re all assholes here, but we’re still right!”
To which the NYT was quick to concur:
“The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.”
Very helpful of the NYT to explain to us all that there is nothing to worry about, everything is just as it was before, the world is overheating and will explode in a giant ball of methane, and the time for thinking is over.
How is it then that they follow that sentence with this one:
“In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.
Yeah, right. To which I would ask, why is the human contribution to global warming so widely accepted if the scientists who most emphatically pronounced the time for discussion as over, privately discuss their gaps in understanding amongst themselves.
Gaps? What gaps? I was certain sure these didn’t exist. What's more, the same guy laments their limitations as being a travesty.
Curious to understand the concepts the science community was using to discuss global warming, I took it upon myself to look up the word travesty. First on the list: false representation.
“Dr. Trenberth said Friday that he was appalled at the release of the e-mail messages. But he added that he thought the revelations might backfire against climate skeptics. He said that he thought that the messages showed ‘the integrity of scientists.’" (?)(!)
And particularly his own integrity it would seem. Dr. Trenberth should be awarded an honorary degree in Integrity. Here is my tip to you. If the good doctor advises you to buy long, either sell or buy short, cause that's for damn sure what he's doing.
Probing further, in one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick”
"Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem"
Which is possible. The question is, is that the meaning Dr. Phil Jones employed when he wrote of using a “trick” employed by another scientist to “hide the decline” in temperatures.
The e-mails are great fun of course, and we are hardly surprised to learn these guys are a bunch of egocentric elitists. But it is the data that we are most concerned with. The theory is fine as far as it goes, but what is the predictive value? Theoretically, trace greenhouse gasses like CO2 may have some warming effect on the global climate, but what degree of influence would they have? Is it a weak forcing agent, or is it a negligible factor of no real influence? How has the data been handled? What opportunity was allowed for the information to be reviewed?
Based on the certainty of these theories, the plan is to take down the economy of the entire free world, transfer large amounts of wealth from the industrial nations to the thug dictators of the third world, all managed by our trusted friends down at the United Nations.
What's the word at Copenhagen? Act now and we can still save the planet! And in case you forgot, the time for discussion is over.
"Dr. Jones, writing in an e-mail message, declined to be interviewed."
Buy the way, pulling a trick has other meanings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Damn good analysis at that Nick. And you composed this in a relative flash at that. Impressive, and that's a rare thing I say these days, BTW.
ReplyDeleteI don't have the full monty on this, of course, but my sense tells me this is not good news for the movement per se, whatever outcome as translated to GOVERNMENT edicts in all this still is yet mixing up in the hopper to come out way.
Hope this has wings enough to take off and fly....
Interestingly, I posted the link and even offered my lack of confidence one way or another and a mea culpa on the same that this merely needs to be probed, and all hell broke loose from the peanut gallery that we need not delve into Glenn Beck's nutcase chalkboard talking points, etc, etc.
Hmmm.
Wakefield, the geek meisters (no offense Ilion) are taking it down to the code instruction, and found evidence of mucking the works
ReplyDeletePeople are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder.
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
Anthony’s commentary:
You can claim an email you wrote years ago isn’t accurate saying it was “taken out of context”, but a programmer making notes in the code does so that he/she can document what the code is actually doing at that stage, so that anyone who looks at it later can figure out why this function doesn’t plot past 1960. In this case, it is not allowing all of the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”, which implies some post processing routine.
Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.
Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.
The New York Times can reassure us all it wants that the world is melting. The fact of the matter is the climate record has not been cooperating with the computer model projections.
It’s a maddening world.
(By the way, over 1,500 hits on Anthony’s post at Watts Up With That about the Climate Research Unit computer record dump).
Oops.
ReplyDeleteI short changed Anthony.
1,500 comments on the CRU warp core breach.
180,000 hits to his site that day.
Chicks dig science.
Nick, I WOULD also be interested in what some of the geekoids have to say about this response from RealClimate:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Excerpts of note:
Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12) are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include discussions we’ve had with the CRU folk on topics related to the surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to ensure that posting were accurate.
Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking......
.......No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682).
Forgot the link to RealClimate's Emergency Response Team:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
I'm not expert, but since you've had an interesting take on all this, who knows what could accomplish in a tag team of this?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though."
ReplyDeleteWell, I can certainly see why the alarmists would want to shift attention away from what is revealed by the data and quickly move on to what for them is the more familiar ground of things which the data does not actually support. Old habits die hard. The fact that the e-mail stream contains no mention of George Soros or government payoffs is hardly the sanctification realclimate is claiming it to be.
“no admission that global warming is a hoax”
Well, no. Were you concerned one might be found there?
There is no George Soros involvement paying off the scientists promoting the AGW theory. Is that the standard we are holding ourselves to? If those existed the fraud perpetrated would have far exceeded Bernie Maddoff's investment scheme.
Does their absence mean everything must be okay then? Well, not quite.
What we have been saying is that the conclusions drawn may not be fully supported by the empiric (measurable) data, that the projections stem from computer models that are not predictive of the future and that have no record of reliability, that you have attempted to skew the debate to your favor by not allowing adequate examination of your methods and influencing the peer review process, and that you have essentially pushed an agenda driven ideology.
Looking at just one explanation offered:
The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.
Just a good way to deal with a problem boils down to 'it just looks better when I present it like this.' If your goal is to make your findings agree with your theory, then I agree, problem solved, and yes, that was a neat trick. But science has an aura of objectivity to it, and the AGW theory has had huge influence on policies which affect us profoundly.
The lay people of the world have placed their trust in these scientists, and have generally bought into the notion that the 'science is settled'. In this setting, the effort to “fix” problems is criminal. A true objective scientist would be forthright in addressing the problems. You cannot claim to be objectively representing the facts and simultaneously making use of tricks to “solve” problems with your data.
Nick,
ReplyDeleteWell of course the snark they had over on RC is really just par for the course with how organizations are run REGARDLESS of funding. I tried to remind the snarkmeisters that no one was really anticipating finding Soros' fingerprints on the aftermath of this crime scene or that "nefarious" things would be in email correspondence.
Naturally I'm not allowed to post there, and trying six ways to Sunday and removing all the "bad" and unallowed words like "socialism" and "Soros" and funding still did not help. So while I was going to offer that you take your good analysis to THEM, it seems unlikely that you'll have any better chance of being on their approved list than I am.
Apparently that's how they operate.
In the meantime, what is your take on the claim (possibly true for what's it's worth on the technicality) that this whole hack job was illegal and the disclosure of private emails can be prosecuted in a court of law.
Yes, I know, no such worries were had about the NYT's bloody flag-waving of the Pentagon Papers.
But still.
I can't do better than Charles over at Watts Up With That.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the most likely scenario is that it was a preparation for a Freedom of Information Act response that was either left on an unsecured server or was purposefully dumped onto the internet by either someone ethically opposed to the stone-walling that was commonplace over there or a disgruntled employee of the CRU. In either case, as GL Aston points out in my next post, the information has all been gathered at tax payor expense, and the public has a right to know.
Hey, while you are over there you have got to check out AL Gore in this crazy SNL skit video. It killed me.
OK. Fair enough.
ReplyDeleteI'll check into all this later.
Thanks!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/
ReplyDeleteThe above might be the real meat.
All holy crap, Nick.
ReplyDeleteFound something you might like, this time from the mighty world of Steynposts as our new signposts on the world of changy-change.
Seems a one George Monbiot has some concerns here. He's NOT a skepty on AGW. He's a promoter of government action(s) on this to extreme measure and write frequently on such things.
HIS take?
Bad KARMA from his admitted allies in the AGW industry.
REALLY BAD NEWS..
BAAAAD MOJO..
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzUwYzJmNzlkMzg3YWUyNmVmZWY1NzM1OTVkYzIxZGI=
Here's an excerpt:
On the Warmergate scandal, the Settled Scientists seem to be settling on Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit, as the designated fall guy. George Monbiot in The Guardian:
It’s no use pretending this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them... There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign.
But...
I'd skip the "But...". It's dreary and pro forma stuff. Meanwhile, fellow Settled Scientist Tim Flannery is sounding ...kinda unsettled:
We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate...We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend.
Really? Golly, when I said as much a few months back, the excitable lads in the George Soros typing pool at Media Matters denounced it as a "false claim". Apparently, it's now safe to say it in polite society.
That would do it for now, except be sure to see the handy links Steyn provides and research Monbiot if you have time, along with the Media Matters claim and the admission that things ain't so great right now for the AGW crowd.
I add this only because I promised to do some more investigating into this matter just to be sure that the proverbial "Mushroom Cloud" that you and Patrick Michaels mentioned was not a firecracker that merely annoyed the toes but caused no more than a heart flutter and mom yelling to cut the noise from the kids in the garage.
(This is sort of a week off for me. I know, I;ve overdone it, and I have little to do right now and stay up too late :) )
Holy crap is right.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't science as I was trained in it. It's politics, which has always been my impression when discussing the 'science' of global warming with the global warming alarmists.
Of course, that means when the lid is taken off the garbage can a political fight then ensues, wherein the alarmist crowd contends the oder has a classic, distinctive aroma, whereas my side points out that it stinks to high heaven.
That's all good stuff, Wakefield and I wrote my most recent post on it.
I will be getting back on this as well as blogging on it (yeah late on the draw, I know) but with THIS administration and the impending "trial" of KSM, Fort Hood PCism, and other crappola of note like the UNapologetic stance of lefty media to the "fed" killing case (not) or for that matter the slams against Palin now being drumed up by the Sissypants-in-Chief, where do I start?
ReplyDeleteSo much crap, so little time.
Overwhelming.
Well, it's going to take some time and the family will be doing extensive multi-state travelling.
In any case:
Damned nice job on this topic on such short notice, and a good condensation of a thorny topic that has SO much of it also connected politically and ideologically and thus having far more of our lives In The Balance than Al Gore could have dreamed of.
OH--and Happy Thanksgiving.