Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Global Warming Research Center Hacked (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 32 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  30  31  32   
Author Topic: Global Warming Research Center Hacked
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This isn't about "us vs. them".

Actually Ricky, if you read the emails, that's the EXACT mentality that the AGW scientists had. It comes through as clear as day.

Of course, we all know that that attitude is only bad when one random poster on a forum has it, and not when science (or, for that matter, trillions of dollars) is at stake. [Smile]

Meanwhile, George Monbiot, one of the largest cheerleaders for global warming in the MSM, is calling for Phil Jones to resign, as well as publicly apologizing for not being a good enough journalist to show some skepticism. If you lose Monbiot, you know this is big.

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The more we dig, the worse it gets (emphasis is mine):
quote:
From: "Tatiana M. Dedkova" <****@insec.quorus.e-burg.su>
To: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk
Subject: schijatov
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 09:41:07 +0500
Dear Keith, March 6, 1996
.
.
.
Of course, we are in need of additional money, especially for collecting wood samples at high latitudes and in remote regions. The cost of field works in these areas is increased many times during the last some years. That is why it is important for us to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please, inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must represent you and your administration for these money. I and Eugene have a possibility to participate in the Cambridge meeteng in July, but we need extra many and special invitations.

If you do not have enough money to invite both of us, Eugene does not insist upon this visit.

The best wishes to you and Phil.
Yours sincerely Stepan Shiyatov


They want money transferred into personal accounts in amounts under $10,000 to avoid reporting.
They're defrauding the tax man and appear to be trying to get the money for personal use ... why else put it in your personal account? With any luck, a few of the big names in AGW research will get some jail time but with this kind of evidence there should at least be a criminal investigation.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KE
Member
Member # 6535

 - posted      Profile for KE   Email KE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible
From that you got "(They) appear to be trying to get the money for personal use...why else put it in your personal bank account?"

Oh, I don't know, read the letter. "To avoid big taxes..." which would cut into the amount they had to use for their "work".

They may be guilty of defrauding the tax agency but you are reading into this stuff that is not there.

And I work in the oil industry I'm not for global warming legislation. I'd rather my kids eat today than my grandchildren breath.

KE

Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're focusing on the wrong thing. This is the problem, "it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD".

I tell you what you might try, talk to a company you're trying to work with and ask them to transfer money into your personal account - or alternatively suggest you transfer money into theirs.

Promise to do it in increments that will avoid reporting. What's that look like? It looks like something criminal ...

[ November 24, 2009, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KE
Member
Member # 6535

 - posted      Profile for KE   Email KE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, I agree it looks criminal. I just think they were doing it to maximize dollars for their work, not their own personal finances. Definitely looks shady and should be investigated.

KE

Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From Phil Jones' email to Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Karl Taylor and Peter Gleckler Dec 3, 2008 regarding a request for information:
quote:
About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little so have very little – if anything at all.
That was then, this is now. From today's Guardian:
quote:
Jones accepted, though, that the contents of some of the emails were cause for embarrassment: "Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that."
So when Jones is talking via email to his co-conspirators, he's deleted "loads of email". When he's talking to the press, he's not deleted any.

So was Jones lying to Mann, Schmidt, Taylor and Gleckler or is he lying to us now?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As this gets sifted, we start getting a picture of what's been going on:
quote:
In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:
quote:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

I bet if you searched this forum for "peer review" you would find exactly what Mann and the other conspirators wanted people to say - that the plethora of peer reviewed science supports AGW, ergo AGW *must* be the reality. Little did all those champions of peer review know that contradictory articles were actively, and successfully, being suppressed.

On the corruption of peer review:
quote:
Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN's IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.

Don't think this is just one small incident, the conspiracy is large and involved RealCimate - supposedly an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. Except:
quote:
But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.
quote:


I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.

[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.
RealClimate was essentially an arm of the CRU with full veto power over any comments not fitting the AGW party line.


Robert Tracinski has it right:
quote:
This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.



[ November 24, 2009, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is turning out to be bigger than I initially thought. There's quite a few smoking guns here, and while it may not be enough to say AGW is wrong, it does call the integrity of many of the scientists involved into question. I would hope, at the very least, that all of them become more forthcoming and honest after this. I would also hope that there's some changes in the IPCC as well. In any case, here's the biggest problems:

- There are several emails strongly suggesting Jones et al. destroyed data and in other ways interfered with a lawful FOI request. This is a criminal act in the UK. Sure, it may not say anything about the science, but it does say something about their integrity. This deserves to be investigated and, if found to be true, deserves quite a few firings.

- The manipulation of the peer review process by threatening boycotts, picking reviewers who "know the right thing without prompting", colluding with peer reviewers to reject papers, demanding the firing of editors who accept papers they don't like, and changing the rules of the IPCC to suit their purpose. Obviously unethical, and is a gross misuse of science.

- The us vs them mentality, while not necessarily a problem in and of itself, does call into question their objectivity in the manner. Given their hatred of certain people (up to and including cheering their deaths), how can we expect them to adequately judge the science?

- And finally, there appears to be a good case that the whole temperature data that the CRU uses is a bumbling mess and should be discarded. CBS has a good summary if you'd prefer an "objective" look, but there are other summaries as well. In brief, the zip file contained a file called HARRY_READ_ME.txt, which was basically a log/diary of Harry's (whoever he was) adventures with the climate data. They're entertaining to read in a geeky sort of way if you've got a good sense of humor. He's basically trying to fit the programming to published results to see how they did it, and can't. Along the way, he discovers garbage data, horrible code, undocumented files, unexplained paranormal phenomena, and piles upon piles of errors. Hadley earlier this year stated they can't release the original data because they lost it. If this file is true, then the current code is useless too, as it contains too much garbage, fudging, and improper procedures.

In other words, the entire purpose of the CRU is based on data that should never, ever be used.

Given this last bit, and if the first impressions hold up, we have every reason to demand GISS's code and procedures as well to see if this happened to them too. Of course, GISS is just as bad as CRU at responding to FOI requests, and after this latest batch of revelations it looks like they might be getting sued for it.

If HadCRUt, GISS, and NCDC data turns out to be garbage (given the collusion between climate scientists, there's a non-insignificant chance of this being so), what then? Well, for starters, any ethical approach to global warming studies would be forced to use satellite data, and adjust all their models for that. Suddenly, global warming won't look so bad...

This isn't over yet. Not by a long shot.

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The cliff notes version of the emails - 3 things to understand about what the emails reveal:

1) First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results.

2) Second, they discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication.

3) Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.

This is how "Consensus" was reached, than used to declare that 'the debate is over' and that skeptics and critics are "deniers" (equivalent to holocaust-deniers), and all sorts of legislation put forth by BOTH the GOP and DNC are based on the idea that AGW has been proven.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is how "Consensus" was reached
That's rather a sweeping statement. Are you suggesting that this selection of email constitutes the entire history of modern climatology?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Constitutes? Hardly.

Rather a much more revealing insight into the inner dynamics of how a select group of scientists with an agenda and compromised motivating factors can promote an unproven hypothesis as "settled science."

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you're saying that you can draw conclusions about the body of climate research from these emails? What conclusions are those?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KE:
Oh, I agree it looks criminal. I just think they were doing it to maximize dollars for their work, not their own personal finances. Definitely looks shady and should be investigated.
KE

You might be right, no one can easily attest to their motives. But either way the IRS won't care, they're generally not forgiving about this kind of behavior.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No. The emails just confirm what I've already known all along.

The fact is, in the past here, I and many others have put forth all sorts of articles, arguments and other sources that have more or less indicated that AGW was a fraud promoted for political purposes, not actual, hard science. The "AGW is Already Proven" crowd have always been able to marginalize, ignore or derail any of those arguments as subjective, biased sources.

But now these emails are something quite different - they substantiate all of those claims the AGW believers marginalized and ignored based on source bias.
I've been arguing here for years now that AGW has always been a political movement masquerading as "science."

These emails are merely confirming what I and others have been contending for quite some time now.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the basic AGW science is sound.

1)It seems probable that humanity is increasing the CO2 ratio in the environment.

2)It also seems likely this will increase the global environmental temperature.

3)There also seems to be some circumstantial evidence supporting global warming, glaciers melting, ice caps receding, etc.

However, at this point I always wanted a rational discussion on what was the best approach for humanity. What is the cost of adapting to the hotter temperatures? What is the cost of reducing CO2 output? What are the ramifications both ways?

Instead, the argument seems to break down into religious fervor at this point.

I personally expect the optimal path for the human race is a long term gradual reduction in CO2 output, combined with a practical approach to accommodating warmer temperatures.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One year ago, I started a thread that had the following contentions in it that have since been confirmed by this latest:

quote:

9. The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models.

---

15. The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.

---

16. Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.


We can now add to that: Scientists charged with a FOIA request deliberately colluded to try and delete incriminating emails.
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KE
Member
Member # 6535

 - posted      Profile for KE   Email KE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I bet if you searched this forum for "peer review" you would find exactly what Mann and the other conspirators wanted people to say - that the plethora of peer reviewed science supports AGW, ergo AGW *must* be the reality. Little did all those champions of peer review know that contradictory articles were actively, and successfully, being suppressed.
I bet you are right.

And here is the biggest problem with that kind of fraud.
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
Constitutes? Hardly.

Rather a much more revealing insight into the inner dynamics of how a select group of scientists with an agenda and compromised motivating factors can promote an unproven hypothesis as "settled science."

It lowers science to the level of "religion" and scientists to that of believers and fanatics. [Frown]

I hope these 'scientists' are investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If for no other reason than to discourage other scientists from using science and fraud to champion their 'cause' and further endangering the vital roll true science plays in the world. If I as an atheist 'were' guilty of treating science like a religion then it seems these guys have committed apostasy.


KE

[ November 24, 2009, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: KE ]

Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KE
Member
Member # 6535

 - posted      Profile for KE   Email KE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D,

I don't remember you ever saying anything about Global Warming one way or the other.


[Razz] [Smile] [Smile]

KE

[ November 24, 2009, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: KE ]

Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And I don't remember you professing your love for Bob Dylan, either. [Razz] [Wink] [Smile]
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KE
Member
Member # 6535

 - posted      Profile for KE   Email KE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[LOL]
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KE
Member
Member # 6535

 - posted      Profile for KE   Email KE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stacy laughed and gave you an "Amen!", D. (She is no Dylan fan, and may be a little tired of him at this point. [Smile] )
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sauurman
Member
Member # 6467

 - posted      Profile for Sauurman   Email Sauurman       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow when I first saw this story I thought it had a couple of "gotcha" moments about the term "trick" and how they wanted to knock one of the skeptics out. But hearing about the attempts to fire editors they don't like and subvert the peer review process... yikes. This IS a big story.

Frankly if they haven't don't so already FOI and the equivalent type of information requests in other countries should be done on ALL major climate studies organizations. A few audits would be great on a personal level since there is mention of funds going directly to personal accounts.... [Wink]

Posts: 174 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So you're saying that you can draw conclusions about the body of climate research from these emails? What conclusions are those?"

Well, he can draw *political* conclusions. It's hardly a secret that AGW has become highly politicized. Must be that A in AGW?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kind of why this debate is kicking in the 1st place
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So you're saying that you can draw conclusions about the body of climate research from these emails? What conclusions are those?
Well for one thing, it does prove what many of the skeptics have been complaining about for years: that at least some of the research going on has become politicized to the point where the conclusions are highly suspect.

Beyond that, it does serve as tangible proof that overwhelming scientific consensus, which is really the cornerstone of AGW theory, can, and indeed has been corrupted in at least one prominent and significant case.

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, and I'm not saying I believe that this story disproves or defeats AGW, but one could envision a situation where due to the inherent incestuousness of scientific research, the misfeasance of a few key players could corrupt an entire body of research.

As I've observed many times on this board, the stakes are very high in this case, due to the increasingly absolutist and hostile rhetoric coming from AGW proponents.

Alot of funding and in many cases, peoples' professional reputations are now on the line. If AGW turns out to be anything less than advertised, the consequences will be dire for many, and will be horrendous for the credibility of science in the public arena.

This kind of evidence does not bode well for anyone.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd like to make a few points here, folks.

I almost never participate in these AGW debates on Ornery because, with all due respect, 95% of you are talking out of your collective arses on this issue. You're not climate researchers, and, however much you may be convinced otherwise, you do not know what these emails mean.

Any fool can sit there in an armchair and come to an "obvious" conclusion about what is meant by certain, supposedly incriminating plain-English words - but without the proper context, your conclusions are empty conjecture. Scientists in any field say this kind of stuff all the time, it most of the time it does NOT mean what the layman on the outside thinks it means.

Who here can explain why "Delaunay triangulation[...]renders the station counts totally meaningless." Anyone? Anyone care to tell me why this scientist thinks it should have been "coded up in Fortran." Daruma? G2? Jason? And what are the "counts," exactly? I want an explanation that does not rely on presumption or inference -- only demonstrable fact.

Oh, we can find all kinds of meanings in these emails to confirm our biases, if we want to. I for instance read this:

quote:
They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure the same filter was used for all curves.

-and *I* am inclined to see this as a legitimate attempt to refine and purify data - there is interference in the 1960 + results which needs to be filtered out. A "non-temperature signal" is something you do not want mixed in with temperature measurements. Of course, I don't know for sure, but I suspect that none of you do either.

I have a great deal of sympathy for scientists in this and related fields - I know a few and have met many - because for the last 25 years they have had to cope with a popular media that is, in a word, retarded. Journalism has so completely skewed and obfuscated the numerous, very complicates issues involved in scientific research -- scientists have been forced into a box of one extreme or the other, and have had to manage all kinds of PR bull**** just to keep their research afloat. They did not create the mass stupidity with they have to contend.

These emails could be evidence of deception. OR, they could just as easily be very normal geek-talk in pursuit of careful and responsible research. I've heard enough scientist-banter to know that appearances can be deceiving.

So, until some Ornerian can explain exactly what these emails mean in plain English, I humbly submit that this is nothing but a great big ignorant wankfest.

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
This kind of evidence does not bode well for anyone.

I fear you are too right on this issue.

It's possible that the pro-AGW fanatics have acted to corrupt the scientific process while at the same time vociferously claiming the other side was guilty of corruption. If the issue had been fought without so much hype or publicity, it wouldn't matter as much, but in this case the pro-AGW scientists have literally made a series of globally catastrophic claims.

The general public will probably respond by increasing skepticism of all science if these claims turn out to be highly exaggerated, even if AGW turns out to be correct. General science will suffer a PR backlash even if AGW is technically correct, but not of a disastrous magnitude.

Hopefully, these emails, the people involved and the underlying institutions will be vigorously investigated by an impartial body and any wrong doing publicly and transparently addressed.

Any other course of action will appear to be nothing other than a cover up.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
Anyone care to tell me why this scientist thinks it should have been "coded up in Fortran."

I'm an engineer. I've had multiple classes in Fortran and am familiar with the language.

I can't answer your question, but I can speculate. Fortran is often used by NASA and sometimes used by the DOD, but it is generally considered a very old and nearly obsolete computer language.
Fortran

At a guess, I'd say that the code was written up in some kind of software specific scripting language. This is generally always a bad idea, but happens often enough. So if the person was an "old-school" government programmer, he might have considered Fortran an acceptable improvement, particularly since a lot of numerical modeling is done in Fortran.

As to the gist of the rest of your post, it boils down to an "appeal to authority".

The mighty priests (Scientists) have declared it to be so and No One Else may question their claims!

quote:

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

Appeal to Authority
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My impression is that AGW theory is the lovechild of fear of nuclear apocalypse and growing awareness of human environmental impact.

Both nuke and environmental propaganda were rife with falsehood of all kind: denial, exaggeration, in all directions.

When the Cold War relaxed (does that make it now a Tepid Standoff?), half a century of anthropocentric annihilation fear infused our new growing fear, which is that Progress is not all Good and may even be Very Bad.

Hence the current politicization of prognostic climatology. This politicization is at least as old as Atomic Energy Commission experts telling us that atomic energy is perfectly safe and would provide power too cheap to bother metering.

The politicization is separate from the science. climatology is still a growingly important science for a species projected to populate the plant with ten billion members come midcentury and to still be almost entirely dependent on agriculture to feed them.

There are liars, apparently, in both camps currently polarizing climatology. There are those who use specious data to (and logic) to say that we shouldn't concern ourselves with this unprecedented release of energy and gases into the atmosphere. There are those who use specious data to say we should.

Yippee-do. If you want to make an informed decision on the matter, inform yourself. Just as one doesn't trust the DNC or RNC for one's politically relevant information, same with the various camps proclaiming 'the world she is-a getting hotter!' and 'the world she is-a not!.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
These emails could be evidence of deception. OR, they could just as easily be very normal geek-talk in pursuit of careful and responsible research. I've heard enough scientist-banter to know that appearances can be deceiving.
I don't disagree with any particular point, but I do echo what JWatts is saying: if there is reason to believe that scientists may be systematically and deliberately cooking the books, it's not much assistance or comfort to us laypeople to tell us that we are ignorant of science, and therefore should just shut up and trust the experts, namely the very scientists who are accused of cooking the books.

Incidentally, while some of the technical matters may be beyond the layperson's capacity to judge, we can certainly comment as well as anyone else on the other non-technical aspects of the e-mails, particularly those pertaining to the deliberate black-balling of scientific views that do not confirm to those of the authors. That does not require a scientific education to spot.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"it's not much assistance or comfort to us laypeople to tell us that we are ignorant of science, and therefore should just shut up and trust the experts, "

which is probably why hardly anyone here, if anyone here at all, has suggested we "should just shut up and trust the experts".

There have been those who've suggested that, if one wasn't willing to learn how to parse the data in an adequately informed way, then the next best thing would be to side with the camp that has the largest # of experts on its side. This camp has been the AGW is real side, or so I understand.

Let us note a simple truth: whether or not here has been fraud committed by some of the AGW is real camp does not of itself prove anything regarding the concept of AGW.

This conversation is ultimately not about AGW but about the military/industrial/research complex. (The majority of science funding came, last I knew, from agencies dominated by the Dept of def.)

[ November 25, 2009, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Let us note a simple truth: whether or not here has been fraud committed by some of the AGW is real camp does not of itself prove anything regarding the concept of AGW.
I disagree. The "concept" of AGW, as you call it, is premised on an overwhelming scientific consensus, the very factor that you state (understandably) should tilt us layerpeople's assessment in favour of a specific theory.

Certain highly embarassing and inflammatory evidence has now been introduced demonstrating that certain prominent scientists on the AGW are guilty of "cooking the data" and perhaps most significantly, seeking to blackball dissenters from the process. This latter part is clear to anyone, and does not require any technical expertise to spot.

This does not prove that the consensus is a fraud or a conspiracy, but it does at least validate some of the claims of many on the anti-AGW side have been making for years, claims that were scoffed at and derided as being scurrilous and devoid of merit.

The real issue isn't whether these were a few bad apples. The issue is, how many of these bad apples are there, and how widely has their work been disseminated?

As proponents of AGW have stated many times on this forum, it takes a very specific kind of expertise to do this kind of work. There aren't millions of people out there capable of reading this data and understanding it in a meaningful way. There are not that many globally that do this kind of work, and the work they do is probably heavily influenced by each other because of the incestuousness of the scientific process. It does not a require a massive conspiracy of millions or even thousands to seriously erode the credibility of the "consensus". A few bad apples in key positions could, plausibly, do the trick I think. I may be wrong on this point, but I think the issue definitely merits serious inquiry.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As to the gist of the rest of your post, it boils down to an "appeal to authority".
Nonsense. There is no one "authority" or "Source A" as you would have it. There are many thousands of sources, who are free to criticize each other and find flaws in research. These people *live* for proving themselves right, and others wrong. As an Ornerian, I'm sure you can appreciate that. [Smile]

So when a vast majority of contrarian nerds from around the globe come to a general consensus -- in my book, that is something to be taken very seriously.

quote:
while some of the technical matters may be beyond the layperson's capacity to judge, we can certainly comment as well as anyone else on the other non-technical aspects of the e-mails, particularly those pertaining to the deliberate black-balling of scientific views that do not confirm to those of the authors. That does not require a scientific education to spot.
Maybe. It's all too easy to be misled by your intuitions if you don't know exactly what you're looking at. Without context, you may come to a common-sense conclusion based on plain-English words that could, in fact, be way off the mark. And this is true as well for the political infighting - which exists in any research field, especially where international collaboration is concerned.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
These emails could be evidence of deception. OR, they could just as easily be very normal geek-talk in pursuit of careful and responsible research. I've heard enough scientist-banter to know that appearances can be deceiving.
That is certainly the claim ... bogus but the spin has to come from something. How about we look at the code in the HARRY_READ_ME.txt Mariner mentioned, from multiple locations within the released code:
code:
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

code:
; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;

code:
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline

code:
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

code:
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline

The programmer is, on multiple occasions, aborting the algorithm that calculates temperature trends because it does not conform to the theory. In all the instances where this occurs, the temperatures will be "artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

The code comments are full of these efforts:
code:
  
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).’

code:
printf,1,'IMPORTANT NOTE:'
printf,1,'The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density'
printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer'
printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'

What we have here, plainly documented in the code, is the attempt to suppress data that does not support the theory. I'm guessing the tree ring data refreenced works with the Yamal tree ring data that was exposed a little over a month ago as essentially fabricated (everyone remember all the coverage of that? No, not so much huh?). You can see some discussion in the emails about that incident and how they will cover it up.

The more we dig into this, the worse it looks. [Big Grin]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Maybe. It's all too easy to be misled by your intuitions if you don't know exactly what you're looking at. Without context, you may come to a common-sense conclusion based on plain-English words that could, in fact, be way off the mark. And this is true as well for the political infighting - which exists in any research field, especially where international collaboration is concerned.
Which is why I'm not jumping to any conclusions.

However, absent a very clear and convincing explanation of the mitigating circumstances and context, I've seen enough to be convinced that these specific scientists were guilty of some very serious dishonesty bordering on fraud.

When it comes to reading those e-mails, particularly the non technical parts, I believe my intuition is as good as anyone else's.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
This is how "Consensus" was reached
That's rather a sweeping statement. Are you suggesting that this selection of email constitutes the entire history of modern climatology?
You decide:
quote:
In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it “relies on most heavily” when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.
It may not constitute the *entire* history of modern climatology but it's damned close.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

That is not computer code. It's just a text doc.

quote:
The programmer is, on multiple occasions, aborting the algorithm that calculates temperature trends because it does not conform to the theory.
You have a reasonable chance of being correct up the word "algorithm." "Calculates" is questionable and everything following "because" is pure conjecture.

As I understand it, the the problem is that the winters have been deviating from the mean to a greater extent than before (consistent with GW theory, I believe) to that they no longer provide an accurate baseline, if you are using this particular tree-ring method of collecting data. I'm not *certain* that's what's happening, but it is very common in collecting empirical date that distortions appear in certain parts of the pool that aren't there otherwise, and you have to correct for it. Interferometry, I believe it's called.

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
This suggests to me that they are running a batch of data to calibrate the instrumentation, and that the programmer is warning that the output is not accurate. In other words, this could be a routine activity in some sort of test-run.

See what I mean about context?

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
However, absent a very clear and convincing explanation of the mitigating circumstances and context, I've seen enough to be convinced that these specific scientists were guilty of some very serious dishonesty bordering on fraud.


Guilty until proven innocent?

Give me one example of obvious dishonesty, in your opinion.

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So when a vast majority of contrarian nerds from around the globe come to a general consensus -- in my book, that is something to be taken very seriously.


Oh please Kid. Your being absolutely naive here. To say that all of these scientists around the world, whose entire careers is based upon grant funding from Foundations, Corporations and Governments as "contrarian" is laughable.

Your entire argument most certainly rests upon genuflecting to the high priesthood of the church of AGW.

In fact, I believe your entire argument is PRECISELY what those that conspired to promote the theory as "fact" to achieve a political agenda are counting on.

It's the "Noam Chomsky" effect.

Use enough big words and technical jargon as possible so the average sheeple just throws up their hands and leaves it up to their betters to tell them what to think.

I don't have to know jack **** about Fortran to see the transparent hypocrisy of the political agenda they've been trying to promote using AGW as the justification.

Kyoto protocols? Yeah, all first world countries must reduce their carbon emissions...but all the developing countries are exempt.

Ooooohh that'll really make the difference! [Roll Eyes]

All the first world countries that have the advanced technology to use power while limiting or cleaning up the emissions...while all the developing Third World countries are exempt, and using the most polluting power methods possible (coal) and almost no attempts to even try and mitigate pollution.

And "carbon credits" and trading schemes?

Oh please...someone does not need to be a rocket scientist to see that these political rackets are all based on an agenda that has nothing to do with "saving the environment." Therefore the "urgency" that all of the AGW are paying lip service to is rather obvious. If these douche bags REALLY thought the whole 'emissions' was a true threat, they would certainly push towards limiting the worst offenders (China, India) with the least effective pollution mitigating technology rather than focusing on the First World countries who have the most advanced.

[ November 25, 2009, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 32 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  30  31  32   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1