13 ms·

CRU climate scientists did not withold data

31 points by pierrefar 16y ago

jgrahamc 16y ago
But the report does ask for better handling of the blogosphere, plus opening up data and source code: http://blog.jgc.org/2010/07/cce-review-report.html http://blog.jgc.org/2010/07/cce-review-report.html
- pierrefar 16y ago
  Good post. The Guardian has an interesting article from this past Sunday about scientists being more open. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatechange-hacked-emails-muir-russell http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatecha... I, for one, welcome this openness, and hope that it leads to the removal of fundamentalists from both sides from the debate. No doubt there is a big problem, and we won't solve it when people are merely shouting at each other.
  - swah 16y ago
    If you remove fundamentalists from both sides, won't there be new fundamentalists: the first and last elements of the spectrum?
    - pierrefar 16y ago
      I'm hoping the new extremes are not ideological fundamentalists.
  - sprout 16y ago
    The ill effects of burning fossil fuels are myriad and well-documented, from smog, to oil spills, to coal mine disasters, to smog, to ocean acidification. I'm generally fairly hostile towards the fundamentalists on the other side of the debate becaause it's generally presented as if AGW was the lynchpin without which fossil fuels are a great fuel source. And further, it's generally presented as if the 'global warming' part were somehow scientifically dubious, when all that is dubious is the 'anthropogenic' part. So I may be a bit of a fundamentalist, but there are a lot of fundamental reasons fossil fuels are not okay. Nuclear, wind, and solar are where it's at.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
gaika 16y ago
From the original report [1]: "It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid." [1] http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/phil%20jones%20house%20of%20commons%20report.pdf http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/ph...
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Title is misleading. The report claims that the CRU didn't withhold data simply because "any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis". So basically, the CRU withheld their own data/source code, but they didn't cover up other people's data. Huh? Even the report admits that "there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness". This sounds like an attempt at whitewashing, basically giving reporters a justification for ignoring the whole mess.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  You obviously didn't read the next paragraph: "Writing computer code to process the data "took less than two days and produced results similar to other independent analyses. No information from CRU was needed to do this"." Personally I can understand them not wanting to "fully comply", given the number of FoI requests they would've received and their tone. Have you seen the vitriol over at Climate Audit? edit: It gets even better a bit further down: "Asked whether it would be reasonable to conclude that anyone claiming instrumental records were unavailable or vital code missing was incompetent, another panel member, Professor Peter Clarke from Edinburgh University, said: "It's very clear that anyone who'd be competent enough to analyse the data would know where to find it. It's also clear that anyone competent could perform their own analysis without let or hindrance.""
  - underdown 16y ago
    You mean like how research 2000 hasn't complied for kos? Its not science if its not open and independently verifiable. Raw data doesn't a computer model make.
  - roboneal 16y ago
    The number and "tone" of the requests is irrelevant. If they want to ignore or not "fully comply" with FOI requests - they shouldn't take public funds.
    - tome 16y ago
lacrossegm 16y ago
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/029130BFDC78FA33/1/5WvasALL-hw http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/029130BFDC78FA3... direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WvasALL-hw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WvasALL-hw
dmfdmf 16y ago
This looks like a whitewash to me. It wasn't just about whether they withheld data or even source code. One of their tactics, revealed by the leaked emails, was to publicly berate the scientists who opposed AGW to publish their arguments in peer reviewed journals. In private they worked to get journal editors fired, ignore journals that published opposite views, discredited and hampered the careers of opponents, etc. More importantly, this whole approach of focusing on one little fact and using that to "prove" there was no conspiracy is like focusing on the glove that would not fit in the OJ trial. If you read the leaked emails the pattern seems pretty clear -- these guys were not engaging in science but politics.
- amh 16y ago
  Large amounts of government funding for scientific research create an equally large incentive to produce results which are politically useful (or at least, not politically inconvenient). In the case of AGW, the easy "solution" is massive expansion of government regulation in all spheres of life, as well as creation of new markets for government carbon indulgences, an excellent mechanism for enriching politicians and selected corporate cronies. Any contrarian viewpoints are excluded both explicitly and implicitly, because ideas that resemble what's already been published in journals are those most likely to get funding. The vast majority of scientists aren't gonna jump off the gravy train and potentially sacrifice their tenure.
brc 16y ago
In reality it matters little what these self-examinationary enquiries come up with, because the climate scientists have lost the PR war with this one, and that's the crucial court of opinion. A few committed internet posters will point to the results and say 'but they were exonerated' - when in reality the enquiries all endorse the opinion they acted poorly. We've gone past the high water mark of human-caused climate change now - perhaps in history the runup to Copenhagen will look like the high point for the cause. Governments the world over are turning their back as an issue. There'll always be a committed band of supporters and promoters but once governments see it as a dead issue then everyone else will move on. The good news in all this is that as the smoke clears from the FUD surrounding climate change, it will allow alternative energy sources to be evaluated on their eficiency merits, rather than how well they link in to some government-invented paper-swapping scheme. Removing the demonisation of C02 will allow people to concentrate on the real environmental costs of any energy source and decide if the cost is worth it or not.

31 points by pierrefar 16y ago

But the report does ask for better handling of the blogosphere, plus opening up data and source code: http://blog.jgc.org/2010/07/cce-review-report.html http://blog.jgc.org/2010/07/cce-review-report.html

pierrefar 16y ago
Good post. The Guardian has an interesting article from this past Sunday about scientists being more open. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatechange-hacked-emails-muir-russell http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatecha... I, for one, welcome this openness, and hope that it leads to the removal of fundamentalists from both sides from the debate. No doubt there is a big problem, and we won't solve it when people are merely shouting at each other.
- swah 16y ago
  If you remove fundamentalists from both sides, won't there be new fundamentalists: the first and last elements of the spectrum?
  - pierrefar 16y ago
    I'm hoping the new extremes are not ideological fundamentalists.
- sprout 16y ago
  The ill effects of burning fossil fuels are myriad and well-documented, from smog, to oil spills, to coal mine disasters, to smog, to ocean acidification. I'm generally fairly hostile towards the fundamentalists on the other side of the debate becaause it's generally presented as if AGW was the lynchpin without which fossil fuels are a great fuel source. And further, it's generally presented as if the 'global warming' part were somehow scientifically dubious, when all that is dubious is the 'anthropogenic' part. So I may be a bit of a fundamentalist, but there are a lot of fundamental reasons fossil fuels are not okay. Nuclear, wind, and solar are where it's at.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

gaika 16y ago

From the original report [1]: "It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid." [1] http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/phil%20jones%20house%20of%20commons%20report.pdf http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/ph...

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Title is misleading. The report claims that the CRU didn't withhold data simply because "any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis". So basically, the CRU withheld their own data/source code, but they didn't cover up other people's data. Huh? Even the report admits that "there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness". This sounds like an attempt at whitewashing, basically giving reporters a justification for ignoring the whole mess.

anthonyb 16y ago
You obviously didn't read the next paragraph: "Writing computer code to process the data "took less than two days and produced results similar to other independent analyses. No information from CRU was needed to do this"." Personally I can understand them not wanting to "fully comply", given the number of FoI requests they would've received and their tone. Have you seen the vitriol over at Climate Audit? edit: It gets even better a bit further down: "Asked whether it would be reasonable to conclude that anyone claiming instrumental records were unavailable or vital code missing was incompetent, another panel member, Professor Peter Clarke from Edinburgh University, said: "It's very clear that anyone who'd be competent enough to analyse the data would know where to find it. It's also clear that anyone competent could perform their own analysis without let or hindrance.""
- underdown 16y ago
  You mean like how research 2000 hasn't complied for kos? Its not science if its not open and independently verifiable. Raw data doesn't a computer model make.
- roboneal 16y ago
  The number and "tone" of the requests is irrelevant. If they want to ignore or not "fully comply" with FOI requests - they shouldn't take public funds.
  - tome 16y ago

lacrossegm 16y ago

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/029130BFDC78FA33/1/5WvasALL-hw http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/029130BFDC78FA3... direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WvasALL-hw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WvasALL-hw

dmfdmf 16y ago

This looks like a whitewash to me. It wasn't just about whether they withheld data or even source code. One of their tactics, revealed by the leaked emails, was to publicly berate the scientists who opposed AGW to publish their arguments in peer reviewed journals. In private they worked to get journal editors fired, ignore journals that published opposite views, discredited and hampered the careers of opponents, etc. More importantly, this whole approach of focusing on one little fact and using that to "prove" there was no conspiracy is like focusing on the glove that would not fit in the OJ trial. If you read the leaked emails the pattern seems pretty clear -- these guys were not engaging in science but politics.

amh 16y ago
Large amounts of government funding for scientific research create an equally large incentive to produce results which are politically useful (or at least, not politically inconvenient). In the case of AGW, the easy "solution" is massive expansion of government regulation in all spheres of life, as well as creation of new markets for government carbon indulgences, an excellent mechanism for enriching politicians and selected corporate cronies. Any contrarian viewpoints are excluded both explicitly and implicitly, because ideas that resemble what's already been published in journals are those most likely to get funding. The vast majority of scientists aren't gonna jump off the gravy train and potentially sacrifice their tenure.

brc 16y ago

In reality it matters little what these self-examinationary enquiries come up with, because the climate scientists have lost the PR war with this one, and that's the crucial court of opinion. A few committed internet posters will point to the results and say 'but they were exonerated' - when in reality the enquiries all endorse the opinion they acted poorly. We've gone past the high water mark of human-caused climate change now - perhaps in history the runup to Copenhagen will look like the high point for the cause. Governments the world over are turning their back as an issue. There'll always be a committed band of supporters and promoters but once governments see it as a dead issue then everyone else will move on. The good news in all this is that as the smoke clears from the FUD surrounding climate change, it will allow alternative energy sources to be evaluated on their eficiency merits, rather than how well they link in to some government-invented paper-swapping scheme. Removing the demonisation of C02 will allow people to concentrate on the real environmental costs of any energy source and decide if the cost is worth it or not.