3 ms·

I'm sorry if this is me being dense, but I've tried to read up on this and haven't found one instance yet where data fraudulently appeared in any published arti

I'm sorry if this is me being dense, but I've tried to read up on this and haven't found one instance yet where data fraudulently appeared in any published article or paper. Can someone point out to me exactly how this is a major blow to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming? I mean, I see a lot of smoke and mirrors and pointing and hear a good deal of shouting, but then again, there's a lot of pointing and shouting with regards to Obama's birth certificate.

InclinedPlane 17y ago
Take a bunch of data. Go through this data by hand and select which data to use and which to throw away. Use proprietary models to adjust some of the data. Use proprietary models to merge data series from different sources, some of which conflict with each other, into a unified whole. When asked, refuse to divulge your models, your adjustments, or the raw data, delete data if necessary to avoid anyone else, especially critics, getting hold of it. Given such methods one could provide support for just about any hypothesis using just about any sufficiently large set of data. Unfortunately, this appears to be the modus operandi of the CRU. Which is a tad bit disconcerting if one wants to hold any confidence in the CRU's findings, to put it mildly. The theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is dependent upon having reliable climate models (specifically those that show that CO2 is such a predominant driver of climate that the increases in CO2 emissions due to human activity throughout the 21st century will not only be the overwhelming force shaping climate but will force a dramatic shift to a much warmer climate). The proof of reliable climate models is dependent upon accurate historic climate data. Over the last 2 decades or so it appeared that climate researchers, most of them associated with the CRU, had not only constructed accurate climate models, but had produced reconstructions of historical climate which showed a dramatic uptick in global average temperature in recent years, and had also shown that this uptick was due to human activity (CO2 emissions). Moreover, their model showed that estimated CO2 emissions through the 21st century would result in increases in average global temperatures of nearly 4 deg. C and a rise in sea level of as much 60 cm. Even before the CRU emails had been leaked there was much criticism of their processes and scientific results, drawing into question the validity of their models and historical climate reconstructions, and consequently the validity of those models' predictions. The CRU leak has shown just how shoddy their "scientific" methodology truly is, has brought increased attention to the debate, and has begun stripping away the once incredibly strong prejudice against AGW criticism (which a scant few weeks ago was considered by the average western intellectual to be akin to holocaust denying). This leveling of the playing field has caused the public to begin to weigh the arguments on their merits, and it turns out the AGW case did not have nearly as much merit as most people believed it did. If you wish to dig into the science behind criticism of the CRU's results, I'd suggest reading up on: http://wattsupwiththat.com/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/ and, http://www.climateaudit.org/ http://www.climateaudit.org/ (currently at http://camirror.wordpress.com/ http://camirror.wordpress.com/)

InclinedPlane 17y ago

Take a bunch of data. Go through this data by hand and select which data to use and which to throw away. Use proprietary models to adjust some of the data. Use proprietary models to merge data series from different sources, some of which conflict with each other, into a unified whole. When asked, refuse to divulge your models, your adjustments, or the raw data, delete data if necessary to avoid anyone else, especially critics, getting hold of it. Given such methods one could provide support for just about any hypothesis using just about any sufficiently large set of data. Unfortunately, this appears to be the modus operandi of the CRU. Which is a tad bit disconcerting if one wants to hold any confidence in the CRU's findings, to put it mildly. The theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is dependent upon having reliable climate models (specifically those that show that CO2 is such a predominant driver of climate that the increases in CO2 emissions due to human activity throughout the 21st century will not only be the overwhelming force shaping climate but will force a dramatic shift to a much warmer climate). The proof of reliable climate models is dependent upon accurate historic climate data. Over the last 2 decades or so it appeared that climate researchers, most of them associated with the CRU, had not only constructed accurate climate models, but had produced reconstructions of historical climate which showed a dramatic uptick in global average temperature in recent years, and had also shown that this uptick was due to human activity (CO2 emissions). Moreover, their model showed that estimated CO2 emissions through the 21st century would result in increases in average global temperatures of nearly 4 deg. C and a rise in sea level of as much 60 cm. Even before the CRU emails had been leaked there was much criticism of their processes and scientific results, drawing into question the validity of their models and historical climate reconstructions, and consequently the validity of those models' predictions. The CRU leak has shown just how shoddy their "scientific" methodology truly is, has brought increased attention to the debate, and has begun stripping away the once incredibly strong prejudice against AGW criticism (which a scant few weeks ago was considered by the average western intellectual to be akin to holocaust denying). This leveling of the playing field has caused the public to begin to weigh the arguments on their merits, and it turns out the AGW case did not have nearly as much merit as most people believed it did. If you wish to dig into the science behind criticism of the CRU's results, I'd suggest reading up on: http://wattsupwiththat.com/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/ and, http://www.climateaudit.org/ http://www.climateaudit.org/ (currently at http://camirror.wordpress.com/ http://camirror.wordpress.com/)