10 ms·

RealClimate responds to the CRU hack

32 points by nollidge 17y ago

randallsquared 17y ago
Hm. no evidence of the falsifying of data That suggests that they got a different set of emails than examiner.com did, assuming the best of them.
- gjm11 17y ago
  Dunno about that. The single worst-looking one on the examiner.com page was the one about "adding in the real data to hide the decline", or whatever the exact wording was, and they explicitly discuss that one. (I am making no comment on whether what they say about it is convincing, nor about whether it's correct.)
  - robotrout 17y ago
    That's the worst you saw? Did you download them? How about this, for a start, on their impartial 'scientific debate' 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.
    - mcantelon 17y ago
      That's political skullduggery, not falsifying data.
      - dejb 17y ago
        Agreed. But I think the political skulduggery based on your position regarding the data is also concerning. If you define the enemy as someone with an opposing viewpoint you are obviously not in a position to properly consider that viewpoint. I'm not a sceptic but this sort of attitude does open up the possibility in my mind that the scientific consensus in climate change could in part be an artefact of this political skulduggery.
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        which is probably worse: their supposed to be climate scientists :) (I do think it is pushing the boat, though, to make any serious accusations from the mails. Although the few I read did feel a bit, well, distasteful. The scientific nature in me didn't approve of the language being used - however I dont think it is in the least bit unique)
        crystalis 17y ago
        They're/There/Their going to oust you, next.
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        ams6110 17y ago
        If you think there's no politics in science, I have to ask if you have any familiarity with it. University research, for example, is CHOCK FULL of politics.
        ErrantX 17y ago
        oh yes I realise that - it's still not a good thing (which is what I was commenting on).
      - efaith 17y ago
        Indeed, but it imperils one of the major points made against the skeptics and vindicates one of the major points made by the skeptics.
    - gjm11 17y ago
      No, I didn't download them. (As I said: "The single worst-looking one on the examiner.com page was ...".) As mcantelon said, that (while certainly unpleasant and possibly unethical or illegal or both -- but it's hard to be sure in the absence of context; ousted from what? The proposal to go "through official AGU channels" suggests that what's being proposed is unlikely to be too nefarious) has nothing to do with falsifying data.
- cwan 17y ago
  What I don't get is why some of these climate scientists have been so antagonistic to those like Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre who question the data and simply ask for the data sets to be made public. To the credit of RealClimate they seem to be acknowledging the need for greater transparency that would allay some of the allegations of collusion. What is a bit troubling though is RealClimate could be interpreted as defending the status quo and the monopoly on data in their response to comments. They seem to suggest we should simply accept the studies if they are peer reviewed. They create something of a straw man in saying that there is no evidence of a global conspiracy (I'm really not sure how many serious people think that one really exists nor is it necessary to believe that there is one in order to question the data and the policy responses being crafted). They also don't address the allegation of whether some of these scientists have started with the conclusions and searched for data to show that it exists - particularly given some of the substance in some of these emails. Surely, given how heated and politicized the debate has become there should be some acknowledgment that there could be confirmation bias. Is (more) empiricism too much to ask for?
  - chrisb 17y ago
    Just to comment on the often repeated claim of the unavailability of the data - try visiting: http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php - contains all the models used in the IPCC AR4. http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/ - contains a huge amount of climate data. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/CODES_MBH.html http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/CODES_MBH.html - An independend re-evaluation of a climate reconstruction. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html - Full data for a late 2008 reconstruction. Data is available - maybe part of the problem is the complexity and quantity of the data.
    - jacoblyles 17y ago
      When I have time and climateaudit is back up, I am going to reply to this comment with specific instances of McIntyre being refused the data he would like in order to replicate studies. I would like for you to tell me if you think that behavior is befitting the scientific community or not.
nollidge 17y ago
FYI, the comments section has some more specific rebuttals from the author as well.
cwan 17y ago
The NYT coverage: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&hp http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.ht...
triassic 17y ago
Best summary of the emails is here: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cu... I've been reading through them -- no smoking gun but lots of unscientific behaviour, and quiet admissions of weaknesses in the climate science.

32 points by nollidge 17y ago

Hm. no evidence of the falsifying of data That suggests that they got a different set of emails than examiner.com did, assuming the best of them.

gjm11 17y ago
Dunno about that. The single worst-looking one on the examiner.com page was the one about "adding in the real data to hide the decline", or whatever the exact wording was, and they explicitly discuss that one. (I am making no comment on whether what they say about it is convincing, nor about whether it's correct.)
- robotrout 17y ago
  That's the worst you saw? Did you download them? How about this, for a start, on their impartial 'scientific debate' 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.
  - mcantelon 17y ago
    That's political skullduggery, not falsifying data.
    - dejb 17y ago
      Agreed. But I think the political skulduggery based on your position regarding the data is also concerning. If you define the enemy as someone with an opposing viewpoint you are obviously not in a position to properly consider that viewpoint. I'm not a sceptic but this sort of attitude does open up the possibility in my mind that the scientific consensus in climate change could in part be an artefact of this political skulduggery.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      which is probably worse: their supposed to be climate scientists :) (I do think it is pushing the boat, though, to make any serious accusations from the mails. Although the few I read did feel a bit, well, distasteful. The scientific nature in me didn't approve of the language being used - however I dont think it is in the least bit unique)
      - crystalis 17y ago
        They're/There/Their going to oust you, next.
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
      - ams6110 17y ago
        If you think there's no politics in science, I have to ask if you have any familiarity with it. University research, for example, is CHOCK FULL of politics.
        ErrantX 17y ago
        oh yes I realise that - it's still not a good thing (which is what I was commenting on).
    - efaith 17y ago
      Indeed, but it imperils one of the major points made against the skeptics and vindicates one of the major points made by the skeptics.
  - gjm11 17y ago
    No, I didn't download them. (As I said: "The single worst-looking one on the examiner.com page was ...".) As mcantelon said, that (while certainly unpleasant and possibly unethical or illegal or both -- but it's hard to be sure in the absence of context; ousted from what? The proposal to go "through official AGU channels" suggests that what's being proposed is unlikely to be too nefarious) has nothing to do with falsifying data.
cwan 17y ago
What I don't get is why some of these climate scientists have been so antagonistic to those like Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre who question the data and simply ask for the data sets to be made public. To the credit of RealClimate they seem to be acknowledging the need for greater transparency that would allay some of the allegations of collusion. What is a bit troubling though is RealClimate could be interpreted as defending the status quo and the monopoly on data in their response to comments. They seem to suggest we should simply accept the studies if they are peer reviewed. They create something of a straw man in saying that there is no evidence of a global conspiracy (I'm really not sure how many serious people think that one really exists nor is it necessary to believe that there is one in order to question the data and the policy responses being crafted). They also don't address the allegation of whether some of these scientists have started with the conclusions and searched for data to show that it exists - particularly given some of the substance in some of these emails. Surely, given how heated and politicized the debate has become there should be some acknowledgment that there could be confirmation bias. Is (more) empiricism too much to ask for?
- chrisb 17y ago
  Just to comment on the often repeated claim of the unavailability of the data - try visiting: http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php - contains all the models used in the IPCC AR4. http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/ - contains a huge amount of climate data. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/CODES_MBH.html http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/CODES_MBH.html - An independend re-evaluation of a climate reconstruction. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html - Full data for a late 2008 reconstruction. Data is available - maybe part of the problem is the complexity and quantity of the data.
  - jacoblyles 17y ago
    When I have time and climateaudit is back up, I am going to reply to this comment with specific instances of McIntyre being refused the data he would like in order to replicate studies. I would like for you to tell me if you think that behavior is befitting the scientific community or not.

nollidge 17y ago

FYI, the comments section has some more specific rebuttals from the author as well.

cwan 17y ago

The NYT coverage: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&hp http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.ht...

triassic 17y ago

Best summary of the emails is here: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cu... I've been reading through them -- no smoking gun but lots of unscientific behaviour, and quiet admissions of weaknesses in the climate science.