Climategate -- More muddy water

Climategate -- More muddy water

by SouthernFriedInfidel Published on December 3rd, 2009, 11:13 am Rift: Sciences

Once again, there's something fishy going on in a major debate that should be handled reasonably. With a major conference coming up on world climate policy, the email account of a climate research center director was recently hacked and many of the emails stored there were released to the public. I'd find it interesting to see the complete set of unedited messages, but that's rather beside the point.

The emails are being used by the climate change skeptics community to provide "proof" that they are being shut out by a conspiracy of scientists who apparently will get rich if the world conserves its fossil fuel reserves. Apparently, this "conspiracy" is being discussed in Washington. Frankly, I thought that the quotes they reported in this story were quite innocuous, and had absolutely no bearing on the question of whether the climate changes of the past 40 years or so have been effected by human activity.

Seems to me that this is just another way for the fossil fuel industry to try and distract the government of this country and the people of the world from doing what is needed to mitigate the problems we are creating.

[A Person]

That was my initial reading, unfortunately climate change has become so politicised that it's difficult to make out the facts from the noise.

it has been widely reported that the CRU has 'destroyed the original data' - even Jon Stewart picked up that story.

Competitive Enterprise Institute In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space. The CRU data have been the basis for several of the major international studies that claim we face a global warming crisis. CRU’s destruction of data, however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.

That is a serious charge and would damage their credibility, however it seems that it's exaggerated. CRU did not maintain copies of datasets rejected because of redundancy, problems with the site (urbanisation) or discontinuous records, but that raw data is still available from those stations. This is normal practice, raw data is the responsibility of the collecting agency, they maintain the copy of record. You would have to show that the CRU deliberately excluded those datasets in order to influence their conclusions - and no one has claimed that.

Even if the CRU were shown to be completely corrupt (which is isn't) and it's data all false (which it isn't) it still wouldn't affect the validity of climate change science since it is not dependent on one research facility. The NOAA, NASA and the United Kingdom Met Office all have independently replicated the findings.

It's like finding out that Mendel may have unconsciously fudged his results (confirmation bias) and claiming that that invalidates the science of genetics.

Unfortunately in the world of politics and punditry, fear, uncertainty and doubt are the currency used to influence opinion, and it looks bad until you dig a bit..

[Liv]

Yeah, really, how can anyone argue against Global Warming at this point.... it's fairly evident to anyone who has spent more than 10 minutes outside in the last few years.... Heck I haven't turned on the heat once this year so far except to cycle the freon in the unit... and it's December.... duh!

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Well, the local temp is one matter -- I recall winters here in NC when I was a kid, and contrast them with now. I love snow, and the fact is we have far less snow year by year than in the past.

But when it comes to obvious changes caused by climate shifting, I would refer you to the Caribbean reefs. I've been on dives in a couple of places, and the devastation due to increasing acid levels and water temperatures is plain to see.

Add to that the masses of raw data that exist outside of this one administrator's sphere of influence -- data that no one would dream of trying to fudge, due to the sheer size of the database -- and it sure becomes plain that this email thing is just a smokescreen to delay action.

[Kenetoken]

Just because there is less snow in NC doesn't mean it's not worse elsewhere and it has been. Also, did you see the chief scientist behind this scandal stepped down? Must be some big misunderstanding.

[A Person]

Prof. Phil Jones, the director of the CRU, has temporarily stepped down until an independent review into the hacked emails had been completed

Guardian Professor Phil Jones, the director of the CRU, said he stood by the science produced by his researchers and suggestions of a conspiracy to alter evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming were "complete rubbish". But he said today that he would stand aside as director of the unit until an independent review into the hacked emails had been completed

Just because there is less snow in NC doesn't mean it's not worse elsewhere and it has been

Which is why scientists look at world data and it's called global climate change. The global mean temperature is increasing.

[Liv]

Just because there is less snow in NC doesn't mean it's not worse elsewhere and it has been.

They were calling Wales the new-mediterranean while we were there due to their upgraded weather from global warming.....

[A Person]

There's a good article on this in New Scientist today.

The leaking of emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, UK, has led to a media and political storm. The affair is being portrayed as a scandal that undermines the science behind climate change. It is no such thing, and here's why.

Of course to the skeptics, New Scientist is all part of the conspiracy.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Of course to the skeptics, New Scientist is all part of the conspiracy.

"Skeptics"? I consider the title a compliment usually. Because the job of a skeptic is to tryuly and honestly inquire into a matter that is questionable.

I would consider the people who change the subject from studying and responding to climate change both the stooges of the fossil fuel barons of the world and simply "obstructionists." Their goal: obfuscation using any trick they can find at hand.

Let's try to keep the name of "skeptic" clear and admirable.

[A Person]

Apparenty other climate research facilities have been under attack too

The National Post Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and key contributor to the Nobel prize-winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says there have been a number of attempted breaches in recent months, including two successful break-ins at his campus office in which a dead computer was stolen and papers were rummaged through.

"The key thing is to try to find anybody who's involved in any aspect of the IPCC and find something that you can ... take out of context," Mr. Weaver said, drawing a parallel to the case of British climate researcher Phil Jones, who was forced to step down this week after skeptics seized upon hacked emails they allege point to a plot to exaggerate the threat of climate change.

"People don't like it, so they try to discredit it, and the way they try to discredit it is by attacking the individual responsible for it," Mr. Weaver said.

University of Victoria spokeswoman Patty Pitts said there have also been attempts to hack into climate scientists' computers, as well as incidents in which people impersonated network technicians to try to gain access to campus offices and data. However, those incidents took place at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, she said -- an Environment Canada facility located at the university. As such, Environment Canada would be the investigating agency.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

No one does this sort of thing unless they have a LOT to gain. Or a LOT to protect. Who is threatened by climate research? Who stands to gain from getting the whole climate change discussion tossed out the window?

It would be the industries that produce carbon emissions. They see a serious danger to their current profits, and are doing everything they can to keep the people of the world from doing anything to bring that threat to reality. Anything including hiring thugs to break in and steal information they think they can use.

And what is this upshot here? If they are successful, we won't have any significant changes in the way those industries do business. They'll get to keep making money right up to the point where the environment collapses. How theyt expect to spend their money when millions or even billions of people are dying around them... well I'm sure they'll cross that bridge when they come to it.

[BecauseHeLives]

Yeah, really, how can anyone argue against Global Warming at this point.... it's fairly evident to anyone who has spent more than 10 minutes outside in the last few years.... Heck I haven't turned on the heat once this year so far except to cycle the freon in the unit... and it's December.... duh!

If there is global warming the big argument is whether global warming is caused by manmade events and whether manmade events can be altered to stop gloabl warming.

[deepshade]

No one does this sort of thing unless they have a LOT to gain. Or a LOT to protect. Who is threatened by climate research? Who stands to gain from getting the whole climate change discussion tossed out the window?

It would be the industries that produce carbon emissions. They see a serious danger to their current profits, and are doing everything they can to keep the people of the world from doing anything to bring that threat to reality. Anything including hiring thugs to break in and steal information they think they can use.

Maybe, but on the other side there are the groups that are gearing up to trade carbon credits (Al Gore) that stand to make Billions. This whole episode has exposed the radicalization of science and has done a huge disservice to the scientific community. Connect the dots to see who would benefit. It is part of a wealth redistribution plan on a global scale the problem is that China and India aren't really buying into going along with the whole plan.

Before injecting the FUD ( fear uncertainty doubt ) into the equation remember the outlawing of DDT? Come to find out that it was not as harmful as once believed. Millions of humans have died because it could not be used to control mosquitos in the tropical regions of third world countries.

I'm interested to see how this all pans out in the next few months. Peace

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

The point is that who would benefit from changes or avoiding changes ought not to be in the debate. Ideally, the debate should be whether the climate is changing (there's no doubt of that, based on the data), will changes be harmful to humanity as a whole (extremely likely, and very likely to be catastrophic), and what can we do about it?

Once decisions are made on those questions, THEN let the rich figure out how they will profit from the whole mess. They always figure out something -- that's why they're rich.

[A Person]

Maybe, but on the other side there are the groups that are gearing up to trade carbon credits (Al Gore) that stand to make Billions.

You do like to harp on the 'billions of dollars' that carbon traders might make as if that neatly explains the decades of scientific research as being a conspiracy set up to create money for the researchers.

Yet you conveniently ignore the real and actual trillions of dollars the oil industry makes. Exxonmobile alone has revenues of half a trillion dollars.

And of course we all remember the other climategate. No? You know, when Exxonmobile spent 15 million real dollars to manufacture and spread deliberate misinformation (lies)

ExxonMobil, the world’s largest publicly traded corporation, doesn’t want you to know the facts about global warming. The company vehemently opposes any governmental regulation that would require significantly expanded investments in clean energy technologies or reductions in global warming emissions. That is what the public and policymakers are likely to demand when they know the truth about climate science. Consequently, the corporation has spent millions of dollars to deceive the public about global warming. In so doing, ExxonMobil has underwritten the most sophisticated and successful disinformation campaign since Big Tobacco misled the public about the incontrovertible scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease. In fact, as this report shows, many of the tactics, and even some of the same organizations and actors used by ExxonMobil to mislead the public, draw upon the tobacco industry’s

An internal Exxon memo was leaked outlining the explicit goals, including this gem

Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who are already vocal

"recruit and train" and "independent" in one sentence.

Not surprisingly some of the leaked emails refer to these Exxon funded groups, for example the email about the Soon and Baliunas paper - which was funded by API and Exxonmobile.

So I suggest you stop projecting, and keep some outrage for the blatant, real and confirmed campaign by Exxon and other oil companies for which there is not only a smoking gun but bodies too. Whereas your 'billions' from carbon trading are imaginary future revenues.

Climate research laboratories (CRU, NASA etc) are largely funded by the public and scramble for funds. Climate opposition groups get lavish funding from the world's wealthiest organisations - with a vested interest in staying wealthy. Exxon could drop the annual budget of the CRU in a day and not see a blip on its balance sheet (the entire annual budget of the CRU actually represents about 8 hour's revenue for Exxon alone)

Connect the dots to see who would benefit - indeed!

This whole episode has exposed the radicalization of science and has done a huge disservice to the scientific community

This whole episode has exposed the deliberate perversion of science and has done a huge disservice to the scientific community.

[A Person]

New Scirntist Climate change skeptic refuses to show key program code

A physicist whose work is often highlighted by climate-change sceptics is refusing to provide the software he used to other climate researchers attempting to replicate his results.

Nicola Scafetta, a physicist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, has published a series of papers over the past few years that suggest the sun played a much bigger role in warming over the 20th century than is generally accepted. In particular, one 2006 paper he co-authored concluded that: "The sun might have contributed approximately 50 per cent of the observed global warming since 1900" (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2006GL027142).
...
Some of those questioning the scientific consensus on climate change have long demanded that climate scientists release all their data and code, an issue that has come to the fore following the "Climategate" affair. Some climate scientists reject such calls, in part because the data and code relating to published studies can have commercial value.

Many others, however, welcome the idea because it will make research much easier. Back in 2003, Michael Mann, now at Penn State University in University Park, initially refused to make available the data and code relating to the "hockey stick" graph. Now he is releasing all the data and code relating to his papers.

Researchers like Benestad say the demand for more open access and increased transparency should also apply to researchers who question the scientific consensus, making it far quicker and easier to settle debates about errors in papers.

Inhofe's office continues to highlight Mann's initial refusal to release his data and code. It remains to be seen whether the senator will join those calling for Scafetta to release his code.

If this scandal results opens the doors to freeer access to data and code then some considerable good may come from it.

[deepshade]

If this scandal results opens the doors to freeer access to data and code then some considerable good may come from it.

Bingo! - I am with you on that. Look, in your response to my being concerned about the "billions" to be made by the carbon credit crowd while ignoring the Exxon crowd, lighten up, I just don't like the fake Al Gore. Everytime he opens his mouth these days he ends up putting his foot in it so it has been fun watching that fool. But then he did win the nobel peace prize and an oscar....LOL

Go Nuclear. Go fusion.... Wind and solar are fine but extremely inadequate at this time.

"It isn't easy being green"... Kermit the Frog

Great snow this weekend though..... I guess I'll burn a couple more tires in the wood stove......

[A Person]

[ur=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/12/2817577.html]Key 'climategate' scientist cleared of any wrongdoing[/url]

Pennsylvania State University conducted an inquiry into Dr Michael Mann, a climatologist working for their Department of Meteorology, after a series of emails were leaked as proof scientists were manipulating data to push the case of human induced climate change.

Dr Mann was cleared of all allegations of misconduct, with one caveat. In relation to the allegation of deviating from accepted practices, while there was no evidence of his work falling outside of accepted scientific practice, the public nature of the leak and fears it may undermine trust in science mean further investigation was needed.

The University looked through all of Dr Mann's email correspondences in making its findings.

Central to the claims Dr Mann manipulated and withheld data was the use of the word 'trick' in an email exchange discussing a graph to be presented in a World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) report.

In the inquiry the University found the contrary to claims of falsification, the scientists involved were merely trying to explain data.

"In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a 'trick' to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr Jones and others including Dr Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) report," the inquiry said.

"They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field.

"The so-called 'trick' was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

Professor Roger Jones for, Victoria Uni's Centre for Strategic Economic Studies says the report clears Dr Mann of any wrongdoing.

"Essentially what it shows is that there was no material evidence that Michael Mann had actually done any of those things, which was suppressing for falsifying data, deleting or concealing emails, and the misuse of privileged or confidential information, and they found that there was no evidence of that either," he said.

Professor Jones says while the scandal damaged public perception in the science of human induced climate changes, reviews like this are important to regain trust.

"We do have to maintain as much public confidence in the science as we can," he said.

"And if it comes to these sorts of unfortunate events where you get a whole heap of emails stolen you certainly have to have a close inquiry to try and maintain and restore that confidence if it's been eroded."

He says the scandal also shows the disconnect between the scientific consensus and the media debate on climate change.

"What we have is this situation where the overwhelming majority of the climate science community has got one view of the science, and there are a very small group of scientists, most of the time they're actually not practising in the climate area themselves, [who disagree]," he said.

"And the when you get into the media the mix is more like 50-50, so the public can get the view that there's actually a real debate going on here whereas while there is one in the media, in the science there isn't actually that much of a material debate."

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

This reminds me of my son's efforts to get his dissertation materials in order for presentation in a few weeks. The other day, he was at home, and concentrating on a graph he needed to create. Only he couldn't figure out how to get the software to show the graph the way he thought it ought to do. Eventually, he "figured out the trick." He wasn't cooking his data... just figuring out the hoops he needed to jump through to get his data presented the way he wanted.

But you take the statement out of context, move phrases around, and all of a sudden he could be in trouble -- for no real reason. Lucky for him, his work doesn't threaten anyone's obscene corporate profits.

[A Person]

Clear unabmiguous proof global warming is real

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

British probes into leaked emails at East Anglia have also started clearing them of any problems with the science. So I guess the climate change denial effort will have to go in some new direction. Maybe they will get some teabagging friends to heave some bricks through windows...

[A Person]

So I guess the climate change denial effort will have to go in some new direction

Ya think? I think they will completely ignore it because the 'fraudulent and lying climate scientist' meme is firmly implanted.

Just look at how ready they were to believe the satire on the GW scientist who froze to death because he didn't think Antarctica would be cold in July