nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Climategate?

This post has been deleted.

Find more posts tagged with

climategate

carbon tax

Quick Links

Comments

diverdriver wrote: »

Oh dear, that is always your tactic.

Yes, I do have rather high standards when it comes to scientific evidence; I will no more trust a blog entry on climate change than I will a Wikipedia entry on a medical condition.

diverdriver wrote: »

Whatever your experience in science it is abundantly clear that there is considerable sharing going on in the climate change camp.

Define “sharing”.

I will no more trust a blog entry on climate change than I will a Wikipedia entry on a medical condition.

is that not the argument to authority in disguise. if the log writer is a scientist, and if he has access to the data - which seemed to be the case with WattsUpWithThat - then the piece would have to attacked on what it says, how is says it, how it uses the data, and not where it comes from.

asdasd wrote: »

is that not the argument to authority in disguise. if the log writer is a scientist, and if he has access to the data - which seemed to be the case with WattsUpWithThat - then the piece would have to attacked on what it says, how is says it, how it uses the data, and not where it comes from.

I think I phrased that poorly – I was referring to taking things at ‘face value’, an awful lot of which takes place in the formation of arguments against global warming. But I would agree with what you’re saying – there’s no reason why a blog entry or Wikipedia article cannot contain a legitimate scientific argument. The same goes for a post on these boards. However, in my experience, having consulted many a blog in my discussions on this forum over the last number of years, most do not contain properly constructed arguments or well-referenced material, hence my reluctance to accept their content.

On the subject of authority – we all have to bow to it at some point. We can’t all be experts at everything. There inevitably comes a point in one’s research into any topic when a line has to be drawn and certain findings have to be accepted – it’s impossible to scrutinise everything in detail. However, different people set the bar at different heights. For me, I draw the line at peer-reviewed literature – if something has been accepted by experts in a certain field, that’s good enough for me.

djpbarry wrote: »

On the subject of authority – we all have to bow to it at some point. We can’t all be experts at everything. There inevitably comes a point in one’s research into any topic when a line has to be drawn and certain findings have to be accepted – it’s impossible to scrutinise everything in detail. However, different people set the bar at different heights. For me, I draw the line at peer-reviewed literature – if something has been accepted by experts in a certain field, that’s good enough for me.

Surely this calls then into question certain peer reviewed literature.....
if the literature of these scientitsts has been peer reviewed and accepted and it comes to light afterwards, such as referred to in these emails, that important data has been altered to fit the desired results.. then peer review has failed and cannot be accepted as true in this case......

it doesn't matter if the final result agrees with other results, peer review has still failed in detecting the falisifed data here...

robtri wrote: »

Surely this calls then into question certain peer reviewed literature.....
if the literature of these scientitsts has been peer reviewed and accepted and it comes to light afterwards, such as referred to in these emails, that important data has been altered to fit the desired results.. then peer review has failed and cannot be accepted as true in this case......

it doesn't matter if the final result agrees with other results, peer review has still failed in detecting the falisifed data here...

It does appear that the reviewees did not check the results or had the same (allegedly doctored) data or did not run independant analsys of the source data against the computer models.

Or did they and their results were "crowded out" as inconvenient!

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes, I do have rather high standards when it comes to scientific evidence; I will no more trust a blog entry on climate change than I will a Wikipedia entry on a medical condition.
Define “sharing”.

I agree regarding wikiepedia, and its not a reference source upon which anyone can rely.

I'm surprised that your position appears to be that you still want to take the "evidence" produced by Prof Phil Jones and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit at face value, even though there appear to be questions to be answered about whether or not the evidence has been manipulated and distorted.

We should all have high standards, and if there is one lesson to be learnt from this situation, it is that we have to be more sceptical about believing what we are told, without examining the underlying evidence. Scientists are human, too, and have all the vanities of humans which make some of them love the limelight, and we must not automatically believe them without evidence. We might be forgiven for assuming that scientists are all scrupulous about standards and are all seeking the truth, but in fact some scientists are attracted by the bright lights of fame and fortune and personal vanity, and so we all have to be on our guard.

Let's hope that's something we can all agree upon.

robtri wrote: »

it doesn't matter if the final result agrees with other results, peer review has still failed in detecting the falisifed data here...

We’re still a long way from demonstrating conclusively that anything has been falsified.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I'm surprised that your position appears to be that you still want to take the "evidence" produced by Prof Phil Jones and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit at face value, even though there appear to be questions to be answered about whether or not the evidence has been manipulated and distorted.

Questions such as what? If something untoward had taken place, I would expect to see far clearer evidence of it in a large collection of personal emails. But there’s no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no allusion to a hoax, no blatant admission of falsifying data. All we have is a few cherry-picked, out-of-context phrases, such as “hide the decline”, which everyone has assumed to mean something terribly nefarious without actually putting their finger on anything in particular.

All we have is a few cherry-picked, out-of-context phrases, such as “hide the decline”, which everyone has assumed to mean something terribly nefarious without actually putting their finger on anything in particular.

Is this faith or BELIEF.

We know what they were talking about, and it is clear in the code also released.

They hid the decline in temperature since 1960 from tree ring proxies. They moved to temperatures as measured from measuring stations. That is easy to ascertain.

Is it significant?

Of course. Any "hiding the decline" in real science would get you fired.

asdasd wrote: »

They hid the decline in temperature since 1960 from tree ring proxies. They moved to temperatures as measured from measuring stations. That is easy to ascertain.

Is it significant?

Of course. Any "hiding the decline" in real science would get you fired.

My question is where is the “hiding”? The divergence that you refer to has been discussed in the literature for years – it’s hardly a secret.

asdasd wrote: »

Is this faith or BELIEF.

Its a falsifiable claim.

We know what they were talking about,

Broadly speaking, yes, we do. The devil, as they say, is in the details...details which are not in the mails, and which can (at best) be guessed at.

Typically, concluding something nefarious involves assuming a nefarious interpretation of the context.....at which point you've assumed your conclusion and certainly don't have a falsifiable claim.

and it is clear in the code also released.

Is it? It might be clear (at a technical level) what the code is doing, but the reasons for it aren't enshrined in code. THey're alluded to in comments, but even then, we need to understand the context of the comment.

They hid the decline in temperature since 1960 from tree ring proxies.

They removed the impact of one already-known, problematic case. If you read around the issue, rather then just concentrating on the words used in the leaked content, you'll quickly find that this isn't anything new. Indeed, it would be more surprising to have found that someone did use this particular data.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8389727.stm

Scientist in climate change data row steps down

Professor Phil Jones has stepped down as director of the CRU
The research director at the centre of a row over climate change data said he would stand down from the post while there is an independent review.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Norwich-based University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU), has said he stands by his data.

Sceptics claim the e-mails, leaked after a UEA server was hacked into, showed data was being manipulated.

Climategate's second victim!

djpbarry wrote: »

We’re still a long way from demonstrating conclusively that anything has been falsified.
Questions such as what? If something untoward had taken place, I would expect to see far clearer evidence of it in a large collection of personal emails. But there’s no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no allusion to a hoax, no blatant admission of falsifying data. All we have is a few cherry-picked, out-of-context phrases, such as “hide the decline”, which everyone has assumed to mean something terribly nefarious without actually putting their finger on anything in particular.

We all have to reach our own conclusions based on the evidence in the emails. If, for example, you judge that there is no evidence that the temperature records were altered and falsified, or, for example, that there is no evidence that the raw data was withheld from others who requested to see it, than that's your judgement.

No doubt Prof Jones has stepped down because he has done nothing wrong.

And no doubt those whom, for example, requested information under FOI aand were denied it are also mistaken in their recollection of events and were, in fact, sent the information, as the law required.

Apologies for the slight note of scepticism in my voice. Some consider this to be the scandal of the century, and want to get to the bottom of it and find out the truth of what really happened here and what the emails seem to be suggesting. My position is exactely that , that an independent enquiry should be held to investigate what really happened.

Your judgement appears to be that the emails suggest nothing whatever and, in fact, have no hint of any wrong doing or nefarious practices. Whether or not you welcome an independent investigation seems unsure. Do you welcome an independent investigation to find out, for example, whether professor Jones broke the law by refusing to release the raw temperature records? And , if you do favour an independant investigation, might you at some point consider asking yourself what was his motive in going so far as to break the law to hide the raw temperature data?

I have to say I hate the way these threads sometimes evolve into two sides backing themselves into a corner, and then falling into what De Bono calls the intelligence trap of having to back up their "side" and ignoring anythign which might contradict their "side".

What I'd like to see here is the truth, and see if the temperature records were falsified. If so, it would be great news for us all as that would suggest global warming is not as serious as we may have been previously led to believe, and I'd welcome that.

However, the first step is to establish the facts, and I welcome that.

bonkey wrote: »

They removed the impact of one already-known, problematic case. If you read around the issue, rather then just concentrating on the words used in the leaked content, you'll quickly find that this isn't anything new. Indeed, it would be more surprising to have found that someone did use this particular data.

I've read this and reread it and am not sure what it meant to say "they removed the impact of one already-known, problematic case".

Might this refer to the hockey stick graph? Or perhaps the Mediaeval Warm Period? I've no idea.

I have to disagree that no one can find anything new in these emails. Certainly it appears that Prof Jones was prepared to break the law and refuse to release the CRU's raw temperature data, for example.

And the challenge has been made to him that it also suggests that he falsified the temperature records to make it appear that global warming was taking place. Both serious accusations and not inconsequential.

Now it appears he has had to go, which also suggests there is something amiss.

Of course we'll have to wait and see what an independent investigation finds, but to suggest that there is nothing new in the emails, especially when prof Jones appears to have had to leave his post as a result of them, seems an unusual conclusion to reach.

djpbarry wrote: »

We’re still a long way from demonstrating conclusively that anything has been falsified.

and we are also a long way off from demostrating that the data wasn't manipulated... therefore till this is independantly reviewed... and all questions answered, their work needs to treated with skepticism.......

The emails indicate wrong doing, manipulating data, which to date has not been denied, therefore it calls into question the Peer review and their work as a whole.

robtri wrote: »

and we are also a long way off from demostrating that the data wasn't manipulated... therefore till this is independantly reviewed... and all questions answered, their work needs to treated with skepticism.......

The emails indicate wrong doing, manipulating data, which to date has not been denied, therefore it calls into question the Peer review and their work as a whole.

Show the manipulation of data please. There is actually very little evidence of manipulation of data. Scorn for sceptics, yes. But please list out some examples.

taconnol wrote: »

Show the manipulation of data please. There is actually very little evidence of manipulation of data. Scorn for sceptics, yes. But please list out some examples.

As per my quote "the emails INDICATE wrong doing"
its not an established fact yet......

likewise can you show evidence that there has been no manipulation of data then??

robtri wrote: »

As per my quote "the emails INDICATE wrong doing"
its not an established fact yet......

And I asked you to explain those "indications" as you see them.

robtri wrote: »

likewise can you show evidence that there has been no manipulation of data then??

A claim has to be made before it can be refuted.

But as an example I have already explained that the reference to a "trick" has been misinterpreted. It refers to leaving out a set of tree-ring growth data that did not reflect accurate temperatures, as recorded by the infinitely more accurate tool, a thermometer.

Other than that, I have not seen any half-reasonable accusations of data manipulation so I'll wait until they are presented.

By the way, I am not claiming that the emails are not damaging. I think they are terribly damaging and strict scientific codes of practice and ethics clearly need to be properly enforced.

taconnol wrote: »

And I asked you to explain those "indications" as you see them.

A claim has to be made before it can be refuted.

But as an example I have already explained that the reference to a "trick" has been misinterpreted. It refers to leaving out a set of tree-ring growth data that did not reflect accurate temperatures, as recorded by the infinitely more accurate tool, a thermometer.

Other than that, I have not seen any half-reasonable accusations of data manipulation so I'll wait until they are presented.

I am not going to reproduce what has already been put forward in this thread, from the excerts of the emails, you can read them all again if you wish...

if there has been no reasonable accusations of data manipulation, why is the head of the project stepping down till independantley reviewed??? that dooesn't make sense......

robtri wrote: »

I am not going to reproduce what has already been put forward in this thread, from the excerts of the emails, you can read them all again if you wish...

Just as I expected..

robtri wrote: »

if there has been no reasonable accusations of data manipulation, why is the head of the project stepping down till independantley reviewed??? that dooesn't make sense......

Because of general conduct in relation to how sceptics were treated, transparency and access to data. I'm guessing failure to keep old data records was also a factor. The man repeatedly refused FOI requests for data that were, IMO, justifiable and reasonable.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

Do you welcome an independent investigation to find out, for example, whether professor Jones broke the law by refusing to release the raw temperature records?

I have already stated on this thread that if a law has been broken, then the perpetrator should be punished. However, at this point, I do not have access to a sufficient level of information to determeine that any laws have been broken. Therefore, I must assume Prof. Jones to be innocent until proven otherwise. It seems that others have assumed guilt and are seeking evidence of same. You yourself have stated that you’d ‘like to see the truth’ and ‘the first step is to establish the facts’, yet at the same time you are seeking proof that something untoward has not taken place?

ConsiderThis wrote: »

And the challenge has been made to him that it also suggests that he falsified the temperature records to make it appear that global warming was taking place.

Where has this been suggested?

robtri wrote: »

The emails indicate wrong doing, manipulating data, which to date has not been denied, therefore it calls into question the Peer review and their work as a whole.

I’m pretty sure it has been denied, but anyway, where are the suggestions of data manipulation? And why is the entire peer review process now called into question (any more so than it previously was)?

robtri wrote: »

...can you show evidence that there has been no manipulation of data then??

You’ve made a claim, the onus is on you to support it.

robtri wrote: »

I am not going to reproduce what has already been put forward in this thread, from the excerts of the emails, you can read them all again if you wish...

You’ve made an accusation; either back it up with evidence, or withdraw it.

It's also worth pointing out that even if Prof. Jones is found guilty of wrongdoing (not complying with FOI requests, for example), that does not automatically invalidate all of the work that has taken place at the CRU.

djpbarry wrote: »

I have already stated on this thread that if a law has been broken, then the perpetrator should be punished. However, at this point, I do not have access to a sufficient level of information to determeine that any laws have been broken. Therefore, I must assume Prof. Jones to be innocent until proven otherwise. It seems that others have assumed guilt and are seeking evidence of same. You yourself have stated that you’d ‘like to see the truth’ and ‘the first step is to establish the facts’, yet at the same time you are seeking proof that something untoward has not taken place?
Where has this been suggested?

And you are free to assume that Prof Jones is innocent, as he may well be proven to be. It may be that you don't express surprise at his decision to resign, or "step down", or that anything in the emails gives concern to question anything.

I'm not so sure, so we must disagree.

djpbarry wrote: »

It's also worth pointing out that even if Prof. Jones is found guilty of wrongdoing (not complying with FOI requests, for example), that does not automatically invalidate all of the work that has taken place at the CRU.

It shows that he is dishonest and prepared to break the law to hide the evidence he says he has, from others. For me, I'd have to question why he was prepared to go to such lengths to do that. You may decide you don't want to question that. Its a matter for us all to decide for ourselves.

The BBC have opened up a debate on Climategate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm

'Show Your Working': What 'ClimateGate' means

VIEWPOINT
Mike Hulme and Jerome Ravetz

The "ClimateGate" affair - the publication of e-mails and documents hacked or leaked from one of the world's leading climate research institutions - is being intensely debated on the web. But what does it imply for climate science? Here, Mike Hulme and Jerome Ravetz say it shows that we need a more concerted effort to explain and engage the public in understanding the processes and practices of science and scientists.

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m pretty sure it has been denied, but anyway, where are the suggestions of data manipulation? And why is the entire peer review process now called into question (any more so than it previously was)?

that sentance is totally contradictory.... you say there has been a denial of data manipulation... then ask for proof it has been called into question??? sorry but that doesn't make sense....
again, as i Said if it turns out there was wrong doing, then it would call into question the peer review that took place on this work and the work as a whole... if you cannot understand that I am sorry, I can't make it more clear.

djpbarry wrote: »

You’ve made a claim, the onus is on you to support it.
You’ve made an accusation; either back it up with evidence, or withdraw it.

I said these emails INDICATE wrong doing, not a claim of proof...
you said the data was good, which to me is a claim, so I asked you to back it up....

robtri wrote: »

that sentance is totally contradictory.... you say there has been a denial of data manipulation... then ask for proof it has been called into question???

No, I’m saying that wrongdoing has been denied (as far as I’m aware), but I have yet to see anyone produce evidence of data manipulation within the emails.

robtri wrote: »

I said these emails INDICATE wrong doing, not a claim of proof...

I don’t believe I asked for proof. I did, however, ask for evidence. Last chance.

You may want to have a read of this prior to your next post.

djpbarry wrote: »

No, I’m saying that wrongdoing has been denied (as far as I’m aware), but I have yet to see anyone produce evidence of data manipulation within the emails.
I don’t believe I asked for proof. I did, however, ask for evidence. Last chance.

You may want to have a read of this prior to your next post.

You think that that professor jones resigned without any evidence?

How about

"Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people."

or

From Phil Jones :

"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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

or

From Kevin Trenberth :

"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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

or

From Michael Mann :

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations."

Do you dig that guy saying it's not about truth, but about plausible deniable accusations....wow.. or Professor Jones saying he wants to "hide the decline". Thats not proof of data manipulation, but it does appear to be evidence.

auerillo wrote: »

"Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people."

A bad attitude towards sceptics or dissenters? Yes. Proof/evidence of manipulation? No.

auerillo wrote: »

From Phil Jones :
"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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

This has been explained in this thread about seven times. It is not data manipulation.

auerillo wrote: »

From Kevin Trenberth :
"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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

The guy is lamenting that his equipment is not as good as he wants it to me. Proof/evidence of data manipulation? No.

auerillo wrote: »

From Michael Mann :
Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations."

This is very, very bad. Shocking that a scientist would say it at all.

on a lighter note

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8

taconnol wrote: »

A bad attitude towards sceptics or dissenters? Yes. Proof/evidence of manipulation? No.

.

"... don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people."

You may be right, or not. Neither of us know. I submit is as evidence that evidence appears to be concealed, which appears to be worrying.

taconnol wrote: »

This has been explained in this thread about seven times. It is not data manipulation.

"...hide the decline..."

Again, neither of us know if this is about data manipulation, so to claim, as you do, that it definitely is not about data manipulation, seems to be a guess. You might be right, but you might also be incorrect. We simply don't know.

taconnol wrote: »

"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... Our observing system is inadequate."

.

This seems to indicate that he thinks there is a lack of global warming, and is blamed on the system being inadequate. You may be right that the equipment is not as good as he wants it to be, but equally it might be that there is a lack of global warming, and the equipment is ok. We simply don't know.

I agree that it is shocking that a scientist such as Michael Mann should say "As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations. " should say , and think, that. Michael Mann, we should remember, is the man behind the infamous hockey stick graph. Critics of the graph say that the science behind it is not replicable, and when Mann was asked for his data, his response was that he had "he had forgotten the location" and said that his colleague, Scott Rutherford would locate the data. Rutherford then said that the information did not exist in any one location, and it transpired that the IPCC had never done due diligence on the data used to produce the hockey stick graph, and consequently it was used, by them, without independent evidence. We should remember that the hockey stick graph was the basis for claims that the 20th Century was the hottest on record.

Science should not be a consensus with everyone believing the hypothesis. Science should be transparent, verifiable, and reproducible. Science is based on proof which is replicable to anyone who wants to examine it. The evidence for the hockey stick graph is not universally accepted, and appears not to have been examined by the IPCC, or by a consensus other scientists.