5 ms·

Climategate Inquiry Clearly Ignores Wrongdoing

35 points by jacoblyles 16y ago

itjitj 16y ago
I didn't realize there were so many denialists here.
jgrahamc 16y ago
Suppose these guys conspired to delete email and not handle FoI requests properly. Any change to the science? Any change to the conclusion that global warming is man made?
- vvatsa 16y ago
  Nope
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  John I'm not going to down vote you, although I wanted to. Instead I'll just reply. I'd love to talk about the science behind climate change. All kinds of technical goodness in there: modeling, thousands of interlocked complex systems, biomass, cloud cover -- the geek factor just goes on and on. But that's not what this story (or the larger story) is about. It's about scientists who become activists and the politicization of science. This has consequences in all sorts of areas besides Global Warming. So nope, doesn't impact the science at all. And while people may use this as a club to stereotype all scientists, if you do that you're taking a cheap shot. Lots of folks using all sorts of rhetorical tricks -- that's what political discussions look like. I'd like to see this entire issue move towards more open accessible, and accountable scientific practices. I'd like to see a code of conduct enacted, putting up some kind of Chinese wall between people lobbying for money and people reporting science. I'd like to see more public involvement, a greater understanding of how real science works, etc. But this particular article isn't about any of that. If anything, it's just a warning that nothing much has changed, and we're still going to have highly dysfunctional discussions around GW for some time to come. And that sucks.
  - Ardit20 16y ago
    "But that's not what this story (or the larger story) is about. It's about scientists who become activists and the politicization of science." That is one aspect of it. The much much more important aspect - if climate change is a fact and we are to expect much of the globe under water in 100 years or so - is the almost fundamental damage that this story has done to the science behind climate change in the court of public opinion. The first signs of the damage were the failure of the summit which was held just after the story went mainstream. No longer is climate change accepted as a fact. There is now resistance not only in the court of public opinion, but perhaps at the higher levels where power is concentrated. For sure the story is also about the politicisation of scientists, but if in 100 years the world is going to suffer irredeemable damage, that is a very minor story. That is why I think it is crucial that this whole process is not a whitewash and is done independently, impartially and with the aim of finding truth without fear or favour so that the trust can be restored and we can struggle with the real problem.
    - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
      I agree. If you want to do a quick sanity-check, you should play this out in your head using opposite scenarios. Scenario 1: scientists discover a grave, real, immediate, and imminent threat to mankind. Some persuasion of the population is necessary in order to take needed action. Scenario 2: scientists without malice exaggerate a threat in order to make their work more relevant. Some facile models are cooked up. Reproducible testing is deemed impossible. Other scientists glom on, hanging their conclusions off shakier and shakier science. Some data is made up. Some data is destroyed. Some data is selectively mangled, Some data is ignored. People who disagree are ostracized. Everybody "knows" that the threat is real, but details, predictions, and assumptions vary widely. Scientists are just another political action group, using propaganda and spinning stories to advance their cause. New research continues to agree with the paradigm -- outliers are shunned. In scenario 1 the threat is real and scientists need to convince folks to take action. It's something like an asteroid on a collision course with Earth. In scenario 2 the threat may or may not be real, but that's not the point any more. Scientists need to convince the public to take action because they've already emotionally committed to a course of action, no matter what the facts say. People who disagree are either paid shills, idiots, or malcontents. But here's the kicker: The practice of science and the interface between science and politicians should not be different in either of these two scenarios After all, Joe Public doesn't grok all this shit. One day one talking head is on TV telling him one thing. The other day another talking head is saying something else. It all just looks the same. The least we can do is get this mess straightened out. The GW folks should be first in line and should be raising all sorts of hell. If there were an asteroid on a collision course with Earth do you think I would keep my algorithms secret, play politics with publishing, name-call, and join some political group? Fuck no. I'd have every scrap of data online, every little thing I did would be public and wide-open. I'd be giving tours of telescopes to look at the asteroid and dropping hammers and pennies from towers to talk about gravity. I'd be squeaky clean, open, humble, direct, and accessible. I sure as shit wouldn't act like these assholes. (Obviously the truth in this case is somewhere between the two scenarios, but this is about a fucking lot more than just GW) Apologies for the profanity. I really love science, and this story just gets under my skin in a bad way.
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  JGC, since you have followed the debate so closely, I am sure that you know that Steve McIntyre does not challenge the assertion that global warming is man made. Rather, the primary focus of his work at Climate Audit and in publication is to challenge the extreme view of some paleoclimatologists that the modern era is warmer than any other time period in recent history. This plank of the alarmist platform is important in making the case that we must take expensive and immediate actions to mitigate carbon emissions. The climategate emails prove what Steve has long alleged, that his work and the work of others has been hindered at every turn by climate scientists denying them access to data and access to publication venues. This weakens the case that current years are the hottest in recent history, since alternative views were systematically and unfairly discredited through scientific politics, and not science. So, yes, I think it matters. In the long run, Climategate may be very beneficial to environmental science. It will shame those who seek to inject political bias into scientific discussions and encourage more open work practices. This is a good thing! Skeptical observers will be more likely to be convinced by a process that appears dispassionate. I am not sure what the point is of all these investigation panels, but they seem flawed.
  - itjitj 16y ago
    Not that I agree with his work, but does the climate being at a nominal temperature means ocean acidification is okay? CO2 pollution is about more than just temperature.
  - jshen 16y ago
    "It will shame those who seek to inject political bias into scientific discussions " Who are the 'those' you speak of?
    - Calamitous 16y ago
      Um, it's right there in the quote. Anyone who seeks to inject political bias into scientific discussions. Not sure what else you're looking for there.
      - 16y ago
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Yes, this should reduce our confidence in the fact that the "scientific consensus" is sound. Many arguments are made that "the science is settled". Such arguments are sound, the logic behind them is the following: intuitively, we start out believing that if there were evidence against our hypothesis (in this case, unprecedented warming), with a high probability the scientific process would have discovered/published it. Since evidence against this hypothesis has not been published, we conclude with high probability it does not exist. The lack of evidence against it increases our confidence that the hypothesis is true. Climategate has reduced our estimate of the probability that the scientific process would have discovered/published evidence against the unprecedented warming hypothesis if it existed. Therefore, such evidence may exist, but may not have been discovered due to bad behavior by Mann/Jones/etc. I'll geek out a little. Let H be a hypothesis and let E be evidence against it. I.e., P(H | !E ) < P(H), and conversely P(H | !E) > P(H). Now let O be the fact of E being observed/published/becoming known to us. We can compute: P(H | !O) = P(H | E) P(E | !O) + P(H | !E) P(!E | !O) Bayes rule turns this into: P(H | !O) = [P(H | E) P(!O | E) P(E) + P(H | !E)P(!O | !E) P(!E) ] / P(!O). Before climategate, we believed that P(!O | E) is close to zero, so therefore P(H | !O) is approximately P(H | !E) > P(H). After climategate, we must increase our estimate of P(!O | E), which in turn reduces our estimate of P(H | !O).
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Yes. Not directly, but it does offer a very big clue that something is wrong. You are a really smart guy and I have read your blog posts on the subject (As far as I recall you found a small mistake in their data). I am not that smart, much of the mathematical stuff behind this goes way over my head but even so I get very supessios when some of the leaders who really, really understand this stuff find it necessary to backstab others who work in the same field. It just stink to high heaven that something is wrong. The best way I can see is that the professor isn't up to the task, so he only did this improve his own situation. But honestly? I doubt that.
- lacrossegm 16y ago
  If denying something could make it untrue just think of the possiblities. Poverty poof gone. Hunger poof gone and so on... Reality gets in the way, of course, just as it does with GW.
kevinh 16y ago
I'm not sure if it's just me, but I get annoyed and look more skeptically at a person's point of view when they call it *gate. They're admitting their bias right in the title.
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  I used the title so people would know that the article refers to the recent Muir Russel report that was in the (Hacker) News over the last few days, since the article itself does not provide extensive background information. I can't control the cultural lexicon, I can only attempt to communicate as clearly as possible.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
jacoblyles 16y ago
Anthony Watts' comment : "The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?"
- eli 16y ago
  IANAL, but I didn't think there really was a plaintiff in criminal court. Isn't it e.g. "The United States Government" or "The State of New York" (not just whoever has beef with the defendant)?
  - hugh3 16y ago
    You're right; perhaps it should say "with no prosecutors". In other words, this inquiry had nobody there to aggressively put forth the case that the defendant was guilty.
- mukyu 16y ago
  Yes, in an adversarial system like the US legal system that would be farcical. However, this was not conducted in a US court room and there are are other systems such as an inquisitional style that more apt at determining truths than establishing blame.

35 points by jacoblyles 16y ago

I didn't realize there were so many denialists here.

Suppose these guys conspired to delete email and not handle FoI requests properly. Any change to the science? Any change to the conclusion that global warming is man made?

vvatsa 16y ago
Nope
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
John I'm not going to down vote you, although I wanted to. Instead I'll just reply. I'd love to talk about the science behind climate change. All kinds of technical goodness in there: modeling, thousands of interlocked complex systems, biomass, cloud cover -- the geek factor just goes on and on. But that's not what this story (or the larger story) is about. It's about scientists who become activists and the politicization of science. This has consequences in all sorts of areas besides Global Warming. So nope, doesn't impact the science at all. And while people may use this as a club to stereotype all scientists, if you do that you're taking a cheap shot. Lots of folks using all sorts of rhetorical tricks -- that's what political discussions look like. I'd like to see this entire issue move towards more open accessible, and accountable scientific practices. I'd like to see a code of conduct enacted, putting up some kind of Chinese wall between people lobbying for money and people reporting science. I'd like to see more public involvement, a greater understanding of how real science works, etc. But this particular article isn't about any of that. If anything, it's just a warning that nothing much has changed, and we're still going to have highly dysfunctional discussions around GW for some time to come. And that sucks.
- Ardit20 16y ago
  "But that's not what this story (or the larger story) is about. It's about scientists who become activists and the politicization of science." That is one aspect of it. The much much more important aspect - if climate change is a fact and we are to expect much of the globe under water in 100 years or so - is the almost fundamental damage that this story has done to the science behind climate change in the court of public opinion. The first signs of the damage were the failure of the summit which was held just after the story went mainstream. No longer is climate change accepted as a fact. There is now resistance not only in the court of public opinion, but perhaps at the higher levels where power is concentrated. For sure the story is also about the politicisation of scientists, but if in 100 years the world is going to suffer irredeemable damage, that is a very minor story. That is why I think it is crucial that this whole process is not a whitewash and is done independently, impartially and with the aim of finding truth without fear or favour so that the trust can be restored and we can struggle with the real problem.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    I agree. If you want to do a quick sanity-check, you should play this out in your head using opposite scenarios. Scenario 1: scientists discover a grave, real, immediate, and imminent threat to mankind. Some persuasion of the population is necessary in order to take needed action. Scenario 2: scientists without malice exaggerate a threat in order to make their work more relevant. Some facile models are cooked up. Reproducible testing is deemed impossible. Other scientists glom on, hanging their conclusions off shakier and shakier science. Some data is made up. Some data is destroyed. Some data is selectively mangled, Some data is ignored. People who disagree are ostracized. Everybody "knows" that the threat is real, but details, predictions, and assumptions vary widely. Scientists are just another political action group, using propaganda and spinning stories to advance their cause. New research continues to agree with the paradigm -- outliers are shunned. In scenario 1 the threat is real and scientists need to convince folks to take action. It's something like an asteroid on a collision course with Earth. In scenario 2 the threat may or may not be real, but that's not the point any more. Scientists need to convince the public to take action because they've already emotionally committed to a course of action, no matter what the facts say. People who disagree are either paid shills, idiots, or malcontents. But here's the kicker: The practice of science and the interface between science and politicians should not be different in either of these two scenarios After all, Joe Public doesn't grok all this shit. One day one talking head is on TV telling him one thing. The other day another talking head is saying something else. It all just looks the same. The least we can do is get this mess straightened out. The GW folks should be first in line and should be raising all sorts of hell. If there were an asteroid on a collision course with Earth do you think I would keep my algorithms secret, play politics with publishing, name-call, and join some political group? Fuck no. I'd have every scrap of data online, every little thing I did would be public and wide-open. I'd be giving tours of telescopes to look at the asteroid and dropping hammers and pennies from towers to talk about gravity. I'd be squeaky clean, open, humble, direct, and accessible. I sure as shit wouldn't act like these assholes. (Obviously the truth in this case is somewhere between the two scenarios, but this is about a fucking lot more than just GW) Apologies for the profanity. I really love science, and this story just gets under my skin in a bad way.
jacoblyles 16y ago
JGC, since you have followed the debate so closely, I am sure that you know that Steve McIntyre does not challenge the assertion that global warming is man made. Rather, the primary focus of his work at Climate Audit and in publication is to challenge the extreme view of some paleoclimatologists that the modern era is warmer than any other time period in recent history. This plank of the alarmist platform is important in making the case that we must take expensive and immediate actions to mitigate carbon emissions. The climategate emails prove what Steve has long alleged, that his work and the work of others has been hindered at every turn by climate scientists denying them access to data and access to publication venues. This weakens the case that current years are the hottest in recent history, since alternative views were systematically and unfairly discredited through scientific politics, and not science. So, yes, I think it matters. In the long run, Climategate may be very beneficial to environmental science. It will shame those who seek to inject political bias into scientific discussions and encourage more open work practices. This is a good thing! Skeptical observers will be more likely to be convinced by a process that appears dispassionate. I am not sure what the point is of all these investigation panels, but they seem flawed.
- itjitj 16y ago
  Not that I agree with his work, but does the climate being at a nominal temperature means ocean acidification is okay? CO2 pollution is about more than just temperature.
- jshen 16y ago
  "It will shame those who seek to inject political bias into scientific discussions " Who are the 'those' you speak of?
  - Calamitous 16y ago
    Um, it's right there in the quote. Anyone who seeks to inject political bias into scientific discussions. Not sure what else you're looking for there.
    - 16y ago
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Yes, this should reduce our confidence in the fact that the "scientific consensus" is sound. Many arguments are made that "the science is settled". Such arguments are sound, the logic behind them is the following: intuitively, we start out believing that if there were evidence against our hypothesis (in this case, unprecedented warming), with a high probability the scientific process would have discovered/published it. Since evidence against this hypothesis has not been published, we conclude with high probability it does not exist. The lack of evidence against it increases our confidence that the hypothesis is true. Climategate has reduced our estimate of the probability that the scientific process would have discovered/published evidence against the unprecedented warming hypothesis if it existed. Therefore, such evidence may exist, but may not have been discovered due to bad behavior by Mann/Jones/etc. I'll geek out a little. Let H be a hypothesis and let E be evidence against it. I.e., P(H | !E ) < P(H), and conversely P(H | !E) > P(H). Now let O be the fact of E being observed/published/becoming known to us. We can compute: P(H | !O) = P(H | E) P(E | !O) + P(H | !E) P(!E | !O) Bayes rule turns this into: P(H | !O) = [P(H | E) P(!O | E) P(E) + P(H | !E)P(!O | !E) P(!E) ] / P(!O). Before climategate, we believed that P(!O | E) is close to zero, so therefore P(H | !O) is approximately P(H | !E) > P(H). After climategate, we must increase our estimate of P(!O | E), which in turn reduces our estimate of P(H | !O).
tomjen3 16y ago
Yes. Not directly, but it does offer a very big clue that something is wrong. You are a really smart guy and I have read your blog posts on the subject (As far as I recall you found a small mistake in their data). I am not that smart, much of the mathematical stuff behind this goes way over my head but even so I get very supessios when some of the leaders who really, really understand this stuff find it necessary to backstab others who work in the same field. It just stink to high heaven that something is wrong. The best way I can see is that the professor isn't up to the task, so he only did this improve his own situation. But honestly? I doubt that.
lacrossegm 16y ago
If denying something could make it untrue just think of the possiblities. Poverty poof gone. Hunger poof gone and so on... Reality gets in the way, of course, just as it does with GW.

kevinh 16y ago

I'm not sure if it's just me, but I get annoyed and look more skeptically at a person's point of view when they call it *gate. They're admitting their bias right in the title.

jacoblyles 16y ago
I used the title so people would know that the article refers to the recent Muir Russel report that was in the (Hacker) News over the last few days, since the article itself does not provide extensive background information. I can't control the cultural lexicon, I can only attempt to communicate as clearly as possible.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

jacoblyles 16y ago

Anthony Watts' comment : "The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?"

eli 16y ago
IANAL, but I didn't think there really was a plaintiff in criminal court. Isn't it e.g. "The United States Government" or "The State of New York" (not just whoever has beef with the defendant)?
- hugh3 16y ago
  You're right; perhaps it should say "with no prosecutors". In other words, this inquiry had nobody there to aggressively put forth the case that the defendant was guilty.
mukyu 16y ago
Yes, in an adversarial system like the US legal system that would be farcical. However, this was not conducted in a US court room and there are are other systems such as an inquisitional style that more apt at determining truths than establishing blame.