8 ms·

Nate Silver on the Leaked Global Warming Emails

91 points by byrneseyeview 17y ago

cbryan 17y ago
I'm really glad that he weighed in on the topic. While it wasn't a statistical tour-de-force like some of his other writing, it was really nice to read a well thought out piece on the topic. Everything else I'd found online was really noisy and shouty.
- ironsam 17y ago
  Except that he only addresses one of the many emails/quotes in question. This article author acts like this the only questionable material found.
jgamman 17y ago
real climate is my goto for climate science - well written by scientists for interested non-scientists (note: this doesn't mean it's dumbed down - be prepared for some detail) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cr...
- zzleeper 17y ago
  From here: http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails?cid=exrss-Climate-Change-Examiner http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y200... "Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. 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." If the comments are modded like that (keeping only the "favorable ones"), I wouldn't be so sure about RC's quality
  - jerf 17y ago
    That's not news, though, or at least it shouldn't be. RC's moderation policy of deleting or not approving things they don't want to deal with is well-known, at least to me. I believe it is within the rights of a site owner to do that. If you don't like that, take it into account as you read the site. We didn't need any leaked emails to tell us that comments can be deleted on RC. (Though it probably is fair to point out that there is nothing neutral about the site, any more than the talk.origins faq is neutral. Doesn't make it wrong; does make it not neutral.)
    - camccann 17y ago
      Science isn't even supposed to be neutral; leave that to Wikipedia. I don't even know why anyone would expect a site presenting accurate scientific information to be neutral, wouldn't that completely miss the point?
  - gjm11 17y ago
    Looking at the RC thread linked above, it sure doesn't seem as if the moderators are deleting all unfavorable comments.
patrickgzill 17y ago
It is not a very good post. Nate takes one email and creates a strawman argument around it, claiming that the email is taken out of context and does not represent a smoking gun. He then ignores all the other 1078 or so emails.
- bendotc 17y ago
  I believe you're holding Nate Silver up to an unrealistic standard. This is obviously not a complete refutation of all of the stolen data, nor does it claim to be. He is instead taking an instance of what people are complaining about -- a pretty standard example of the things that get pasted about this story, from what I've seen -- and pointing out that people are blowing this particular one out of proportion. Maybe you're complaining that no one is really complaining about this specific email, but to me, this one looks a lot like the others contained in the stolen data that I've seen. From my perspective, it seems a lot of people are reading what they want into the emails, though I'll readily admit I haven't spent my day pouring through it, nor do I really intend to.
  - byrneseyeview 17y ago
    If nothing else, this will make people think twice -- if even the moral crusader Nate Silver admits that it's common to fudge data to make things look more compelling, they'll think about that next time someone tells them what the temperature change over the next thirty years will be.
    - lutorm 17y ago
      True. Whichever way that temperature appears to be changing.
  - willwagner 17y ago
    Did you read the title of his post? "I Read Through 160,000,000 Bytes of Hacked Files And All I Got Was This Lousy E-Mail" It seems to imply to me to be a complete refutation of all the stolen data. I'm usually a fan of 538 and feel pretty level headed in my opinions on global warming, but Nate could have definitely done better.
zzleeper 17y ago
After reading a few dozen of emails, I've got a mixed feeling. On one hand, some emails seemed to be from people doing science "in good faith". On the other hand.. "Of course, if it does get published, maybe the resulting settlement would shut down E&E and Benny and Sonja all together! We can only hope, anyway. So maybe in an odd way its actually win-win for us, not them. Lets see how this plays out..." This says that Michael Mann hopes to have E&E shut down.. just because they post papers opposing his views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm
- jmtulloss 17y ago
  I joke about the unfortunate demise of my competitors all the time. It doesn't mean I'm actively working to destroy them.
  - 1gor 17y ago
    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. (From Tom Wigley). Here "one of the world's foremost experts on climate change and one of the most highly cited scientists in the discipline" is actively working to destroy his opponents' careers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wigley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wigley
    - Locke1689 17y ago
      And if the AGU accepts his denial of climate change as a legitimate reason to oust him there is nothing wrong with that. He didn't say "we're going to lie about data and make up stuff and get my colleague fired," he said, "We're going to present evidence of what my colleague believes is good science. If this does not meet the standard of our scientific body, we will expel him from it."
      - mattmcknight 17y ago
mynameishere 17y ago
I'd rather see the emails between the guys at the Goldman Sachs carbon trading desk. Also, these guys aren't stupid (see the one guy's interest in destroying emails) and are going to be careful when communicating electronically.
mnemonicsloth 17y ago
This isn't the first time people have raised questiones about Philip Jones and the Climate Research Unit. HN discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=843517 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=843517 Obviously, an article in the National Review isn't worth much as evidence by itself. But it quotes reputable scientists who have gone on record as saying they believe he is stonewalling their requests to see his raw data. The CRU has acknowledged that the files are genuine. In one of the emails, Phil Jones brags how he unethically manipulated the presentation of his results (Nate's words, not mine). And we might not be able to go back and check his results against his measurements. It seems to me that this would be a good time for an audit of the climate change data. Our first priority should be maintaining the integrity of the scientific process, and in this case that means getting rid of the appearance of impropriety. It's wrong to hold back scientific criticism because of the way we feel about whichever group is currently using the scientific consensus to advantage in the infinite clown fight that is partisan politics. EDIT: this post went through several versions, most of which were bad. Sorry to those who replied to something that's gone now.
- thras 17y ago
  I don't understand why conservatives are so happy about this. If an entire branch in the tree of human knowledge is unsound, that's an unambiguously bad thing. It means, at the least, that we have a lot of work to do over again. Maybe those people are happy because they have been saying for a while that an entire branch of human knowledge is unsound and that there is a lot of work to do over again?
- ajross 17y ago
  CRU's work hardly constitutes an "entire branch" of climate science or meteorology, must less the whole tree (!) of human knowledge. What happened here is that some players in a controversy were revealed (gasp) to have strong opinions, and even an agenda. And other players, themselves no less possessed of agenda, are using it to attack the subject via guilt by association. Meh. Lots for Fox News to spit about. Not much really interesting here.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
adriand 17y ago
I'd love to see what kind of emails tend to go back and forth among the climate change denial crew. If only we had some hackers around here - we might be able to find out!
- Locke1689 17y ago
  We have many hackers here (pen hackers, not "hacker" hackers). As far as I know, my colleagues and I are unwilling to break the law and privacy to view others' communications.
fauigerzigerk 17y ago
Nate Silver is right. This says absolutely nothing about global warming itself. It says something about how scientific research and academia work. They are in a gold rush. As long as the climate change debate remains top of the agenda the money will keep on coming. Securing continued funding for their projects is the main and sometimes only concern of scientists. At least that is what I conclude from many years of working with them. They are funded by politicians and other sources that will dry up once the global global warming hype ends. What politicians need is a clear and unambiguous picture that speaks truth beyond reasonable doubt. That's what politicians will pay climate scientists for and that's what they are struggling so hard to deliver. All this is completely without connection to the question of climate change proper.
- Locke1689 17y ago
  Securing continued funding for their projects is the main and sometimes only concern of scientists. At least that is what I conclude from many years of working with them. Data is not the plural of anecdote. In addition I find it insulting that you would attempt to negatively characterize an entire field which you have no knowledge of. In fact, this comment is so unbelievable that I would like to know where and who you worked with.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - fauigerzigerk 17y ago
    I'm in europe. Maybe that gives you some peace of mind.
    - pradocchia 17y ago
      Ha! I doubt it's much different in the US.
- jswinghammer 17y ago
  That's what politicians will pay climate scientists for and that's what they are struggling so hard to deliver. Doesn't this imply that there is a major conflict of interest here and that the whole science should be labeled suspect by default? I think most people will give the bosses whatever they want even if it isn't true.
jonknee 17y ago
Humorously conservatives (who somehow became anti-science) are cheering this theft but were appalled by the theft of emails from Sarah Palin that showed she was breaking the law (State business on personal email).
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  I'm sorry, don't you mean to make fun of liberals for engaging in the Palin email theft (the person who did it was the son of a Democratic politician) and condemning this one? Or maybe you mean to joke about how tribal humans are. That's probably it.
jdminhbg 17y ago
You can tell Nate Silver's really definitely right, because he uses lots of exclamation points when he's strawmanning his opponents.
motters 17y ago
It would be interesting to find out who performed this crack, and who was the paymaster.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - neilc 17y ago
    What? The comment you're replying to was asking about the individuals involved in the CRU hack, not anything involving Nate Silvers.
miked 17y ago
His post is pure strawman: say the "enemy's" entire argument centers around one post, then downplay that, then announce that there's nothing to see here folks, move along, move along. It's far more devstating than that. Excerpt: At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote: Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc ! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [ed- McIntyre and McKittrick, AGW skeptics] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it ! http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_damn_professor_jones/ http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/hera... Update: Here's a summary of many of the emails. This gives an even stronger sense of what a strawman argument Silver used. Interesting stuff: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cu... From that link: Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI [Freedom of Information Act]. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172) and this: Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code.
- KirinDave 17y ago
  Does this somehow disprove the information that has been presented though? Just because the presentation has been manipulated to maximize the statement for his cause–and those scientists were at the very least prejudiced towards their opponents–doesn't change the impact of their data. To me though, the argument against cap-and-trade and against heavy investment in alt-energy is entirely lost and asinine to continue to chase. These resources are finite and the atmosphere's tolerance is similarly and provably so. Now is as good a time to re-ignite our initiatives in sustainable energy as any, and there are significant benefits to the many post-industrial western economies that are glutted with well-educated but under-employed people. IT and IS can't be the only thing that we have over developing nations willing to exploit themselves to gain true 1st world status.

91 points by byrneseyeview 17y ago

I'm really glad that he weighed in on the topic. While it wasn't a statistical tour-de-force like some of his other writing, it was really nice to read a well thought out piece on the topic. Everything else I'd found online was really noisy and shouty.

ironsam 17y ago
Except that he only addresses one of the many emails/quotes in question. This article author acts like this the only questionable material found.

jgamman 17y ago

real climate is my goto for climate science - well written by scientists for interested non-scientists (note: this doesn't mean it's dumbed down - be prepared for some detail) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cr...

zzleeper 17y ago
From here: http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails?cid=exrss-Climate-Change-Examiner http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y200... "Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. 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." If the comments are modded like that (keeping only the "favorable ones"), I wouldn't be so sure about RC's quality
- jerf 17y ago
  That's not news, though, or at least it shouldn't be. RC's moderation policy of deleting or not approving things they don't want to deal with is well-known, at least to me. I believe it is within the rights of a site owner to do that. If you don't like that, take it into account as you read the site. We didn't need any leaked emails to tell us that comments can be deleted on RC. (Though it probably is fair to point out that there is nothing neutral about the site, any more than the talk.origins faq is neutral. Doesn't make it wrong; does make it not neutral.)
  - camccann 17y ago
    Science isn't even supposed to be neutral; leave that to Wikipedia. I don't even know why anyone would expect a site presenting accurate scientific information to be neutral, wouldn't that completely miss the point?
- gjm11 17y ago
  Looking at the RC thread linked above, it sure doesn't seem as if the moderators are deleting all unfavorable comments.

patrickgzill 17y ago

It is not a very good post. Nate takes one email and creates a strawman argument around it, claiming that the email is taken out of context and does not represent a smoking gun. He then ignores all the other 1078 or so emails.

bendotc 17y ago
I believe you're holding Nate Silver up to an unrealistic standard. This is obviously not a complete refutation of all of the stolen data, nor does it claim to be. He is instead taking an instance of what people are complaining about -- a pretty standard example of the things that get pasted about this story, from what I've seen -- and pointing out that people are blowing this particular one out of proportion. Maybe you're complaining that no one is really complaining about this specific email, but to me, this one looks a lot like the others contained in the stolen data that I've seen. From my perspective, it seems a lot of people are reading what they want into the emails, though I'll readily admit I haven't spent my day pouring through it, nor do I really intend to.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  If nothing else, this will make people think twice -- if even the moral crusader Nate Silver admits that it's common to fudge data to make things look more compelling, they'll think about that next time someone tells them what the temperature change over the next thirty years will be.
  - lutorm 17y ago
    True. Whichever way that temperature appears to be changing.
- willwagner 17y ago
  Did you read the title of his post? "I Read Through 160,000,000 Bytes of Hacked Files And All I Got Was This Lousy E-Mail" It seems to imply to me to be a complete refutation of all the stolen data. I'm usually a fan of 538 and feel pretty level headed in my opinions on global warming, but Nate could have definitely done better.

zzleeper 17y ago

After reading a few dozen of emails, I've got a mixed feeling. On one hand, some emails seemed to be from people doing science "in good faith". On the other hand.. "Of course, if it does get published, maybe the resulting settlement would shut down E&E and Benny and Sonja all together! We can only hope, anyway. So maybe in an odd way its actually win-win for us, not them. Lets see how this plays out..." This says that Michael Mann hopes to have E&E shut down.. just because they post papers opposing his views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm

jmtulloss 17y ago
I joke about the unfortunate demise of my competitors all the time. It doesn't mean I'm actively working to destroy them.
- 1gor 17y ago
  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. (From Tom Wigley). Here "one of the world's foremost experts on climate change and one of the most highly cited scientists in the discipline" is actively working to destroy his opponents' careers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wigley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wigley
  - Locke1689 17y ago
    And if the AGU accepts his denial of climate change as a legitimate reason to oust him there is nothing wrong with that. He didn't say "we're going to lie about data and make up stuff and get my colleague fired," he said, "We're going to present evidence of what my colleague believes is good science. If this does not meet the standard of our scientific body, we will expel him from it."
    - mattmcknight 17y ago

mynameishere 17y ago

I'd rather see the emails between the guys at the Goldman Sachs carbon trading desk. Also, these guys aren't stupid (see the one guy's interest in destroying emails) and are going to be careful when communicating electronically.

mnemonicsloth 17y ago

This isn't the first time people have raised questiones about Philip Jones and the Climate Research Unit. HN discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=843517 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=843517 Obviously, an article in the National Review isn't worth much as evidence by itself. But it quotes reputable scientists who have gone on record as saying they believe he is stonewalling their requests to see his raw data. The CRU has acknowledged that the files are genuine. In one of the emails, Phil Jones brags how he unethically manipulated the presentation of his results (Nate's words, not mine). And we might not be able to go back and check his results against his measurements. It seems to me that this would be a good time for an audit of the climate change data. Our first priority should be maintaining the integrity of the scientific process, and in this case that means getting rid of the appearance of impropriety. It's wrong to hold back scientific criticism because of the way we feel about whichever group is currently using the scientific consensus to advantage in the infinite clown fight that is partisan politics. EDIT: this post went through several versions, most of which were bad. Sorry to those who replied to something that's gone now.

thras 17y ago
I don't understand why conservatives are so happy about this. If an entire branch in the tree of human knowledge is unsound, that's an unambiguously bad thing. It means, at the least, that we have a lot of work to do over again. Maybe those people are happy because they have been saying for a while that an entire branch of human knowledge is unsound and that there is a lot of work to do over again?
ajross 17y ago
CRU's work hardly constitutes an "entire branch" of climate science or meteorology, must less the whole tree (!) of human knowledge. What happened here is that some players in a controversy were revealed (gasp) to have strong opinions, and even an agenda. And other players, themselves no less possessed of agenda, are using it to attack the subject via guilt by association. Meh. Lots for Fox News to spit about. Not much really interesting here.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago

adriand 17y ago

I'd love to see what kind of emails tend to go back and forth among the climate change denial crew. If only we had some hackers around here - we might be able to find out!

Locke1689 17y ago
We have many hackers here (pen hackers, not "hacker" hackers). As far as I know, my colleagues and I are unwilling to break the law and privacy to view others' communications.

fauigerzigerk 17y ago

Nate Silver is right. This says absolutely nothing about global warming itself. It says something about how scientific research and academia work. They are in a gold rush. As long as the climate change debate remains top of the agenda the money will keep on coming. Securing continued funding for their projects is the main and sometimes only concern of scientists. At least that is what I conclude from many years of working with them. They are funded by politicians and other sources that will dry up once the global global warming hype ends. What politicians need is a clear and unambiguous picture that speaks truth beyond reasonable doubt. That's what politicians will pay climate scientists for and that's what they are struggling so hard to deliver. All this is completely without connection to the question of climate change proper.

Locke1689 17y ago
Securing continued funding for their projects is the main and sometimes only concern of scientists. At least that is what I conclude from many years of working with them. Data is not the plural of anecdote. In addition I find it insulting that you would attempt to negatively characterize an entire field which you have no knowledge of. In fact, this comment is so unbelievable that I would like to know where and who you worked with.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  I'm in europe. Maybe that gives you some peace of mind.
  - pradocchia 17y ago
    Ha! I doubt it's much different in the US.
jswinghammer 17y ago
That's what politicians will pay climate scientists for and that's what they are struggling so hard to deliver. Doesn't this imply that there is a major conflict of interest here and that the whole science should be labeled suspect by default? I think most people will give the bosses whatever they want even if it isn't true.

jonknee 17y ago

Humorously conservatives (who somehow became anti-science) are cheering this theft but were appalled by the theft of emails from Sarah Palin that showed she was breaking the law (State business on personal email).

byrneseyeview 17y ago
I'm sorry, don't you mean to make fun of liberals for engaging in the Palin email theft (the person who did it was the son of a Democratic politician) and condemning this one? Or maybe you mean to joke about how tribal humans are. That's probably it.

jdminhbg 17y ago

You can tell Nate Silver's really definitely right, because he uses lots of exclamation points when he's strawmanning his opponents.

motters 17y ago

It would be interesting to find out who performed this crack, and who was the paymaster.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- neilc 17y ago
  What? The comment you're replying to was asking about the individuals involved in the CRU hack, not anything involving Nate Silvers.

miked 17y ago

His post is pure strawman: say the "enemy's" entire argument centers around one post, then downplay that, then announce that there's nothing to see here folks, move along, move along. It's far more devstating than that. Excerpt: At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote: Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc ! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [ed- McIntyre and McKittrick, AGW skeptics] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it ! http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_damn_professor_jones/ http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/hera... Update: Here's a summary of many of the emails. This gives an even stronger sense of what a strawman argument Silver used. Interesting stuff: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cu... From that link: Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI [Freedom of Information Act]. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172) and this: Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code.

KirinDave 17y ago
Does this somehow disprove the information that has been presented though? Just because the presentation has been manipulated to maximize the statement for his cause–and those scientists were at the very least prejudiced towards their opponents–doesn't change the impact of their data. To me though, the argument against cap-and-trade and against heavy investment in alt-energy is entirely lost and asinine to continue to chase. These resources are finite and the atmosphere's tolerance is similarly and provably so. Now is as good a time to re-ignite our initiatives in sustainable energy as any, and there are significant benefits to the many post-industrial western economies that are glutted with well-educated but under-employed people. IT and IS can't be the only thing that we have over developing nations willing to exploit themselves to gain true 1st world status.