The Science is Settled: GW is Conspiracy/Fraud (1 Viewer)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The demands have never been frivolous. All McIntyre has ever wanted was the data sets and ideally the source code that all of this stuff was based on. Data and code that they were more than happy to share amongst themselves with the whole "don't let anyone else see this" deal attached to it. And the CRU emails highlight the fact that there has been a systemic attempt to make this unavailable to avoid scrutiny. Not only at CRU, but also at the organzations that they work closely with and author a bunch of papers to science journals with. Who happen to be all main players for the IPCC reports, conveniently enough.

I believe I've read the actual E-Mails you are using to make these claims. I do not find that those E-Mails support these conclusions. As I said weeks and pages ago in this thread I'd like for you (or anyone) piece together the "evidence" into an actual case. Repeatedly saying that the E-Mail's "highlight the fact that there has been a systemic attempt to make this unavailable to avoid scrutiny" doesn't make it so. Maybe it is so, but I haven't seen anything other than E-Mails filled with contempt, disdain, frustration, paranoia, and other negative characteristics. I have not seen evidence of any "systematic cover-up", "global conspiracy", fraud, or any other of the accusations being made that would bring the science in question. I've mostly seen ing, whining, and venting. What have I missed other a predisposition to shout "a-ha, I knew it"?

 

[DrJ]

The demands have never been frivolous. All McIntyre has ever wanted was the data sets and ideally the source code that all of this stuff was based on. Data and code that they were more than happy to share amongst themselves with the whole "don't let anyone else see this" deal attached to it. And the CRU emails highlight the fact that there has been a systemic attempt to make this unavailable to avoid scrutiny. Not only at CRU, but also at the organzations that they work closely with and author a bunch of papers to science journals with. Who happen to be all main players for the IPCC reports, conveniently enough.

I believe I've read the actual E-Mails you are using to make these claims. I do not find that those E-Mails support these conclusions. As I said weeks and pages ago in this thread I'd like for you (or anyone) piece together the "evidence" into an actual case. Repeatedly saying that the E-Mail's "highlight the fact that there has been a systemic attempt to make this unavailable to avoid scrutiny" doesn't make it so. Maybe it is so, but I haven't seen anything other than E-Mails filled with contempt, disdain, frustration, paranoia, and other negative characteristics. I have not seen evidence of any "systematic cover-up", "global conspiracy", fraud, or any other of the accusations being made that would bring the science in question. I've mostly seen ing, whining, and venting. What have I missed other a predisposition to shout "a-ha, I knew it"?

It's been pretty clearly demonstrated. Mann giving Osborn the same information that McIntyre had been requesting for years, and telling him not to share it with anyone else because he wouldn't want this "dirty laundry" to be gotten a hold of by people that in his opinion would "distort" the point. Phil Jones sending an email to another scientist telling him to take the data off of an FTP server because it's the data that McIntyre has been after, and goes on the further talk about how they will illegally respond to FOI requests. All of these magazines that supposedly review this data before they publish it telling him that they can't make any of this data available, until these scientists finally publish the work to a magazine with rigorous data sharing standards and are forced to make this available in 2008 (Briffa stuff). When it finally is, it's revealed that 15 trees make up the entirety of the 20th century data. There's been tons of stuff here. And these guys are all of the main players in the IPCC reports - I guess Briffa is on one of the panels. Do you believe the data that they were readily sharing with each other, and basing each other's work off of, shouldn't be available to reasonable requests and public scrutiny?

 

[DrJ]

DOE sends a “litigation hold notice” regarding CRU to employees – asking to “preserve documents”

 

[SmoovySmoov]

I see everyone is still missing the point here. Watch what the other hand is doing, this is not about global warming. It is about 1) The New World Order2) Redistribution of the wealth

It's threads like these that always helps me flesh out my Ignore list.

 

[DrJ]

Also, this was about a week ago and I don't think this has even appeared in the mainstream media as of yet, but a PSU panel is investigating the climategate emails as well:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/...all_climat.aspx

More than $760 million in grants are given annually to research within Penn State, Mountz said. There will be no sanctions or restrictions placed on Mann or any grants during the inquiry.

760 million you say? Hmmm, that's a pretty big industry.

 

[katarr]

Another scientist bails:

End ‘authority’ on climate change

PUBLISHED: 2009/11/23 06:12:51 AM

Prof Bruce Hewitson (Uninformed vitriol, November 19) pontificates on Andrew Kenny’s assessment (Ideology and money drive global-warming religion, November 16). Unfortunately for him, there has been a reformation. The time for pontification is over. The critics must be answered. Instead Prof Hewitson stood in his pulpit and preached the gospel according to St IPCC.

He says he was a l ead a uthor for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). That is not material — I was a c o-ordinating l ead a uthor, but it gives me no mantle of infallibility. Instead, it gave me insight into the flaws behind the whole process.

The IPCC claims that it has thousands of scientists and almost as many reviewers of the scientists' work to produce their reports. There are two problems, however. In the scientific world I move in, “review” means that your work is scrutinised by several independent, anonymous reviewers chosen by the editor.

However, when I entered the IPCC world, the reviewers were there at the worktable, criticising our drafts, and finally meeting with all us c o-ordinators and many of the IPCC functionaries in a draftfest.

The product was not reviewed in the accepted sense of the word — there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific.

The second problem is that the technical publication is not completed by the time the IPCC reports. Instead, it produces a Summary for Policy Makers. Writing the s ummary involves the co-ordinators, the reviewers and the IPCC functionaries as before, and also various chairmen.

The s ummary goes out in a blaze of publicity, but there is no means of checking whether it represents what the scientists actually said, because the scientific report isn’t published for another four months or more.

In the Fourth Assessment, the s ummary was quietly replaced several months after it was first published because some scientists who were involved complained of misrepresentation.

In the early years of the IPCC, there was a slightly different process. The Summary for Policy Makers and the scientific reports were issued at the same time. In those years, however, the Summary for Policy Makers bore a warning that it was the last current word on the subject, whereas the scientific reports were correctly identified as being subject to continuing development.

Someone smelled a rat about the “last word” story, so the process was changed, and now the s ummary is issued with no means of checking.

It isn’t necessary to list all the changes I have identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policy makers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said. The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.

Dr Philip Lloyd Pr Eng

MD: Industrial and Petrochemical Consultants

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=87726

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The demands have never been frivolous. All McIntyre has ever wanted was the data sets and ideally the source code that all of this stuff was based on. Data and code that they were more than happy to share amongst themselves with the whole "don't let anyone else see this" deal attached to it. And the CRU emails highlight the fact that there has been a systemic attempt to make this unavailable to avoid scrutiny. Not only at CRU, but also at the organzations that they work closely with and author a bunch of papers to science journals with. Who happen to be all main players for the IPCC reports, conveniently enough.

I believe I've read the actual E-Mails you are using to make these claims. I do not find that those E-Mails support these conclusions. As I said weeks and pages ago in this thread I'd like for you (or anyone) piece together the "evidence" into an actual case. Repeatedly saying that the E-Mail's "highlight the fact that there has been a systemic attempt to make this unavailable to avoid scrutiny" doesn't make it so. Maybe it is so, but I haven't seen anything other than E-Mails filled with contempt, disdain, frustration, paranoia, and other negative characteristics. I have not seen evidence of any "systematic cover-up", "global conspiracy", fraud, or any other of the accusations being made that would bring the science in question. I've mostly seen ing, whining, and venting. What have I missed other a predisposition to shout "a-ha, I knew it"?

It's been pretty clearly demonstrated. Mann giving Osborn the same information that McIntyre had been requesting for years, and telling him not to share it with anyone else because he wouldn't want this "dirty laundry" to be gotten a hold of by people that in his opinion would "distort" the point. Phil Jones sending an email to another scientist telling him to take the data off of an FTP server because it's the data that McIntyre has been after, and goes on the further talk about how they will illegally respond to FOI requests. All of these magazines that supposedly review this data before they publish it telling him that they can't make any of this data available, until these scientists finally publish the work to a magazine with rigorous data sharing standards and are forced to make this available in 2008 (Briffa stuff). When it finally is, it's revealed that 15 trees make up the entirety of the 20th century data. There's been tons of stuff here. And these guys are all of the main players in the IPCC reports - I guess Briffa is on one of the panels. Do you believe the data that they were readily sharing with each other, and basing each other's work off of, shouldn't be available to reasonable requests and public scrutiny?

I'll try to find an opportunity to properly respond to this.

 

[DrJ]

This is from the thread at climateaudit regarding the DOE litigation notice thing. Apparantly one of the emails that was released. I'd be interested if there's more information on the context of the entire message.

“Neville,Mike’s response could do with a little work, but as you say he’s got the tonealmost dead on. I hope I don’t get a call from congress ! I’m hoping that no-onethere realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25years.I’ll send on one other email received for interest.CheersPhil”

 

[DrJ]

Also bottom, something that might interest your for your response. Here's some of the correspondence between McIntyre and Mann that give some insight into the reasons that guys like Mann had for withholding this source code:

http://climateaudit.org/2005/07/19/title-t...98-source-code/

It also bears emphasis that my computer program is a private piece of intellectual property, as the National Science Foundation and its lawyers recognized….And whether I make my computer programs publicly available or not is decision that is mine alone to make….under long-standing Foundation policy, the computer codes referred to by The Wall Street Journal are considered the intellectual property of researchers and are not subject to disclosure.

Dear Mr. McIntyre, I apologize if my last electronic message [see here ] was not clear but let me clarify the US NSF’s view in this current message. Dr. Mann and his other US colleagues are under no obligation to provide you with any additional data beyond the extensive data sets they have already made available. He is not required to provide you with computer programs, codes, etc. His research is published in the peer-reviewed literature which has passed muster with the editors of those journals and other scientists who have reviewed his manuscripts. You are free to your analysis of climate data and he is free to his. The passing of time and evolving new knowledge about Earth’s climate will eventually tell the full story of changing climate. I would expect that you would respect the views of the US NSF on the issue of data access and intellectual property for US investigators as articulated by me to you in my last message under the advisement of the US NSF’s Office of General Counsel. Respectfully, David J. Verardo Director, Paleoclimate Program

I have made available all of the research data that I am required to under United States policy as set by the National Science Foundation. In accordance with the rules promulgated by the Foundation and supported by the Foundation’s General Counsel, I maintain the right to decline to release any computer codes, which are my intellectual property.

(Q5A).. our policies are fully in keeping with those established by the National Science Foundation.

(Q5B)…

A(Q5C): The source of these policies is the National Science Foundation.

A(Q5D): My computer program is a piece of private, intellectual property, as the National Science Foundation and its lawyers recognize. It is a bedrock principle of American law that the government may not take private property “without [a] public use,” and “without just compensation.”

Even more recently, the National Science Foundation confirmed its view that my computer codes are my private property. A recent issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education states: “According to David Stonner, of the Congressional affairs office at the National Science Foundation, Mr. McIntyre contacted the foundation last year to ask for Mr. Mann’s computer code. Mr. Stonner said the agency had told Mr. McIntyre that the code was the intellectual property of Mr. Mann . . ..” Richard Monastersky, Congressman Demands Complete Records on Climate Research by 3 Scientists Who Support of Global Warming, Chronicle of Higher Education (July 1, 2005), available at: http://chronicle.com/temp/email.php?id=dop...tekp5avlofvb2yu

This guy was refusing this on the basis that it was his own intellectual property. What employer do you know where you work for them and all of your work is your own intellectual property? This may in fact be legally true, which is how these guys have gotten around releasing all of this stuff for so long, but it sure shows some real issues in the way these grants are awarded. This should at worst be property of the University itself and be subject to FOI requests.

 

[Guest]

This guy was refusing this on the basis that it was his own intellectual property. What employer do you know where you work for them and all of your work is your own intellectual property? This may in fact be legally true, which is how these guys have gotten around releasing all of this stuff for so long, but it sure shows some real issues in the way these grants are awarded. This should at worst be property of the University itself and be subject to FOI requests.

You know what? It doesn't. I doubt you really grasp any of the realities involved.Now stop it. Just... stop it. Nobody is going to be convinced or come around by your posting of random e-mails. If the body of scientific knowledge changes their consensus opinion, then the, "pro-Global Warming crowd" as you guys call them, will come around. But you posting random e-mails every 3 days won't do a damn thing.

So, just stop.

 

[DrJ]

This guy was refusing this on the basis that it was his own intellectual property. What employer do you know where you work for them and all of your work is your own intellectual property? This may in fact be legally true, which is how these guys have gotten around releasing all of this stuff for so long, but it sure shows some real issues in the way these grants are awarded. This should at worst be property of the University itself and be subject to FOI requests.

You know what? It doesn't. I doubt you really grasp any of the realities involved.Now stop it. Just... stop it. Nobody is going to be convinced or come around by your posting of random e-mails. If the body of scientific knowledge changes their consensus opinion, then the, "pro-Global Warming crowd" as you guys call them, will come around. But you posting random e-mails every 3 days won't do a damn thing.

So, just stop.

Well then explain to me why this isn't a concern rather than letting these same scientists cooking the data explain it for you. In ways just as questionable as their data and conclusions at this point.

 

[GroveDiesel]

 

[GroveDiesel]

This guy was refusing this on the basis that it was his own intellectual property. What employer do you know where you work for them and all of your work is your own intellectual property? This may in fact be legally true, which is how these guys have gotten around releasing all of this stuff for so long, but it sure shows some real issues in the way these grants are awarded. This should at worst be property of the University itself and be subject to FOI requests.

You know what? It doesn't. I doubt you really grasp any of the realities involved.Now stop it. Just... stop it. Nobody is going to be convinced or come around by your posting of random e-mails. If the body of scientific knowledge changes their consensus opinion, then the, "pro-Global Warming crowd" as you guys call them, will come around. But you posting random e-mails every 3 days won't do a damn thing.

So, just stop.

Hmm, I'd say that it seems that you're the one that needs to stop it because you don't really grasp all of the realities involved. When the core of the issue is that all of the original temperature data was erased and all we have to rely on is computer models, it seems perfectly reasonable to see how those computer models work. If that information isn't being subjected to the peer review process, then I'd hardly call ANY results coming from it "science." If it's intentionally being hidden, then that makes me even more suspicious.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

This video contains temperature information from more than 6,000 years ago. Unpossible.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Classic.

 

[jonessed]

DOE sends a “litigation hold notice” regarding CRU to employees – asking to “preserve documents”

Ouch.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Yeah, except that information comes from the same place that all the global warming scientists get theirs for their 100+ year old data. He just took actual ice core data used by global warming proponents and put it in the same hockey stick graph that they used.FYI, that hockey stick graph doesn't use actual readings across the entire thing. Those really just start in 1960. Hence the "trick" they talked about where tree rings were used up to the 1960s and then they disappeared that line into the actual measured temperatures in the 60s to get their nice little hockey stick look.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Also bottom, something that might interest your for your response. ...

There is not going to be a good response anytime soon. I'm just going to spread too thin to do it correctly in the next few weeks. I apologize for that.Basically my response is that I don't think that the specific E-Mails (eg. "dirty laundry") support your specific conclusions for those E-Mails. If I ignore that and assume your conclusion of those E-Mails are all correct they do not add up to support your conclusion that the Climate Science "house of cards" has fallen or is even teetering on the edge. While I believe that there is enough there to warrant further investigation, I don't see anything (at least yet) to support rejecting the opinions of the vast majority of relevant scientists. I don't see any great concern in the scientific community that anyone's honest "life's work" is now suddenly compromised. I don't see any great scramble to go after all that grant money that will be at stake when the existing holders of it are out of jobs. I don't see any reason to believe that there was a grand conspiracy among thousands of scientists. I don't see any reason to believe that there was a tiny conspiracy that fooled thousands of scientists. I don't see any reason to believe that thousands of scientists went with the flow out of fear for their jobs. I think if we can simply stop jumping to conclusions, stop "reading between the lines", stop picking over the evidence that supports preconceived conclusions that the evidence will eventually speak for itself.Again, I'm not arguing whether or not your conclusions are wrong. I'm simply stating that for me you have not met the threshold of the required evidence to support those conclusions, yet alone to "clearly demonstrate" them as you pointed out. I have already readily admitted that I have a bias that the appropriate forum where this will be settled is withing the scientific community, and not in any court, including the court of public opinion. It won't be settled by debating Al Gore. It won't be settled by frivolously nagging scientists for proprietary source code and source data. It won't be settled by proving that individual scientists are just as rude as the bloggers. It won't be settled by proving that individual scientists are just as intellectually dishonest as some of the bloggers I've been directed to in this thread. It won't be settled by picking at low hanging fruit. It will be settled in the realm of science where the best explanation will ultimately survive no matter how flawed may be the scientist(s) that originated the explanation.

 

[moleculo]

Also bottom, something that might interest your for your response. ...

There is not going to be a good response anytime soon. I'm just going to spread too thin to do it correctly in the next few weeks. I apologize for that.Basically my response is that I don't think that the specific E-Mails (eg. "dirty laundry") support your specific conclusions for those E-Mails. If I ignore that and assume your conclusion of those E-Mails are all correct they do not add up to support your conclusion that the Climate Science "house of cards" has fallen or is even teetering on the edge. While I believe that there is enough there to warrant further investigation, I don't see anything (at least yet) to support rejecting the opinions of the vast majority of relevant scientists. I don't see any great concern in the scientific community that anyone's honest "life's work" is now suddenly compromised. I don't see any great scramble to go after all that grant money that will be at stake when the existing holders of it are out of jobs. I don't see any reason to believe that there was a grand conspiracy among thousands of scientists. I don't see any reason to believe that there was a tiny conspiracy that fooled thousands of scientists. I don't see any reason to believe that thousands of scientists went with the flow out of fear for their jobs. I think if we can simply stop jumping to conclusions, stop "reading between the lines", stop picking over the evidence that supports preconceived conclusions that the evidence will eventually speak for itself.

Again, I'm not arguing whether or not your conclusions are wrong. I'm simply stating that for me you have not met the threshold of the required evidence to support those conclusions, yet alone to "clearly demonstrate" them as you pointed out. I have already readily admitted that I have a bias that the appropriate forum where this will be settled is withing the scientific community, and not in any court, including the court of public opinion. It won't be settled by debating Al Gore. It won't be settled by frivolously nagging scientists for proprietary source code and source data. It won't be settled by proving that individual scientists are just as rude as the bloggers. It won't be settled by proving that individual scientists are just as intellectually dishonest as some of the bloggers I've been directed to in this thread. It won't be settled by picking at low hanging fruit. It will be settled in the realm of science where the best explanation will ultimately survive no matter how flawed may be the scientist(s) that originated the explanation.

most of this agree with - in particular the bolded above. If you believe that there is enough to warrant further investigation, you've got to agree that we can't conclusively begin dramatic and costly reforms at this point, right? That's pretty much all I'm asking for, and all I've been asking for all along.The other point i'd like to address is what you call "frivolously nagging scientists" is what some might term, "allowing others to double check the work in the name of transparency". IMO, that is part of the process, and it's not frivolous. If the science is pure and clear, it will have no problem standing up to thorough review, even from political critics.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

most of this agree with - in particular the bolded above. If you believe that there is enough to warrant further investigation, you've got to agree that we can't conclusively begin dramatic and costly reforms at this point, right? That's pretty much all I'm asking for, and all I've been asking for all along.

No, I disagree. Not enough. I also disagree that the "dramatic and costly reforms" should be tied to this debate anyway. We should have never stopped exploiting these opportunities. I guess the argument for standing back and waiting is the "HDTV" argument where we rest of the world make the costly mistakes first and we just leverage their successes, but I don't see that happening this time. I see standing on the sidelines as much costlier in lost opportunities than being out in front.

The other point i'd like to address is what you call "frivolously nagging scientists" is what some might term, "allowing others to double check the work in the name of transparency". IMO, that is part of the process, and it's not frivolous. If the science is pure and clear, it will have no problem standing up to thorough review, even from political critics.

I'm not a big fan of our current status concerning "intellectual property" but that is what it is. I also know that Microsoft has never sent me the source code to Excel so I can go line by line through the code to determine if it works or not. This is not how programs are tested. More importantly the programs are merely an implementation and not the idea that needs to be double checked.

 

[Guest]

This guy was refusing this on the basis that it was his own intellectual property. What employer do you know where you work for them and all of your work is your own intellectual property? This may in fact be legally true, which is how these guys have gotten around releasing all of this stuff for so long, but it sure shows some real issues in the way these grants are awarded. This should at worst be property of the University itself and be subject to FOI requests.

You know what? It doesn't. I doubt you really grasp any of the realities involved.Now stop it. Just... stop it. Nobody is going to be convinced or come around by your posting of random e-mails. If the body of scientific knowledge changes their consensus opinion, then the, "pro-Global Warming crowd" as you guys call them, will come around. But you posting random e-mails every 3 days won't do a damn thing.

So, just stop.

Hmm, I'd say that it seems that you're the one that needs to stop it because you don't really grasp all of the realities involved. When the core of the issue is that all of the original temperature data was erased and all we have to rely on is computer models, it seems perfectly reasonable to see how those computer models work. If that information isn't being subjected to the peer review process, then I'd hardly call ANY results coming from it "science." If it's intentionally being hidden, then that makes me even more suspicious.

The original temperature data was erased from one source. It was not erased from the ultimate source. The analogy would be you putting up a CNN article here, then deleting it, and then being accused of, "deleting the source you relied on." No. You deleted your reference to the source. The ultimate story still resides where you got it at CNN.As far as the peer review process, I'll leave that up to the scientific community to decide. I imagine they have a much better conception of what is being done and what is necessary than you or I. But the fact that one Anti-Global Warming skeptic was denied some data or source code that he requested does not mean that it has been denied to everybody. And that is the idea where you all fail.

 

[DrJ]

most of this agree with - in particular the bolded above. If you believe that there is enough to warrant further investigation, you've got to agree that we can't conclusively begin dramatic and costly reforms at this point, right? That's pretty much all I'm asking for, and all I've been asking for all along.

No, I disagree. Not enough. I also disagree that the "dramatic and costly reforms" should be tied to this debate anyway. We should have never stopped exploiting these opportunities. I guess the argument for standing back and waiting is the "HDTV" argument where we rest of the world make the costly mistakes first and we just leverage their successes, but I don't see that happening this time. I see standing on the sidelines as much costlier in lost opportunities than being out in front.

The other point i'd like to address is what you call "frivolously nagging scientists" is what some might term, "allowing others to double check the work in the name of transparency". IMO, that is part of the process, and it's not frivolous. If the science is pure and clear, it will have no problem standing up to thorough review, even from political critics.

I'm not a big fan of our current status concerning "intellectual property" but that is what it is. I also know that Microsoft has never sent me the source code to Excel so I can go line by line through the code to determine if it works or not. This is not how programs are tested. More importantly the programs are merely an implementation and not the idea that needs to be double checked.

This is where I mostly disagree with your stance. These models need to be allowed to be tested independently. Excel is tested independently every single day, and any errors or bugs in it's functionality can be sent to Microsoft and will be patched. If not, it will be reported and their sales will suffer as a result. If they aren't going to furnish source code itself, they need to furnish all relevant data and methodology so that someone else could recreate the work on their own. You are correct in that the source code isn't entirely important itself - if they can explain exactly what the source code does by some other means in a way that someone could reproduce exactly what the source code did. This isn't what is happening though. They are allowed to publish their numbers - even make "corrections" - in relative secrecy.

 

[DrJ]

This guy was refusing this on the basis that it was his own intellectual property. What employer do you know where you work for them and all of your work is your own intellectual property? This may in fact be legally true, which is how these guys have gotten around releasing all of this stuff for so long, but it sure shows some real issues in the way these grants are awarded. This should at worst be property of the University itself and be subject to FOI requests.

You know what? It doesn't. I doubt you really grasp any of the realities involved.Now stop it. Just... stop it. Nobody is going to be convinced or come around by your posting of random e-mails. If the body of scientific knowledge changes their consensus opinion, then the, "pro-Global Warming crowd" as you guys call them, will come around. But you posting random e-mails every 3 days won't do a damn thing.

So, just stop.

Hmm, I'd say that it seems that you're the one that needs to stop it because you don't really grasp all of the realities involved. When the core of the issue is that all of the original temperature data was erased and all we have to rely on is computer models, it seems perfectly reasonable to see how those computer models work. If that information isn't being subjected to the peer review process, then I'd hardly call ANY results coming from it "science." If it's intentionally being hidden, then that makes me even more suspicious.

The original temperature data was erased from one source. It was not erased from the ultimate source. The analogy would be you putting up a CNN article here, then deleting it, and then being accused of, "deleting the source you relied on." No. You deleted your reference to the source. The ultimate story still resides where you got it at CNN.As far as the peer review process, I'll leave that up to the scientific community to decide. I imagine they have a much better conception of what is being done and what is necessary than you or I. But the fact that one Anti-Global Warming skeptic was denied some data or source code that he requested does not mean that it has been denied to everybody. And that is the idea where you all fail.

If they based their stuff off of raw numbers, that would be true. The problem is the numbers they based their stuff off of are "value added and homogenized" numbers. In order to verify the validity of anything done off of these "value added and homogenized" numbers, we need to see the damned things. Or be given exact detail on how they value added and homogenized them so that someone else could reproduce the work off of the raw numbers.If anyone could recreate this work from the raw numbers off of what they have provided, why are they even concerned about responding to FOI requests or getting calls from congress?

 

[Guest]

This guy was refusing this on the basis that it was his own intellectual property. What employer do you know where you work for them and all of your work is your own intellectual property? This may in fact be legally true, which is how these guys have gotten around releasing all of this stuff for so long, but it sure shows some real issues in the way these grants are awarded. This should at worst be property of the University itself and be subject to FOI requests.

You know what? It doesn't. I doubt you really grasp any of the realities involved.Now stop it. Just... stop it. Nobody is going to be convinced or come around by your posting of random e-mails. If the body of scientific knowledge changes their consensus opinion, then the, "pro-Global Warming crowd" as you guys call them, will come around. But you posting random e-mails every 3 days won't do a damn thing.

So, just stop.

Hmm, I'd say that it seems that you're the one that needs to stop it because you don't really grasp all of the realities involved. When the core of the issue is that all of the original temperature data was erased and all we have to rely on is computer models, it seems perfectly reasonable to see how those computer models work. If that information isn't being subjected to the peer review process, then I'd hardly call ANY results coming from it "science." If it's intentionally being hidden, then that makes me even more suspicious.

The original temperature data was erased from one source. It was not erased from the ultimate source. The analogy would be you putting up a CNN article here, then deleting it, and then being accused of, "deleting the source you relied on." No. You deleted your reference to the source. The ultimate story still resides where you got it at CNN.As far as the peer review process, I'll leave that up to the scientific community to decide. I imagine they have a much better conception of what is being done and what is necessary than you or I. But the fact that one Anti-Global Warming skeptic was denied some data or source code that he requested does not mean that it has been denied to everybody. And that is the idea where you all fail.

If they based their stuff off of raw numbers, that would be true. The problem is the numbers they based their stuff off of are "value added and homogenized" numbers. In order to verify the validity of anything done off of these "value added and homogenized" numbers, we need to see the damned things. Or be given exact detail on how they value added and homogenized them so that someone else could reproduce the work off of the raw numbers.If anyone could recreate this work from the raw numbers off of what they have provided, why are they even concerned about responding to FOI requests or getting calls from congress?

If you spent 20 years building a model, why wouldn't you want to just give all of your work product to everyone who asked for it? Because it's yours. If the other guy is too damned lazy to go, get the data, and make it himself, that's his problem.As I've said at least ten times in this thread, if there's a real fire here, the scientific opinion will shift. But if it's just smoke then the tin hat people is as far as it is going to get.

 

[DrJ]

\If you spent 20 years building a model, why wouldn't you want to just give all of your work product to everyone who asked for it? Because it's yours. If the other guy is too damned lazy to go, get the data, and make it himself, that's his problem.As I've said at least ten times in this thread, if there's a real fire here, the scientific opinion will shift. But if it's just smoke then the tin hat people is as far as it is going to get.

Because his work is entirely worthless if it can't be independently verified. This is how science works. Nevermind the fact that he shared the same work with Osborn from the CRU, complete with source code, supporting data, and explanation when necessary. He'll just give "his work" (which was funded by the taxpayers, and carried out on university property) to others. Just not people who might actually look at it with a critical eye.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Ooh, it just keeps getting better:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...global-warming/

Anyone here read Russian?

 

[tommyboy]

Ooh, it just keeps getting better:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...global-warming/

Anyone here read Russian?

kind of a death blow if you ask me.i'm sure there's more to come though. This should be a crime.

 

[DrJ]

Here's a nice piece on what they did with this tree ring stuff from 2006 at climateaudit. I believe this is what hide the decline is referring to: http://climateaudit.org/2006/02/13/briffa-...in-ring-widths/

Basically, their reasoning behind completely getting rid of the data beyond 1960 and using a combination of proxy and actual temperature readings in the graph is because it didn't agree with what they wanted them to say and as a result they wrote it off as some "unexplained anthropogenic factor that didn't happen in the earlier periods".

This density decline becomes large enough to impair the calibration after about 1960. For this reason, both Briffa et al. (2001) and Briffa et al. (2002a) used only pre-1961 data for calibration of their subcontinental, regional temperature reconstructions. This is a reasonable choice, provided that it is explicitly stated that this approach assumes the apparent recent density decline is due to some anthropogenic factor and that similar behaviour is assumed, therefore, not to have occurred earlier in the reconstruction period – which would otherwise introduce bias in the reconstructed temperatures.

Without a satisfactory explanation, we make the untested assumption that the decline is due to an anthropogenic factor that did not occur earlier in the reconstruction period.

Scientist A: The tree ring series doesn't say what we want. Scientist B: Well, that doesn't mean we can't include it. We'll just make the untested assumption that the data is wrong and splice value added and homogenized temperatures that agree there instead.

Scientist A: That's a pretty neat trick that will hide the decline. And by trick I mean....ummmm... clever way to do things. By hide the decline I mean...uh....no comment.

 

[moleculo]

Ooh, it just keeps getting better:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...global-warming/

Anyone here read Russian?

kind of a death blow if you ask me.i'm sure there's more to come though. This should be a crime.

Damn those Russians for going back to the original data source and checking to see how it differed from the data that the CRU guys used. Don't they know that scientists are supposed to be above reproach and we are all supposed to believe what ever they say, no questions asked? After all - we are all supposed to trust the scientists because we lay people couldn't possibly understand how the world works.

 

[jonessed]

Ooh, it just keeps getting better:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...global-warming/

Anyone here read Russian?

I think it's a shame that all scientists are going to suffer from the misdeeds of a handful.

 

[DrJ]

Here's another example where Briffa actually asked one of his buddies, who happens to be a reviewer at one of these science mags and who he addressed at one point as "Big Boy", not to print something critical of their work. http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/climategatekeeping/

From: Keith Briffa

To: Edward Cook

Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT

Date: Wed Jun 4 13:42:54 2003

I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please

Keith

...

Hi Keith,

Okay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper. Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims. If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced. Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink into the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of course).

Cheers,

Ed

....

Hi Big Boy

You just caught me as I was about to slope off after a brutal day …[chitchat]… This attack sounds like the last straw- from what you say it is a waste of time my looking at it but send a copy anyway. [more chitchat]

Keith

This appears to be the paper in question: http://nber-nsf09.ucdavis.edu/program/papers/auffhammer.pdfJust started reading the paper. Here's one part that's already a little interesting:

To supplement the brief observed temperature series, the long run history of natural climate

variability has been reconstructed using paleoclimatic data series including tree-ring index series, ice

cores, pollen series, coral, and faunal and coral abundance in deep-sea cores. The paleoclimatic data

series are selected for their length of sample span, sensitivity to climate variability, and relative lack

of disturbance from non-climate factors. Examples of such reconstructions include Briffa, Bartholin,

Eckstein, Jones, Karlen, Schweingruber and Zetterberg (1990), Briffa, Jones, Bartholin, Eckstein,

Schweingruber, Karlen, Zetterberg and Eronen (1992), Briffa, Schweingruber, Jones, Osborn, Harris,

Shiyatov, Vaganov and Grudd (1998), Briffa, Osborn, Schweingruber, Harris, Jones, Shiyatov and

Vaganov (2001), Scuderi (1993), Hughes and Brown (1992), Bradley and Jones (1992), Mann (2002),

Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) and others surveyed in Jones, Briffa, Barnett and Tett (1998) and

Jones, Osborn and Briffa (2001).

Hey, ya notice anything in common about all of these "independent" studies?

 

[Bonzai]

Still pumping away?

Just leave the link to climateaudit.org and save the wear and tear on your Control button.

 

[DrJ]

Still pumping away?Just leave the link to climateaudit.org and save the wear and tear on your Control button.

For some reason I don't believe some of you guys are going to make it over there to see some of this evidence, which the mainstream media is trying to ignore as best as possible.Instead you're just like "80% of scientists agree", "it'll sort itself out in science". To date, it appears science sorting itself out has involved a select group of individuals having exclusive access to the recognized media in the area and pumping out the same proxy data over and over and over while shutting out critics.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Still pumping away?

Just leave the link to climateaudit.org and save the wear and tear on your Control button.

For some reason I don't believe some of you guys are going to make it over there to see some of this evidence, which the mainstream media is trying to ignore as best as possible.

AGWer: I'm going to leave it to the scientists to tell me what's up.Skeptic: Well some scientists are sayin' it ain't so.

AGWer: Not those scientists.

 

[Bonzai]

Still pumping away?

Just leave the link to climateaudit.org and save the wear and tear on your Control button.

For some reason I don't believe some of you guys are going to make it over there to see some of this evidence, which the mainstream media is trying to ignore as best as possible.

AGWer: I'm going to leave it to the scientists to tell me what's up.Skeptic: Well some scientists are sayin' it ain't so.

AGWer: Not those scientists.

You've really done the Lord's work in here. Thanks.

 

[DrJ]

Reading through some of these Angola emails themselves. Some of this stuff is pretty funny:

From: gjjenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxxTo: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, deparker@xxxxxxxxx.xxxSubject: 1996 global temperaturesDate: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT)Cc: llivingston@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, djcarson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxxPhilRemember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), "inventing" the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time. I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa heights up to 20 Dec.3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20 Dec5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls??6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also 7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is) cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this last year - can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY. 9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO press release. It may not evoke any interest by then. 10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him. Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to save time in the long run. Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.CheersGeoff

They have an entire gameplan out for when they release global temperatures. This is pretty great.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Still pumping away?

Just leave the link to climateaudit.org and save the wear and tear on your Control button.

For some reason I don't believe some of you guys are going to make it over there to see some of this evidence, which the mainstream media is trying to ignore as best as possible.

AGWer: I'm going to leave it to the scientists to tell me what's up.Skeptic: Well some scientists are sayin' it ain't so.

AGWer: Not those scientists.

You've really done the Lord's work in here. Thanks.

moleculo is doing the heavy lifting. I'm just here for comic relief.

 

[moleculo]

Still pumping away?

Just leave the link to climateaudit.org and save the wear and tear on your Control button.

For some reason I don't believe some of you guys are going to make it over there to see some of this evidence, which the mainstream media is trying to ignore as best as possible.

AGWer: I'm going to leave it to the scientists to tell me what's up.Skeptic: Well some scientists are sayin' it ain't so.

AGWer: Not those scientists.

You've really done the Lord's work in here. Thanks.

moleculo is doing the heavy lifting. I'm just here for comic relief.

you are doin' a fine job too.

 

[Parrothead]

OUCH!

 

[Guest]

Still pumping away?

Just leave the link to climateaudit.org and save the wear and tear on your Control button.

For some reason I don't believe some of you guys are going to make it over there to see some of this evidence, which the mainstream media is trying to ignore as best as possible.Instead you're just like "80% of scientists agree", "it'll sort itself out in science". To date, it appears science sorting itself out has involved a select group of individuals having exclusive access to the recognized media in the area and pumping out the same proxy data over and over and over while shutting out critics.

Right. As opposed to your select group of individuals who have exclusive access to the media which you recognize.The difference between what you like and what you condemn is that most people in the know like what you condemn.

 

[DrJ]

Still pumping away?

Just leave the link to climateaudit.org and save the wear and tear on your Control button.

For some reason I don't believe some of you guys are going to make it over there to see some of this evidence, which the mainstream media is trying to ignore as best as possible.Instead you're just like "80% of scientists agree", "it'll sort itself out in science". To date, it appears science sorting itself out has involved a select group of individuals having exclusive access to the recognized media in the area and pumping out the same proxy data over and over and over while shutting out critics.

Right. As opposed to your select group of individuals who have exclusive access to the media which you recognize.The difference between what you like and what you condemn is that most people in the know like what you condemn.

McIntyre et al have been saying this stuff has been going on for years as the guys you like have controlled the media and access to it. The climategate emails have given this validation. Things might change now that these guys can't be ignored.

 

[jamny]

Copenhagen=bust

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Copenhagen=bust

That's a matter of perspective.

 

[jonessed]

Copenhagen=bust

What we do is irrelevant unles India and China cut way back and they are simply smarter than that. They aren't willing to cap their economies like we are.There will be a token agreement, but China and India's desire to grow will probably make climate talks ineffective for decades.

 

[Phurfur]

How much of a carbon foot print will this conference have on our environment? Even pro GW demonstrators are flying in.

I will take GW seriously after the people pushing GW start leading by example.

 

[The Z Machine]

How much of a carbon foot print will this conference have on our environment? Even pro GW demonstrators are flying in. I will take GW seriously after the people pushing GW start leading by example.

What do you want them to do? Take a row boat across the Atlantic?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

How much of a carbon foot print will this conference have on our environment? Even pro GW demonstrators are flying in. I will take GW seriously after the people pushing GW start leading by example.

What do you want them to do? Take a row boat across the Atlantic?

I think protesting/demonstrating via video uplink would be the appropriate 'green' thing to do here.

 

[moleculo]

How much of a carbon foot print will this conference have on our environment? Even pro GW demonstrators are flying in.

I will take GW seriously after the people pushing GW start leading by example.

What do you want them to do? Take a row boat across the Atlantic?

this would be much preferable, no?

 

[StrikeS2k]

How much of a carbon foot print will this conference have on our environment? Even pro GW demonstrators are flying in.

I will take GW seriously after the people pushing GW start leading by example.

What do you want them to do? Take a row boat across the Atlantic?

No, but they could have taken commercial flights and not used so many LIMOS that they had to bring them in from neighboring countries, don't you think?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhage...iar-wedges.html

 

[jonessed]

How much of a carbon foot print will this conference have on our environment? Even pro GW demonstrators are flying in. I will take GW seriously after the people pushing GW start leading by example.

What do you want them to do? Take a row boat across the Atlantic?

I don't really see the need for private jets and limos. Of course, heads of state need security so that will have to be accomodated, but others can take more efficient means of transportation. There are trains that go to Stockholm from all over Europe