climategate

blackswan555

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate
This looks like it is going to throw a spanner in the works ( and they are lying to us on both sides of the pond as usual )
Opinions , comment`s, ?


Have a good one
Tim

Cariboocoot

Re: climategate

It's high-school physics: all energy comes from the sun and eventually turns to heat. Use of fossil fuels release heat energy that's been stored for millions of years. The planet can only radiate off so much heat at night. The more insulating gases released into the atmosphere, the less heat can radiate. Inevitable result; warming trend over many years, causing more severe and erratic weather. Nothing to do with Earth's periodic, natural climate change (which serves to skew the data).

It's a shame that scientists are no longer objective about collecting and analyzing data. Seems they set out to prove whatever based on where the funding is coming from. :grr

BB.

Re: climategate

It has also just been found in the last day or two that the New New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has also apparently "adjusted" their data. Take a look at their graphics in the above link.

Those adjustments were made by New Zealand climate scientist Jim Salinger, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who started work on the series when he was with the University of East Anglia, the centre of the Climategate scandal. (Salinger was dismissed by NIWA this year for speaking without authorisation to the media.)

The response:

NIWA responds in brief:

NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.

Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.

NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.

-Bill

hillbilly

dead link?

Bill, can you repost that first link... I get a dead end when I try it... or is it just me and my browser?
cheers

BB.

Re: climategate

Hmmm--The browser ate my link. :roll:

Link fixed now.

-Bill

AntronX

Re: climategate

To me this looks like "skeptics" gasping for last breath before drowning for good. So they resort to these tactics. I would love to see their dirty laundy made public.

Responce from CRU: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

Comment from Judy Curry at Georgia Tech: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7826#more-7826

Spencer Weart, science historian: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/11/perspective_on_a_climate_scien.html

The Copenhagen Diagnosis, an update on latest climate science: http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/executive_summary.html

Here is a guy on youtube that makes nice videos disproving "skeptics" claims: http://www.youtube.com/greenman3610

BB.

Re: climategate

Also very interesting is the leak also included their "models"... Here is one review of a three year effort by "Harry" to try and resurrect their original peer reviewed research:

...
Poor Harry is in the first circle of programmer hell: the program runs fine; the output is wrong.
He presses on:

17. Inserted debug statements into anomdtb.f90, discovered that a sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative! Key output from the debug statements:
some test output…
forrtl: error (75): floating point exception
IOT trap (core dumped)
..so the data value is unbfeasibly large, but why does the sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!

This is not good — the existing program produces a serious error when it’s run on what is supposed to be the old, working data. Harry presses on, finding a solution to that bug, going through many more issues as he tried to recreate the results of these runs for the data from 1901 to 1995. Finally he gives up. He has spoken to someone about what should be done:

AGREED APPROACH for cloud (5 Oct 06).
For 1901 to 1995 – stay with published data. No clear way to replicate process as undocumented.
For 1996 to 2002:
1. convert sun database to pseudo-cloud using the f77 programs;
2. anomalise wrt 96-00 with anomdtb.f;
3. grid using quick_interp_tdm.pro (which will use 6190 norms);
4. calculate (mean9600 – mean6190) for monthly grids, using the published cru_ts_2.0 cloud data;
5. add to gridded data from step 3.
This should approximate the correction needed.

Catch that? They couldn’t recreate the results, so they’re going back to their published data for the first 95 years of the 20th century. Only …

Next problem — which database to use? The one with the normals included is not appropriate (the conversion progs do not look for that line so obviously are not intended to be used on +norm databases).

They still don’t know what to use for the next several years. Harry gives up; it’s easier to write new codes.

22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim’s labyrinthine software suites – let’s have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

This kind of thing is as fascinating as a soap opera, but I want to know how it comes out. Near the bottom of the file, I find:

I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can’t get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections – to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.

...

Remember, the issues are far more than a few thousand emails, it (apparently) also includes (some/many?) their computer "models" which are nothing more that spaggetti code attempts at curve fitting. There appears to be nothing even remotelty related to Finite Element Analysis which is based the fundamental mathematical relationships between physical objects and processes. Which Engineers and Scientists have been using since the dawn of the computer age (since 1941).

I, almost, feel sorry for the "Climate Scientists" at CRU... Almost.

-Bill

BB.

Re: climategate

AntronX,

How about a deal, you avoid the use of "denialists" and I will avoid the use of Climate "fill in the blank".

-Bill

Obviously, flame wars will end up with a locked thread. Be respectful.

BB.

Re: climategate

Thank you AntronX.

And regarding my work emails/designs/mistakes aired out like dirty laundry... Sorry--that was my job as a design engineer. The first few design reviews makes you feel like everyone is against you because you are questioned on each and every mark you placed down in a spec., schematic, code, etc...

If I made a mistake? I had to write up a 1-20 page package describing exactly what I did wrong, what the effects were of the mistake, how severe (law suits, could kill people, start fires, etc.), take it in front of 20 managers/department heads (who like Peer Reviewers of climate studies had no idea of what was going on). Get it approved (sometimes up to a VP or the President of the Company), then send copies to manufacturing, customer service, depot repair, and sometimes to customers as part of a recall.

And in a corporation (as in government), they "own" my emails and they can do what they wish with them... Another reason to watch what you put in your emails (I told my employees to treat every email/document/phone call/letter/etc. as if it could be posted on a bulletin board sometime in the future).

The "data dump" appears to have been a pretty specific hunt for emails and digital data relating to a Freedom Of Information Act request (UK version?) as there were no "honey, I am going to be home late this evening--can you pick up some take-out" but were a very limited set limited to names and subjects (from what I have seen).

Also, the last date in the FOIA2009.zip file was Nov 12th... And on Nov 13th, the FOIA was "refused" regarding Steve McIntyre's request. Download it yourself and check it out. Of what I have read so far, people have confirmed that their emails sent to CRU where real and intact. Phil Jones, director of CRU, response to one was that it was taken out of context.

Recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have been posted on various sites on the web. The emails relate to messages received or sent by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) over the period 1996-2009.

A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present an unrealistic picture of global warming.

This conclusion is entirely unfounded and the evidence from CRU research is entirely consistent with independent evidence assembled by various research groups around the world.

The context:

Phil Jones comments further: “One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This is well known and is called the ‘decline’ or ‘divergence’. The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure. It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series up to 1960 in the WMO Statement.”

So, we have their "tree ring proxy" that tracked very well with "global temperatures" since 1,400 AD (or CE--your choice) but fell flat on its face after 1960--i.e., when even halfway accurate thermometers were available (most "measured" temperature records go back to 1850, and one or so go back to 1650).... So back in 1,400 CE/AD we know the tree rings had "teleconnection" (click link and search "teleconnection" for 7 emails in dump) with world temperatures because it is right in the code base from CRU?

In two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the "correction" is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the "adjustment" routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn't kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I'm familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.

Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding "fudge factor" (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU's "divergence problem" also includes a minor false incline after 1930.

See the graphics at the bottom of the CRU response page... This will convince you that there is no direct connection between the tree ring proxy data CRU used and their Instrument Data (whatever that may be).

It appears that there is a 20 day window in the UK to respond to FOIA requests. And that this file set may have been a response to that request if it was granted.

So now we have the FOIA2009.zip file and whether it gets mishandled in house (left on open server) or was an internal person that posted it "in the wild"--we may never know.

-Bill

RussellJ

Re: climategate

I remember back in the late 60's early 70's being taught in school that the next Ice Age was coming. We needed to be ready because the scientists had been watching the world's temperatures decline over the last xxx years and the ice age was eminent.

I lived just north of Pittsburgh back then and the steel mills were booming, the skies were gray with soot and ash, Lake Erie was so polluted that all the fish were dead and one of our nation's rivers was so filthy it actually caught fire!

Well, we fixed all that. The mills have all but shut down, there's fish in the lakes and rivers again and the skies are clear. In fact when I go back to visit I'm amazed at how blue the sky is. The only problem now is all that sunlight is getting in and cooking us.

We need to take the filters back off the smoke stacks of the coal fired power plants, crank up the steel mills again and darken up the skies. That'll cool the Earth back down. Just be sure to have your Winter Parkas ready.

vcallaway

Re: climategate

While I do have an opinion as to the validity of global warming I have a slightly different take on things.

What I have taught my children is this: We as human beings are blessed with both reasoning and the ability to manage the resources we are given. It is our duty to ourselves and our descendants to manage those resources to the best of our ability.

I'm a firm believer in low impact living. Being conscious of who we do business with and what we send to landfills are things we should be doing.

I don't believe that people in Washington D.C. have any clue. Their goals are not in the best interest of the public or conservation. All they care about is using whatever means possible to have more control over our lives.

There are groups that want to manage how many square feet of living space each person has. How much food they consume and how much electricity they use. Their goal is to have everyone live in a dorm and be shuttled to work by mass transit. They will not be happy until we live in a brave new world. Those are the people who have the ears or our federal government.

BB.

Re: climategate

Regarding AntronX's link to Dr. Judy Curry's letter posted on Climate Audit site... Here is an alternate link to the CA-Mirror site (CA has been hit hard by heavy Intertubes traffic). Dr. Curry was one of the few (one?) that ever invited Steve NcIntryre (anti-hockey stick guy of www.Climateaudit.org) to any climate scientist function (from what I recall reading somewhere else).

Over 400 comments at this time taking exception to Dr. Curry's point of view so far.

Vcallaway, for me, yours is the definition of (small c?) conservative.

-Bill

AntronX

Re: climategate

To those who are still on the fence, here is climate change primer from NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
And latest report on climate science: http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/executive_summary.html

vcallaway

Re: climategate

B.B. Conservative, the second most hated swear word starting with a C.

I did my stint in politics and came out very changed. I served as an aide to a Senator in our state. He retired as the minority leader and is still a long time friend. He has told me many times that my views have a definite Libertarian slant.

The one thing I learned quickly is the people that have the ears of Legislators are not our friends. They are there representing various, groups, agencies and causes. Their only goal is extracting Government money for themselves. Most are hired guns and usually former aides themselves. They could care less who or what they represent so long as they get paid. All in all a very corrupt system.

I firmly believe our climate is changing. You only need to look at history to realize that it is always changing. When critics started calling global warming a hoax they quickly changed the term to be "Climate Change". I'm old enough to remember being taught in school that the next ice age is coming.

I think most people on this forum have a similar view as I do when it comes to energy. It is better to conserve and to be as self sufficient as possible. As our population grows it becomes more and more important. If everyone in my little neighborhood reduced their grid usage by a killowat a day you could add 10 more homes without adding capacity.

If the Government really cared about renewable energy they would find more ways to get out of the way. At least in my state they recently passed a law barring home owner associations from banning solar panels. A good place to start.

I should probably stop here. I could go on for pages.

AntronX

Re: climategate

vcallaway wrote: »

I firmly believe our climate is changing. You only need to look at history to realize that it is always changing. When critics started calling global warming a hoax they quickly changed the term to be "Climate Change". I'm old enough to remember being taught in school that the next ice age is coming.

Read two last links I posted.

BB.

Re: climategate

vcallaway,

Sounds like interesting times. But general politics can't go far on this forum... So leave it there for now.

However, "solar politics" in this sub-forum are fine. Regarding this NASA link:

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

Still has the "Source: Climate Research Unit" for world climate temperatures posted... Sorry--but they are not a credible source.

Regarding the 1.7mm per year average increase since 1870 (first chart):

Well, I live next to the Pacific Ocean and from my plain old State College (my Engineering Degree) SFSU Geology Department (and where my brother used to go for his geology degree)--a little history that we have been taught:

San Francisco Bay's History Like most estuaries, San Francisco Bay is a very young feature, geologically speaking. Twenty thousand years ago there was no bay. At that time the world was in the grip of the last ice age, and much of the planet's water was frozen into glaciers that covered a large part of the northern continents. With less water to fill the oceans, sea level was nearly 150 meters (over 400 feet) lower and the Pacific coastline was 30 km (20 miles) west of where it lies today. Imagine having to travel all the way to the Farallon Islands to go walking on the beach or surfing in the ocean! The Bay itself was dry land, with rivers running through the low-land areas on their route to the sea.


As the glaciers melted over centuries, the ocean waters rose and the shoreline crept back eastward, toward land. By 10,000 years ago the ocean had spread inland through a gap in the outer Coast Ranges that we know today as the Golden Gate (Figure 1), and seawater began to fill the Bay. For thousands of years, sea level rose rapidly at nearly 2.5 cm (one inch) per year, advancing the shoreline progressively inland. Several thousand years ago, the rate of rise slowed and sediments began to accumulate in the shallows faster than the sea could cover them. These sediments supported the expansion of tidal mudflats and marshes along the Bay's shores, whose vast extent was recorded in the last century, before modern civilization began to reshape the Estuary. We will look at the effects of human modifications on the Estuary in subsequent parts of this exercise.

150 meters * 1,000mm/meter * 1/20,000 years = 7.5mm per year sea level rise per year...

Gee, 4.4x the current "short term average" verses that of the last 20 millennium.

For thousands of years, sea level rose rapidly at nearly 2.5 cm (one inch) per year...

During periods of last 20,000 years, it is estimated the historic changes have been 147x faster than the last 140 years of sea level increase.

AGW--If it is true, it has a lot to catch up with just recent history (in geological terms).

AntronX, regarding the information I posted about the problems with the Computer And Databases that have been found in the FOIA2009.zip dump... Here is another 10 pages of nothing but excerpts from the comments found in the various computer programs.

Before I even bother to look at the Copenhagen information--what is your understanding of the CRU's researchers' comments from their software files over the last 14 years or so...?

-Bill

AntronX

Re: climategate

BB. wrote: »

Before I even bother to look at the Copenhagen information--what is your understanding of the CRU's researchers' comments from their software files over the last 14 years or so...?
-Bill

I don't see how CRU hack disproves decades of research into AGW. I don't see a reason for scientists to fake AGW's existence. I do see a big reason for energy industry to kill this issue and to confuse the public.

BB.

Re: climategate

And update regarding the New Zealand "temperature station adjustments".

Adjust a station from 1860-1927 to the current station at the airport:

Warming over New Zealand through the past century is unequivocal.

NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.

Take a look at the picture of the "new climate station" at the air port.

On top of a flat roof right next to the air conditioners... I wonder if this station is really within 0.8C of the stations a hundred years ago?

Another example that was demonstrated by the all volunteer SurfaceStation.org survey of US weather stations that found that only 2% of station sites met the CRN-1 rating:

Climate Reference Network Rating Guide - adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA's new Climate Reference Network:

Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 (CRN2) - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Only 8% of the stations met CRN-1 and -2 for <1C error.

The New Zealand Airport Site would be rated (in the US) as a CRN-5 with >5C error.

There is no way that anyone can supply a single "tweak" to bring there CRN-5 station into tracking agreement of a CRN-1 site miles away a 100 years ago...

The whole global temperature survey is filled with stuff like this...

For example, in the old USSR, they use(d?) central heating systems and ran pipes around the settlements in Siberia and such... I have seen photographs of some of those stations set right in the middle of the distribution piping.

Also, from this link, the number of temperature reporting stations went from a high of 15,000 in ~1970 down to around 5,000 in 2000. Many lost where from the collapse of the USSR--Many Stations that had 100 year records are now gone from some of the coldest climates on earth. If you go to the bottom map on that page, the missing stations seem to agree quite closely with Nasa's 2008 "Hot Winter" (many stations where found to be reporting the exact same temperature for two months in a row--Another Hanson Oops that released a flawed press release to confirm another hot winter).

-Bill

BB.

Re: climategate

You did read read CRU's own code base comments--right?

So, if Exxon has a reason to fake anti-AGW information... Stick with me here that, by your definition, money is corrupting the science.

Then the fact that the US Federal, State, and local governments made 2.5x the amount of profit from Exxon, than Exxon itself did--and that these are scientists funded by government schools (Phil Jones/CRU was funded to the tune of 13 million British Pounds via a spread sheet of funding from FOIA2009.zip) and government grants to prove AWG would then indicate that Exxon's "research" is less tainted by "Oil Profits" than CRU, NASA, etc..

Right?

According to the company's income statement, the amount of taxes it paid in 2008 was 2.5 times as much as its net profit. The $45.2 billion profit figure makes a snappy headline, but the $116.2 billion in taxes that it paid is relegated to a footnote—if that. Exxon's tax bill breaks down like this: income taxes, $36.5 billion; sales-based taxes, $34.5 billion; "all other" taxes, $45.2 billion.

And if you compare the Energy "owned" by Exxon against the rest of the large energy corporations in the world--it is dwarfed by the rest (it is ~#17 on the list and ... And the rest are all pretty much owned by governments... Both Suadi Arabia and Iran's national oil companies are, each, about 20+ times larger than Exxon (2007).

So, most governments have a good reason to drive oil prices up for their own "profits".

As well as Cap and Trade Taxes:

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

Government(s) stand to gain many times that what "Exxon" will gain.

Do I believe that the CRU scientists are actually making a choice to skew the data based on Oil Funding... Not really... However they certainly are like minded individuals that have lost their objectivity regarding their current research (remember when scientist where all known as skeptics)?

-Bill

hillbilly

Re: climategate

Bill,
I don't know of too many folks that would doubt that many governments (including ours) stand to benefit in many ways from increased oil profits. I think that it's a bit of a leap though to say that all of them are using global warming as a scare tactic to drive oil prices up. That could be done many other ways, and it seems to me that our own government has hardly been pushing any sort of agenda with global warming when just a few short years ago our own president was fond of saying that the "jury is still out" in regards to global warming.
Don't get me wrong, I would not put it past our own government (or any other) to manipulate the general public in such a way... I just don't see that happening at all in the case of global warming.

BB.

Re: climategate

Hillbilly,

I was just using the logic of:

AntronX wrote: »

I don't see how CRU hack disproves decades of research into AGW. I don't see a reason for scientists to fake AGW's existence. I do see a big reason for energy industry to kill this issue and to confuse the public.

And, I wanted to show that the "Energy Industry" is by and large owned, and profited, by world governments...

In the end, I am not assigning motive to their work, I am asking that they show their work. And, to this point, they have not. CRU specifically, and neither has NASA/Dr. James Hanson.

Today [November 24, 2009], the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal — for nearly three years — to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “Climategate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer code, and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s East Anglia University.
...

• Internal discussions about NASA’s quiet correction of its false historical U.S. temperature records after two Canadian researchers discovered a key statistical error, specifically: discussion about whether and why to correct certain records, how to do so, the impact, or wisdom, or potential (or real) fallout there from or reaction to doing so (requested August 2007).
• Internal discussions relating to the email sent to James Hansen and/or Reto A. Ruedy from a Stephen (Steve) McIntyre calling their attention to the errors in NASA/GISS online temperature data (August 2007).
• Those relating to the content, importance, or propriety of workday-hour posts or entries by GISS/NASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt on the weblog or “blog” RealClimate, which is owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services and was started as an effort to defend the debunked “Hockey Stick” that is so central to the CRU files. RealClimate.org is implicated in the leaked files and expressly offered as a tool to be used “in any way you think would be helpful” to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt’s active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by “skeptics” attempting to comment on claims made on the website.

If you believe that NASA is incapable of cognitive bias / group-think--There are a couple space shuttles and dead astronauts that shatter that belief.

Why they are doing it? How about what they are doing it...

-Bill

Add a PS from here:

Professor Mike Hulme is of the University of East Anglia from which the emails were leaked, and is named by ScienceWatch as “the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change, between 1999 and 2009”. The leaked emails of IPCC authors show an organisation corrupted by a clique of warmist evangelists, and even Hume now says the IPCC may have run its course:

(The UN’s Copenhagen summit) is about raw politics, not about the politics of science… It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.
It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 (fifth report) but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.

... Climate researcher and IPCC co-author Eduardo Zorita calls for Climategate scientists Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf to be barred from the IPCC processes:

I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files …
I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere – and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now – editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’.

And what does it say about the disgraceful politicisation of climate science that Zorita warns:

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication.

AntronX

Re: climategate

Bill, you trust CEI? Same guys that lobbied on behalf of tobacco industry? Same guys that are derailing climate change science on behalf of large industry? Take a look at this: http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CEI

BB.

Re: climategate

Understand, because I don't accept argument by authority, I really don't care who brings the suit. I don't have to trust them at all. All we need to see is the publicly funded work performed by NASA. From your link, private grant donations for CEI:

Media Transparency lists CEI as receiving a total of $4,296,645 (unadjusted for inflation) in 123 grants from a range of foundations in the period 1985 through to 2004.

From Phil Jones' Spread Sheet of grant funding from 1991 thru 2006 [not 1993-2006], we see that they have received a total £13,700,000 from various (mostly) public funds. Or at current exchange rates ~USD$22,500,000.

Climate Studies apparently does get out the government grant monies...

Do you disagree with any of the bullet points in their FOIA request? Those points have been extensively discussed and documented over the years.

Nope, don't feel sorry Phil Jones and the crew at CRU at all...

-Bill

hillbilly

Re: climategate

BB. wrote: »

Understand, because I don't accept argument by authority, I really don't care who brings the suit. I don't have to trust them at all...
-Bill

Hmmm, it seems to me that ultimately our views on such issues are essentially backed up and supported by those sources who we choose to trust. In the case of the leaked emails and documents, it could be viewed in completely opposing light... just depends on which sources you find most credible. We all filter information depending on how it fits within our own social and political outlook. I don't know how "damming" those emails will prove to be in the overall political spectrum. I personally don't see any of this as a "smoking gun" proving anything other than confirming that there are strong feelings on each side of the issue; and skeptics of global warming certainly have a major stake in seeing any research confirming global warming discredited.
In that light I am not trying or expecting to change anyone's mind regarding the validity of global warming, but I think that we should all be realistic that it's nearly impossible to sort out all the "facts" from the hype these days, particularly surrounding issues such as this. You can find plenty of reports, links, accounts, photos, etc... to support whatever position you can imagine. I'll kindly bow out of this thread now, as I don't see it continuing too much further in a positive way...
Party on :-)

AntronX

Re: climategate

BB. wrote: »

Understand, because I don't accept argument by authority, I really don't care who brings the suit. I don't have to trust them at all.

So you don't care that those who bring the suit are financially motivated to do so? I don't know you, your background or your motives, but to me it starts to look clear that you are in denial.

BB.

Re: climategate

I already showed that the CRU and goverments in general have a very high financial motive... Much higher than CEI and Exxon.

Me and the #1 cited Climate Scientist in the World, who is from East Anglia are both skeptics:

Professor Mike Hulme is of the University of East Anglia from which the emails were leaked, and is named by ScienceWatch as “the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change, between 1999 and 2009”. The leaked emails of IPCC authors show an organisation corrupted by a clique of warmist evangelists, and even Hume now says the IPCC may have run its course:

...if you want to argue from authority.

If you want to argue from facts and don't ever deal with stolen papers... Then I guess you would have agreed with the Department of Defense about the Pentagon Papers--which where classified documents...

Prior to publication, the New York Times sought legal advice. The paper's regular outside counsel, Lord Day & Lord, advised against publication, but house counsel James Goodale prevailed with his argument that the press had a First Amendment right to publish information significant to the people's understanding of their government's policy.
After the publication, Nixon argued Ellsberg and Russo were guilty of felony treason under the Espionage Act of 1917, because they had no authority to publish classified documents.[10] After failing to persuade the Times to voluntarily cease publication, Attorney General John N. Mitchell and Nixon obtained a federal court injunction forcing the Times to cease publication. Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger said:

"Newspapers, as our editorial said this morning, were really a part of history that should have been made available, considerably longer ago. I just didn't feel there was any breach of national security, in the sense that we were giving secrets to the enemy."[11]

And there was the release of another classified program:

A series of articles published on June 23, 2006, by The New York Times,[1] The Wall Street Journal[2] and The Los Angeles Times[3] revealed that the United States government, specifically the Treasury Department and the CIA, had a program to access the SWIFT transaction database after the September 11th attacks. According to the June 2006 New York Times article, the program helped lead to the capture of an al-Qaeda operative known as Hambali in 2003, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombing, as well as helped identify a Brooklyn man convicted in 2005 for laundering money for an al-Qaeda operative in Pakistan.[4] The Treasury Department and White House responded to the leak the day before it was published and claimed that the leak damaged counter-terrorism activities. They also referred to the program as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program ("TFTP"), similar to the Terrorist Surveillance Program in the NSA wiretapping controversy.[5]

...The New York Times itself argued in a June 28, 2006 editorial that its reporting about the TFTP is protected by the First Amendment and serves a vital role, providing "information the public needs to make things right again." The New York Times editorial further argued that terrorists would have to be "fairly credulous" to believe their finances were not being tracked and that the reporting bore "no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals.[16]

The New York Times had no problem with discussing these programs in print... Why should you have an issue with discussing, what most likely, was a set of emails and files that was already prepared for FOI release under UK laws the next day--before using government contacts to kill the release. There is not one (that I have seen) personal email in the bunch.

Somebody(ies) in the CRU copied some of these email chains to a BBC reporter when complaining about his mildly skeptical post about the lack of global warming over the last 10 years.

As you may know, some of the e-mails that were released last week directly involved me and one of my previous blogs, 'Whatever happened to global warming ?' These took the form of complaints about its content, and I was copied in to them at the time. Complaints and criticisms of output are an every day part of life, and as such were nothing out of the ordinary. However I felt that seeing there was an ongoing debate as to the authenticity of the hacked e-mails, I was duty bound to point out that as I had read the original e-mails, then at least these were authentic, although of course I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the others.

In fact the CRU knew about the release ~3 days in advance when RealClimate.org told them the files where posted to their server on 11/17/09 vs the Russian Server post release of 11/20/09--and yet they acted like deer caught in the headlights when the stuff hit the fan.

Anyways--why keep making guesses about what I think instead of answering the very clear questions about what was stated by the CRU, East Anglia Professors, and their work product? Tell me what you think about the content of the releases.

Don't tell me that we cannot discuss these releases... We have people in the CRU forwarding these same emails when it suits their purposes. The CRU knew about the release in advance and, apparently, did nothing. I have given multiple cites of the New York Times (and others) claiming First Amendment rights about classified papers and anti-terrorist operations... And in the US, once something is released (no matter how it got there), there is no "right of privacy/secrecy" that applies to limit our Freedom of Speech/First Amendment rights.

Is somebody in denial?

-Bill

vcallaway

Re: climategate

The only thing I would like to ad to this discussion is pay close attention to your state legislatures.

I have already experienced local government creating ways to tax people. In 1996 I fought the city of Tacoma over declaring that Intenet providers were a public utility. Subject to a utility tax. You can find a reference here.

I can guarantee that when solar becomes a threat to tax revenue it will be a target. Already private wells in my state are a target. There are people who believe that all natural resources belong to the state. They have pushed for placing meters on private wells and a tax be levied. So far they have lost.

Solar and wind generation for all practical purposes bypasses public utilities. Most cities see this as a loss of revenue. Everyone must be diligent in keeping an eye on your rights. Otherwise your grid tied inverter may have a 6% tax levied on it.

Watch your back.

metalguy22

Re: climategate

John Derbyshire at the National Review makes what I believe is a most potent point on this topic of how science is supposed to work and why it has broken down in the case of AGW – “That's the spirit of scientific humility. You get a conceptual model that works — fits known data, and has strong explanatory and predictive power — and you work with it to uncover new truths, always understanding that it might yield to some better theory. It's an ideal, of course. The guys who perpetrated the great scientific frauds didn't adhere to it, and it doesn't look as though the EAU climate researchers did, either. That's humanity for ya.”

The “that” he is referring to is a quote from Steven Weinburg extolling the virtues of the scientific method and how true scientists don’t EVER resort to loaded terms like “settled science” or "denier". While some science is settled (no one seriously doubts gravity) most is not. As he says in speaking on the Big Bang, “Can we really be sure of the standard model? [i.e. of cosmology] Will new discoveries overthrow it and replace the present standard model with some other cosmogony, or even revive the steady-state model? Perhaps. I cannot deny a feeling of unreality in talking about the first three minutes as if we really know what we are talking about.”

What drives a scientist like Steven Weinburg is an underlying humility, a humility that is obviously lost on those who shout down skeptics with terms like denier – “as if we (they) really know what we (they) are talking about.” The idea that anyone was going to measure the mean temperature of the entire atmosphere to a tenth of a degree and then make corresponding estimates for decades past or future was always dicey at best. That it looks to be in trouble was to be expected. As Debishire says, “You'd particularly expect it in a field where (1) the data is extraordinarily difficult to collect and interpret, and (2) big political interests are vested in the results. Climate change meets both criteria.”

When it comes to denial it is hard to top insisting that everything is OK when the underlying data in support of a position that would radically change the political landscape of the entire world mysteriously turns up missing. Humility is a hard lesson – particularly when it is imposed on you. But, “That's humanity for ya.”

lorelec

Re: climategate

BB. wrote: »

But general politics can't go far on this forum... So leave it there for now. However, "solar politics" in this sub-forum are fine.

Bill, I fail to see the distinction here between "general" politics and "solar" politics. Is it that a skeptic's comments are more "solar" while an adherent's are less so?

The topic of anthropogenic global warming is nothing if not highly politicized, and nowhere moreso than in the US. In 2007, members of Congress were asked this question: "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?"

84% of Republicans said NO, while 95% of Democrats said YES. I would imagine that party lines among the general public also stack up quite nicely.

Yet in the scientific community, which I would imagine is a mix of underlying political ideologies, we have an overwhelming consensus in favor of AGW. Across a multitude of disciplines and encompassing dozens of nations. Are all of them sell outs? Are all of them being paid handsomely to tow a particular line? Why doesn't the same logic apply to the infinitesimally smaller set of skeptical scientists? Wouldn't that be the more likely explanation? That a small set of scientists (some of them with impeccable credentials) have sold out to some political ideology, or worse?

There is hardly anything scientific about the public "debate" over AGW, in my mind. I would suspect that none of us here is probably even qualified to seriously debate the topic. We're all armchair experts with the Internet by our side.

Marc

hillbilly

Re: climategate

lorelec wrote: »

There is hardly anything scientific about the public "debate" over AGW, in my mind. I would suspect that none of us here is probably even qualified to seriously debate the topic. We're all armchair experts with the Internet by our side.

Marc

Ok I really am bowing out of this discussion, BUT, this to me pretty well sums it all up nicely. Well put.

BB.

Re: climategate

The General vs Solar/Green/Environmental politics discussions are a guideline set by our host.

Windsun did not setup a "Cafe" type discussion area to reduce the issues of moderating a full blown "almost" anything goes forum. I believe the intent was that it is easier to keep a hot topic on thread easier if it is pointed to a certain overall theme.

And, as far as I know, there has been no moderation on this potentially very hot topic. I have not had any behind-the-scenes PM's or emails regarding this thread.

And I agree that AGW has become very politicized...

My comment (or warning if you want to read it that way) was directed to a "conservative" post saying that we should not head down that road of general politics.

The other warning was to avoid using loaded language... Denier is being used "in the wild" for its very specific meaning arising out of WWII... Skeptic, critic, whatever else--I pretty much have no problem with. Notice that I have not use any of the loaded words (that I can think of) towards the other side of the issue.

But, in science, as in engineering, consensus is a useless word. There was a consensus that their temporary fix to an failed support beam in the Oakland Bay Bridge would last the next few years--5,000lbs of steel fell on the road deck and vehicles a few weeks later. It was consensus that the space shuttle could launch in freezing weather even though the specifications warned that it was not safe (and ignored earlier partial booster rocket seal failures). Ignored that the change to the manufacturing process of shuttle cryogenic fuel tank insulating foam (to remove Freon as a cause of the ozone hole in the Antarctic--and ignore the obvious problems of shedding foam and shuttle damage) was a precursor to a large piece breaking off and destroying the leading edge of the wing.

In the end, quoting Dr. Curry again from the NY Times:

“This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails,” said Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology.

And a little cognitive dissidence from Dr. Curry (same article):

Dr. Curry and others said that if nothing else, the e-mail correspondence suggested that climate scientists needed to show more temperance in dealing with their critics.

“We won the war — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and climate and energy legislation is near the top of the U.S. agenda,” Dr. Curry said. “Why keep fighting all these silly battles and putting ourselves in this position?"

Well--this maybe all academic now (nice play on words?):

Published: 8:55PM GMT 28 Nov 2009
Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data - dubbed Climategate - have agreed to publish their figures in full.

The U-turn by the university follows a week of controversy after the emergence of hundreds of leaked emails, "stolen" by hackers and published online, triggered claims that the academics had massaged statistics.

In a statement welcomed by climate change skeptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.

I hope that "Data" includes the programs/software/tools used to create the data sets too... That is all the skeptics where asking for in the first place.

-Bill