link to article on Crikey

Summary: Leaked emails between climate researchers being used by climate sceptics to show global conspiracy.

The BBCs article on this is slightly less alarmist: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

Summary: Leaked emails between climate researchers being used by climate sceptics to show global conspiracy.

Yes, the global conspiracy has been proven

headdesk

Climate Gate !

cause apparently it cant be a conspiracy unless "Gate" is used.

Conspiracy implies organisation and planning, I think this is just the typical political/celebrity/female headless chicken hype we see every time someone suggests some plausible idea about a problem on our planet we can't easily measure and see it's nonsense.

I don't believe for a second scientists could be organised enough (let alone motivated enough) to organise a worldwide conspiracy

Can someone who has read all 58 pages of these emails give us a good summery of it all (TLDR?)

this is on a few trackers at the moment, I have no interest in it to be honest but it'll be interesting to see the fall out from it!

I don't believe for a second scientists could be organised enough (let alone motivated enough) to organise a worldwide conspiracy

This brings me to one of many plot holes you could drive a truck through in 2012: Spoiler:
A Russian billionaire has tickets on board one of the secret arks intended to save humanity, and his spoilt brat kids know all about it, but the combined power of all the investigative journalists on the planet can't break the story?

Can someone who has read all 58 pages of these emails give us a good summery of it all (TLDR?)

I'll give you a summary of the two different summaries I read:

1) Conspiracy theory angle:

These emails CONCLUSIVELY PROVE beyond ALL DOUBT that there is a conspiracy at the HIGHEST LEVEL OF SCIENCTISM to pull the wool over our eyes. WAKE UP PEOPLE! Don't be sheep! BELIEVE WHAT WE SAY WITHOUT QUESTION because undoubtable SCIENCTISTS are going to LIE to you and MAKE SURE THAT YOU DIE (ps, did you hear about Scientology and how crazy that is? Do you think its a COINCIDENCE that they both start with SCIENCE?!! I don't think so!).

2) Regular person angle:

Hey, here's a bunch of emails where people who thought they were communicating privately were discussing ways to present evidence that they thought best supported their case and using vernacular particular to their profession that can get misconstrued if you read it out of context. Also sometimes they made fun of people that they think have a differing opinion of them.

Actually here's a bonus third:

3) BBC angle:

Some emails got leaked.

(nb, I haven't read the evidence clearly so have no opinion one way or the other, this is just my first impressions after reading the raving blog posts that are setting the Internet on fire with the sheer extremity of their uninterestingness)

The BBC angle was more like "Some hackers have done a crime!!~"

The BBCs article on this is slightly less alarmist

By slightly less alarmist did you mean contains no meaningful information? Seriously the topic is about global warming, not internet security.

The OP article is hardly alarmist, it's pretty balanced since it posts arguments from both sides and doesn't give a personal opinion. It even puts words like smoking gun in quotations so you know that it's not the authors choice of words but the sceptics it references.

There is a lot of internal politics involved with any academic organisations, especially in science and I think these emails show just how bad it can get. I don't think they really will do anything to prove or disprove AGW but they will certainly make the people involved to look like a******s, which like everyone else, they very likely are anyway.

hahaha scientism

I meant less alarmist than the lame one sentence summary we got along with the link

I like to think of it this way.
Even if the climate isn't warming, is it really so bad that we make an effort to lower our impact upon the environment?
I'd like to ask a skeptic that.

I like to think of it this way.
Even if the climate isn't warming, is it really so bad that we make an effort to lower our impact upon the environment?
I'd like to ask a skeptic that.

I often wonder the same thing.
It's probably because they think it costs too much, or it's money better spent elsewhere? But I don't see how research into renewable energy and lowering our use and dependancy on energy is a bad thing? I mean we're going to run out of fossil fuels some day.

^ I think the skeptics response might be something like "great, we've lessened the impact on the environment but the economy and unemployment are in the toilet for no good reason"


last edited by Dazhel at 11:58:31 23/Nov/09

Even if the climate isn't warming, is it really so bad that we make an effort to lower our impact upon the environment?
I'd like to ask a skeptic that.

Hi, skeptic here.

The problem is that AGW, if proven false, can damage the environmental movement and science in general. People like Al Gore declaring that the 'science is settled' can do a lot of damage to the movement.

If people are duped into paying bazillions of tax dollars into fighting an unnecessary carbon war do you think they'll sign up next time there is a real problem? Did you hear the story about the boy who cried wolf?

Additonally there is only so much energy we can dedicate to this stuff. I think that we should be spending less time worrying about carbon and work on direct, proven environmental issues like soil salinity, deforestation, pollution, decentralisation of human living.

But that s*** is much less sexy than saving the world from carbon - by giving our Governments a shiny new f***ing tax and thanking them for it.

^ I think the sceptics response might be something like "great, we've lessened the impact on the environment but the economy and unemployment are in the toilet for no good reason"

Probs. But wouldn't jobs be created for building all the new infastructure? Plus someone has to maintain the equipment.

^ I think the skeptics response might be something like "great, we've lessened the impact on the environment but the economy and unemployment are in the toilet for no good reason"
last edited by Dazhel at 11:58:31 23/Nov/09

acting environmentally doesn't have to have a massive economic burden. I think quite the opposite is likely to happen - if people start wanting more environmentally friendly products/services, more companies will start focusing on that, creating new industries and new research.

If our goal is to acheive the highest level of standard of living for people and we acknowledge that the earth no matter what has a finite length of time that we'll be able to inhabit it, then if the cost to improving our standard of living by attempting to maintain the status quo of the environment is greater than the cost to our standard of living by letting the environment change then we've made the wrong decision because over time we'll not recover the gains we could have made because as above the earth can only be inhabited for a finite period of time.

acting environmentally doesn't have to have a massive economic burden

0.7% of GDP is a pretty big economic burden.

^ I think the skeptics response might be something like "great, we've lessened the impact on the environment but the economy and unemployment are in the toilet for no good reason"
last edited by Dazhel at 11:58:31 23/Nov/09

acting environmentally doesn't have to have a massive economic burden. I think quite the opposite is likely to happen - if people start wanting more environmentally friendly products/services, more companies will start focusing on that, creating new industries and new research.

No it does have to have an economic cost, that's the point, the only way that the market will change is if we price in environmental change as part of the cost of providing goods and services. But people will accept that if the value of having minor environmental change is greater than the economic cost.

acting environmentally doesn't have to have a massive economic burden

0.7% of GDP is a pretty big economic burden.

Change will cost a bit to start with, the benfits in the long run will out weigh this.

acting environmentally doesn't have to have a massive economic burden

0.7% of GDP is a pretty big economic burden

I agree completely, the real benefit for the Australian economy will be if we are leaders in developing and patenting green technologies, while other countries sit on their laurels we can suffer a hit now but then export that technology at big $$ once / if the rest of the world follows suit. Sure it is a gamble, but then CSIRO gambled on wireless technology research in the 80s and now they're cashing in the big bucks.

0.7% of GDP is a pretty big economic burden.

It's not as big as 1.4% though!

No it does have to have an economic cost, that's the point, the only way that the market will change is if we price in environmental change as part of the cost of providing goods and services. But people will accept that if the value of having minor environmental change is greater than the economic cost.

By "big economic burden" I meant it doesn't mean we need to spend forfty squillion dollars of taxpayer money to put in green lightbulbs in every cupboard or whatever. People thinking environmentally and making environmentally-conscious choices will result in a more environmentally friendly world. The economic burden then becomes a problem for companies that make products that are not green. Companies that do make green products make more money. Everyone is happy and the planet sucks just that little bit less.

Deforestation and pollution could fall within the carbon grounds, and if carbon trading comes into effect, we could see commercially grown forests.
But yes I'll agree with you on the salinity, I hope it doesn't get forgotten in the hype.

Deforestation and pollution could fall within the carbon grounds, and if carbon trading comes into effect, we could see commercially grown forests.
But yes I'll agree with you on the salinity, I hope it doesn't get forgotten in the hype.

don't we already have commercially grown forests for things like paper production?

By "big economic burden" I meant it doesn't mean we need to spend forfty squillion dollars of taxpayer money to put in green lightbulbs in every cupboard or whatever. People thinking environmentally and making environmentally-conscious choices will result in a more environmentally friendly world. The economic burden then becomes a problem for companies that make products that are not green. Companies that do make green products make more money. Everyone is happy and the planet sucks just that little bit less.

I totally agree. The question is will enough people be willing to think environmentally and make environmental-conscious decisions in timeframes sufficient to avoid marked climate change? I'm sceptical that in a heavy consumerist society people will be willing to forgo luxury items for intangible long-term environmental benefit. I think we do need to legislate to tell people what do to do or at least to regulate the market so that it necessarily prices in environmental impact. I also don’t trust the market to regulate itself with regards to labelling around environmental impact, see the current situation with organic & free-range labelling and consumer awareness of what these labels really mean.

we could see commercially grown forests

This already happens in Tassie a LOT. My in-laws have an old Dairy farm down there that is a tree farm now.

Wood farming is already a massive and growing industry, and doesn't need a big carbon tax to be viable - just the restriction of logging of national forests to introduce a scarcity of wild wood.

Like we already have done.

The problem is that AGW, if proven false, can damage the environmental movement and science in general. People like Al Gore declaring that the 'science is settled' can do a lot of damage to the movement.

This is precisely the issue. Scientists supporting Global Warming are now so heavily invested they can't afford to be wrong. They are just another lobby and group and all their "findings" should be taken with g rain of salt.

It wouldn't surprise me that they would suppress conflicting evidence. Or are they ethically superior to those who don't buy the Global Warming line?

don't we already have commercially grown forests for things like paper production?

the next phase though is the growing of forests for them to simply exist. the carbon offsets that would be produced by the forest would then provide an enduring cashflow potentially.

last edited by infi at 12:44:18 23/Nov/09

I always laugh when enviromentals say they are part of an enourmous movement.

The problem I have is the bulls*** environmental stuff where people are told something is green and just accept it, like electric cars and apparently even water tanks. Electric cars run on batteries which is probably the most inefficient form of power we have, on a TED talk I saw the speaker claimed they were 40000 times less efficient then grid power from which they are charged. Simply because they can claim that they have 0 emissions while driving they get to label themselves as environmentally friendly without having to prove that the overall cost of the car doesn't have a greater impact then a petrol based car. The petrol car is more efficient, you'd think that something that is more efficient would by nature be better for the environment.

Hydrogen on paper is far far far far better then these electric toxic trolleys but is being pushed to the side because the marketing for Prius's and the like has been so successful. This is the real danger, it's certainly a good idea to minimise our impact on the planet but what if the things we are being sold as environmental are actually worse then what we already have or stop us from using things that are many times better than what the manufacturers are offering. Like how Fluorescents are being championed despite the fact that LEDs are far more efficient but cost an arm and a leg because they don't get the public attention.

the next phase though is the growing of forests for them to simply exist. the carbon offsets that would be produced by the forest would then provide an enduring cashflow potentially.

I can't find the link of the top of my head but a much better bet is some kind of grain or it may have been bamboo which traps carbon into it's husk or something so you can keep plowing and replanting the same area but the trapped carbon is stored in the waste material which is plowed back into the soil. It was something like 10 x a rainforest in terms of carbon stored.

I can't find the link of the top of my head but a much better bet is some kind of grain or it may have been bamboo which traps carbon into it's husk or something so you can keep plowing and replanting the same area but the trapped carbon is stored in the waste material which is plowed back into the soil. It was something like 10 x a rainforest in terms of carbon stored.

That sounds cool, but how much carbon do you have to burn to plow it back into the soil :)

Hydrogen on paper is far far far far better then these electric toxic trolleys but is being pushed to the side because the marketing for Prius's and the like has been so successful.

No, hydrogen sucks balls.

What will be funny is if those smart c***s get controlled fusion happening. So much epic s*** we could do with boundless energy.

This is precisely the issue. Scientists supporting Global Warming are now so heavily invested they can't afford to be wrong. They are just another lobby and group and all their "findings" should be taken with g rain of salt.

I know what you are saying infi and I kinda agree, but I just get the feeling that if it was left up to People like you (liberals) then all the big polluting business would just continue to do what they do because its a free market and the market should decice whats viable.

Global warming aside, we need to become more sustanable beucase the coal and oil will run out eventually.

Hmm.
Doesn't:

then all the big polluting business would just continue to do what they do because its a free market and the market should decice whats viable.

Contradict:

Global warming aside, we need to become more sustanable beucase the coal and oil will run out eventually

?

Kinda I guess, because they will need to change eventually, but for most of the people running these places it wont effect them in there lifetime, so they dont care.

Like Milton Friedman said in this clip, there are no angels to organise society. Bureaucrats and scientists are just as selfish as businessmen.

Only business can devise the answers to the environmental questions because they invest in the R&D and technology to harness these efficiencies.

Electric cars run on batteries which is probably the most inefficient form of power we have, on a TED talk I saw the speaker claimed they were 40000 times less efficient then grid power from which they are charged.

You're nearly as bad as these kinds of people, except on the other side.

You're comparing one form of energy conversion to another form, and then saying its bad. This sounds great except the two forms of conversion aren't even similar. You're saying that a f***ing power station is more efficient at making energy then a car is. No f***ing s***.

What you HAVE to compare is the end result. Is one form of conversion of energy to velocity better than another? IE: Is electricity to velocity better than heat to velocity? Yes/no? The simple answer is that electricity is better for emissions. I've even heard from other sources say that its better for efficiency too, although thats not very useful in this argument.

Now, i don't disagree with your statement, but rather your argument.

If you had instead said "The environmental cost of the toyota prius is so much above the cost of a regular petrol car that you would need to drive that car for 40 years to be able to save enough running environmental emissions to come out overall better for the environment." then I couldn't fault that logic.

Unless you want to drive a goddamn coal power station to work, i suggest you don't bother making useless comparisons.

last edited by skythra at 13:45:06 23/Nov/09

But infi without regulation the market has no incentive to harness efficiencies aimed at the long-term health of their business, that's the nature of a short-term bonusised workforce.

the great achievements of our modern world were not created through regulation.

regulation does not free people. this is obvious.

the great achievements of our modern world were not created through regulation.

But were made possible because of.

Every patent is proof of that.

the great achievements of our modern world were not created through regulation.

regulation does not free people. this is obvious.

I can think of a few people that would disagree with this blanket statement. Hammurabi is the first that comes to mind.

People who are questioning commercially grown forests have obviously not driven along the bruce highway, between brisbane and say, Cairns... in the past... 30-50 years?

Every patent is proof of that.

that is ridiculous. invention occurred before Intellectual Property existed, and invention will continue to occur after IP is destroyed.

the great achievements of our modern world were not created through regulation.

and alot of them were created through war, so you saying war is good arent you, admit it.

fyi, im not being serious.

don't we already have commercially grown forests for things like paper production?

From my understanding, commercial paper and wood forests don't really remove much carbon from the environment if at all. Once they have soaked up X amount of carbon from the atmosphere and have swelled to the desired height, they get cut down, converted and churned back into the system. The paper and wood will eventually be burnt or break down in landfill and the carbon is back in the atmosphere. Recycling of paper would offset this, I guess.
The proposed commercial carbon trading forests are grown and left be. Acting as a sink for carbon to pool in and stay.

@nF

No, hydrogen sucks balls.

is that a quip or a statement?

I have heard that the idea of a hydrogen economy in place of a carbon economy is a bit pie in the sky.

From my understanding, commercial paper and wood forests don't really remove much carbon from the environment if at all.

Commercial forestry's environmental benefit isn't really about sequestration, although there is potentially some benefit.

We need wood, and its better to get it from cleared farmland than rip up some old growth. Its about preventing unnecessary deforestation.

I rekon the regulation that outlawed slavery freed a few people.

back to the emails they are not just snarky or aggressive scientists. they actually went to serious lengths to prevent others from confirming their results or developing alternative hypothesis from their data. this might be excusable in more commercial science but when the result is public policy it is not acceptable. if these institutions are government funded and are carrying out research in order to inform public policy then the governments should ensure all data and code are publicly available.

As for FOIA Sarah isn't technically employed by UEA and she
will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
I wouldn't worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get
used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people,
so I will be hiding behind them.

...

From their wording, computer code
would be covered by the FOIA. My concern was if Sarah is/was still
employed by UEA. I guess she could claim that she had only written
one tenth of the code and release every tenth line.

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=485&filename=1106338806.txt

1. Think I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA
requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=802&filename=1182255717.txt

When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide
by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince
them otherwise
showing them what CA was all about

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=940&filename=1228330629.txt

>> Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
> Cheers
> Phil

- in email with subject 'IPCC & FOI'
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt

If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS
results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS
journals.
Cheers,

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=967&filename=1237496573.txt

Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and
traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to
something, but I don't want to give them something clearly tangible.
Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our
FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions
not to respond - advice they got from the Information Commissioner. As an
aside and just between us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has withdrawn himself
from the WG1 Lead nominations. It seems he doesn't want to have to deal with
this hassle.
The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI - the
skeptics
have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info
the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't
have an obligation to pass it on.

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=914&filename=1219239172.txt

rigging the peer review process:

Hi all,
Agree with Kevin that Tom Karl has too much to do. Tom Wigley is semi
retired and like Mike Wallace may not be responsive to requests from JGR.
We have Ben Santer in common ! Dave Thompson is a good suggestion.
I'd go for one of Tom Peterson or Dave Easterling.
To get a spread, I'd go with 3 US, One Australian and one in Europe.
So Neville Nicholls and David Parker.
all ll of them know the sorts of things to say - about our comment and
the awful original, without any prompting.

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1003&filename=1249503274.txt

The two MMs 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.

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt

oh dear

The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.

last edited by hast at 15:30:18 23/Nov/09

last edited by hast at 15:32:59 23/Nov/09

I rekon the regulation that outlawed slavery freed a few people.

yeah but now it cost us more money for goods and services, they should have left it up to the free market to decide.

Commercial forestry's environmental benefit isn't really about sequestration, although there is potentially some benefit. We need wood, and its better to get it from cleared farmland than rip up some old growth. Its about preventing unnecessary deforestation.

Yes yes, what I mean is they shouldn't be thought of as a way to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
They are a preventative measure, clearly. I don't have anything against them.

hast: If true, the guys in those emails are conspiring to hide data, no doubt. Some of those quotes are f***ing amazing!

I rekon the regulation that outlawed slavery freed a few people.

So in essence it was a regulation that made people more free, as compared to a regulation that requires us to do something i.e. makes us less free.

If we're talking about North American slavery, it wasn't ended by regulation, it was ended by war.

So following this vaguely ludicrous logic argument, war == good?

I haven't made my mind up on global warming, but what we are doing to this planet has to stop - its a f***ing disgrace. We need to reduce our global population and get over this mentality of gross consumerism. Part of the problem is the way our economies are set up - they have to keep expanding or everything collapses. We need lower incomes (with less work), less consumption, and more of an emphasis on science/engineering which can actually help this world. Then again, most people are lazy and would rather receive over-inflated incomes selling real estate than perform research in the hard sciences.

f*** the economy, I'd like to see sweeping pro-environmental legislation and a focus on sustainability. Make throw-away plastic consumables a thing of the past. Promote home-farms where backyards allow. This is especially relevant in Queensland where our climate allows year round farming. The more food we grow locally, the less oil is wasted shipping it around the country/world.

To people like infi who hold such polar views to my own - don't things like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch upset you?!

that is ridiculous. invention occurred before Intellectual Property existed, and invention will continue to occur after IP is destroyed.

Was a little harder to steal people's plans back in the day.

Patents have been around what, like 200 years? You did say modern right?

EG:

Patent Example

Refrigeration In 1868

Refrigeration Patents

Thomas Sutcliffe Mort and Eugene Nicolle Victorian Patent 1139 lodged 4 August 1868

Climate and the tyranny of distance spurred development of efficient methods of refrigeration.
Eugene Nicolle, a brilliant French engineer, in collaboration with Thomas Sutcliffe Mort invented and patented a number of improvements in shipboard refrigeration that permitted development of frozen meat sales to Britain. Ten years of research resulted in 12 patents. In 1879 the Stratheleven carried 40 tons of frozen beef and mutton to England where it was judged of such good quality that it could not be distinguished from freshly killed English beef.

The full Specifications for the patent illustrated has 9 pages and 4 drawings.

To people like infi who hold such polar views to my own - don't things like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch upset you?!

are we gonna make a law not litter in international waters? is that even enforceable?

Backyard farms won't feed cities full of people Matt.

Irrefutable truth on an internet blog! Now I'm 100% convinced, thanks for the 'truth'.

Syco - the leaked emails appear to be real and they are being defended by context claims, not that they are lies.

Syco - the leaked emails appear to be real and they are being defended by context claims, not that they are lies.

Yeah, I read the Crikey post. One bit of possible number fudging doesn't all of a sudden disprove the entire theory as hinted at.

Syco - the leaked emails appear to be real and they are being defended by context claims, not that they are lies.

Yeah, I read the Crikey post. One bit of possible number fudging doesn't all of a sudden disprove the entire theory as hinted at.

OR make it very interesting

Of course it doesn't - but it serves to highlight that scientists are people and that they can be caught up in bias as much as anyone else.

There is a long history of bad and lost data in GW science, and obstruction of attempts by people attempting falsification to get access to information. This is just another example - but the most visible one. The fact that they refer to people pursuing falsification as deniers is most revealing.

Its a derogatory label that very much reminds me of heretic or unbeliever.

Why are AGW scientists so afraid of people getting hold of, and properly analysing their data? Isn't that what science supposed to be all about? We are continually told to look at the papers published in support of AGW as evidence, but without the data how can it be evaluated by experts?

last edited by Hogfather at 16:31:52 23/Nov/09

There is a long history of bad and lost data in GW science, and obstruction of attempts by people attempting falsification to get access to information. This is just another example - but the most visible one.

Boo that's just a broad generalisation used by the anti global warming camp, unless you can show the instances of falsificiation of data in pro man-made climate change science are greater than in other areas of science that's a really nothing comment.

Science is a business. Medicine is a prime example of where good science will be lost over increased sales for drug companies.

http://api.ning.com/files/t3qhIhGFfoYSWx8I2AzzwxbDr68ABWPgyEzDIx2VKkrCWR4UH6jIacR--0fCHrbsYJmCVFokgrmarSe02MENX301C0Z*HfP0/conspiracy.jpg

Why are AGW scientists so afraid of people getting hold of, and properly analysing their data? Isn't that what science supposed to be all about? We are continually told to look at the papers published in support of AGW as evidence, but without the data how can it be evaluated by experts?

Papers are usually published with supporting evidence and I think that generally the climate change attacks against those who disagree with man-made warming have attacked their scientific method.

Here, let me google that for you:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=AGW+data+hidden

Seriously, reports of hidden AGW data are everywhere mate.

Here, let me google that for you:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=AGW+data+hidden

Seriously, reports of hidden AGW data are everywhere mate.

That doesn't say anything, FWIW 174 sites found at http://www.google.com.au/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_EN-GBAU345&q=Hogfather+deliberately+falsified+climate+change+data&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=

f*** you're a pain in the arse. Here's my favourite for you, from September:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/rcs_merged_rev2.gif?w=420&h=360

The difference between the green line and the red one is why it took YEARS to get the data.

Backyard farms won't feed cities full of people Matt.

That in itself is a problem. What happens if anything happens to food supply lines? What happens when we run out of phosphorus (albeit a while from now)? Backyard farms aren't going to replace commercial farms, but they certainly provide a good buffer, and at least you know how your food is grown. I dislike the concept of big cities anyway. With the technology available today, wouldn't it be great to work remotely? Otherwise, implementing high speed transport to allow city workers to live in a sustainable suburban sprawl (i.e. big backyards, low foot-print houses) would be great. Unfortunately, society's attitudes have to change before this could happen. Everyone wants their McMansion without any regard for the environment.

are we gonna make a law not litter in international waters? is that even enforceable?

What about pumping money into alternate enviro-friendly materials research (so we can come up with more ideas like this)? Perhaps we could find a replacement for the throw-away plastics used in food packaging. What about reducing our desire for Chinese made crap? Or refusing to buy Chinese goods unless they are ethically manufactured? I agree in that I don't like seeing the Government profiting from a new tax, but I would certainly be happy if *all* that tax went into research grants.

This is going to take more than laws, you are right. It is going to take a complete change in society's attitudes. Australians, like many in the developed world, are spoiled and wouldn't have it any other way. I would like to think that if they saw the damage they are doing to this earth they would actually care and do something about it.

We need a real-life captain planet :p

Why wouldn't you want to keep data private for a certain period of time? Not making data public doesn't mean the researchers are fudging it. I would be pretty reluctant to share any of my data if I thought I could still get some publications out of it (and I am legally obliged not to anyway).

Of course it doesn't - but it serves to highlight that scientists are people and that they can be caught up in bias as much as anyone else.

Scientists sure are... so what?

There is a long history of bad and lost data in GW science, and obstruction of attempts by people attempting falsification to get access to information. This is just another example - but the most visible one.

Not sure I understand this. "...people attempting falsification to get access to information..." What are they attempting to falsify, why would that give them access, and what information are you referring to?

The fact that they refer to people pursuing falsification as deniers is most revealing.

Who uses that term? Not sure you'd see that printed in peer-reviewed journals, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Why are AGW scientists so afraid of people getting hold of, and properly analysing their data?

There are a lot of reasons why scientists don't want to share their data straight away. Data doesn't just happen - it has to get funded. There's a lot of money invested in data, and you don't want to just give it away until you have gone through everything and made sure you've got as much as you can out of it. Having said that - if the data is just sitting in a vault gathering dust, then I agree it could be made available, pending legal obligations.

Isn't that what science supposed to be all about?

Nowhere in the scientific process is there a requirement to share your data. What is far more important is pretty much the opposite - other researchers need to go out and collect your own data and see if they can replicate previous findings. THAT is what science is all about.

We are continually told to look at the papers published in support of AGW as evidence, but without the data how can it be evaluated by experts?

I disagree with this on a few levels. Don't just look at paper in support of something, look at papers in support of and against an argument. Remember though, you are not an expert in climatology, and eventually you have to put a certain level of trust in the true experts. The data is evaluated by experts during the peer review process, and then again by the wider community of experts when an article goes to get published.

I also can't see the fuss in hast's post? Saying "rigging peer-review" is plain misleading. What area of academia are you in hast? Cause in my area (psychology), you have a certain level of say in the reviewers you get - this is so you can get the people who can best critic your work so you don't publish garbage - I thought this was common.

last edited by BillyHardball at 18:46:40 23/Nov/09

Pretty sure you need the data so people can see your conclusions aren't bulls***.

Do one of the following: a) do a degree in the area that you're interested in and learn how to read the articles. If you have already done (a), then b), conduct your own research and see if you can replicate the findings.

Replication is far more important. If someone has "fudged data", why wouldn't they just give you the fudged data so you find the same results? Furthermore, when you learn about statistics, you'll learn that even "very certain" results still aren't 100% truth. It is possible that noise in data could make data seem more compelling than they truly are, which is again why replication is necessary.

In my opinion, from what I hear in the media and read online, the real problem is that people HAVE attempted to replicate, and have been unable to, and haven't managed to get their articles published. This means that positive results are over-represented (which is nothing new in academia, by the way). However, without more evidence of these studies being legitimate or even existing, it seems like nothing but special pleading.

Why wouldn't you want to keep data private for a certain period of time? Not making data public doesn't mean the researchers are fudging it. I would be pretty reluctant to share any of my data if I thought I could still get some publications out of it (and I am legally obliged not to anyway).

From what I read he was fudging it. And secondly, it was a requirement of his publication in a journal. Reproducibility is good science. But you might not know that as psychology isn't science anyway.

From what I read he was fudging it. And secondly, it was a requirement of his publication in a journal.

Fair enough if it was a requirement.

Reproducibility is good science. But you might not know that as psychology isn't science anyway.

Hmmmm... are you just saying what I said back to me, but then saying that I didn't know it? <3

has anyone read The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, by Emmanuel Goldstein?

as in from 1984?

yer, the missing appendix :) you'll find it in your 'heart'

atlas shrugged
brave new world
climate of fear

"Creativity is knowing how to hide your sources" ae.

surely there's a few more books the kiddies could read that would wise them up.

living in the future is scary.....terrorism & the middle east was ok but obvious

but you have to take your hat off and marvel at the genius of climate change.

stiff upper lip now lads, it'll be good for the manifestation of the remnants of your s***ty genetic code :)


climate change *chuckles*


last edited by blue at 20:01:43 23/Nov/09

http://www.novinite.com/media/images/2009-11/photo_verybig_110185.jpg


!

head ant

Replication is far more important. If someone has "fudged data", why wouldn't they just give you the fudged data so you find the same results?

situation 1)

you don't have the data so you can't verify the results.

situation 2)

they give you fudged data so there is now the possiblity you will discover the data is fudged. if people haven't done the research into fudging data you can often detect it with statistical tests.

2 > 1

getting the data and rerunning their statistical method is partly replication. it just isn't full replication all the way down. and part of the reason why people want the data is so they can modify the statistical methods to see what will happen. for example: what happens if we include all the samples instead of this subselection? oh.. we get a completely different result. mmm.. i wonder if the justification for removing those samples is solid or if it is just cherry picking.

other researchers need to go out and collect your own data and see if they can replicate previous findings. THAT is what science is all about.

this often isn't possible especially if the 'data' is the instrumental record since it is impossible to reproduce the past.

Hast, your last point occurred to me shortly after my last post. You're missing my point with your situation 2 though. There is a difference between "fudging data" and "fudging results". If someone fudges the raw data, you can do as many statistical tests on them and you will never know. However, if they have fudged the results, that is a different story.

it depends on how you fudge the data. if you do it in a amateurish way you can use statistical methods to detect the fudge. ie: often the least significant digit will have a known distribution and if the data is far enough from this distribution then someone has screwed with the data or something strange has happened. :)

if you fudge the data you risk someone else going into the field and contradicting your results. also, with temperature reconstructions the people who collect the data and the people who crunch the data are different so you often will need a conspiracy to properly fudge the data or if the cruncher fudges it they risk someone going back to the original source. publishing the data is an important disincentive to data fudging because it increases the cost of fudging the data.

I think we're not even arguing on topic anymore, so there's not much point in it, but your first paragraph doesn't make any sense. The way that you have used "least significant" does not make sense in a statistics context, and a "digit" can't have a distribution. If you fudge data, you can create whatever distributions you want.

last edited by BillyHardball at 21:26:22 23/Nov/09

if you have a set of measurements then depending on what they are measuring and the scale the digits will often have a known distribution. for example benfords law says the first digit in certain measurements will be distributed logarithmically. if you didn't know this and were making up numbers then you could create a dataset that fails a benfords law test. if you take the least signficant digit of a measurement then it will often be distributed uniformally. if you didn't take care when fudging you might create a dataset that fails this test.

if your a psych student they should of warned you they have statistical methods to detect faking numbers but not elaborated on how they do it :)

last edited by hast at 21:38:17 23/Nov/09

I still don't know what you mean by "the least significant digit of a measurement"... and again, a digit does not have a distribution. Regardless, my guess is people who fudge data know a thing or two about statistics.

if your a psych student they should of warned you they have statistical methods to detect faking numbers but not elaborated on how they do it :)

I am not familiar with Benford's law, but from a quick wiki, it seems to only apply in logarithmic distributions. I could easily create several fake distributions with different shapes that you could not prove were fake, unless you actually tried to repeat whatever "experiment" I pretended to run to find the data, and you constantly found something vastly different. Even then, you couldn't conclude that I fudged my data.

digits have distributions: benford's law

DigitS can have distributions, a single digit cannot. A distribution is a spread of data. A single digit is a single point that falls somewhere within that distribution.

Billy, hast is making it pretty clear that the reference is to the distribution of the least significant digit in the data set.

Frankly, the emails are a disgrace. You, who is more invested in the sanctity of peer-review should *more* horrified than anyone with respects to the subversion and corruption of this process that is evident in the leaked files.

Disregarding the implications this has for climate research for one moment, this bombshell goes to the heart of the peer-review process and its continuing stature in the pursuit of scientific research. That it can evidently be gamed and controlled from within shows that we need to reconsider the weight to which we attach the process. Reproducibility is the heart of science. Peer-review has nothing to do with science intrinsically, it's simply been the best way we've had so far to facilitate the process. That doesn't mean it will continue to the best way or has never had its own flaws.

From now on I can honestly say that an objection based on lack of peer-review, or conversely an appeal to opposite will be viewed in less light than it had been previously by me -- certainly in so called climate "science".

I support Billy in his stubbornness. Tenacity and unwavering faith are what made our other religions so great, and with The Environment being so new its great to have such die hard followers.

Billy I'm massively surprised and disappointed in you.

I've obviously missed something then - what haven't I read that everyone else must have? I've only read the crikey post and what hast posted here... neither of which are incriminating on their own.

Plok started a Bash Billy Bandwagon. I was just jumping on it.

If plok was addressing me in more than his first two comments, then he has done nothing more than create a straw man.

I am genuinely interested though if people here are using "reproducibility" as meaning something different to "replicability".

If plok was addressing me in more than his first two comments, then he has done nothing more than create a straw man.

I am genuinely interested though if people here are using "reproducibility" as meaning something different to "replicability".

the least significant digit in a measurement means, for a value of say 1.23456, the least significant digit is 6 (the least significant because it has the smallest "effect" on the value of the number)

from a quick read at what hast is saying I think he means that the least significant digit should be distributed more or less randomly. But if you fake your data sets, for example by copying and pasting a bunch of data over and over (assuming you are a truly terrible faker), you would end up with a non-random distribution of least significant digits - so that you could do a simple statistical test and verify that the data is possibly suspect

Ahh the straw man defence.

http://drvee.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/strawman.jpg

Thank you, trog. The word "significant" is used quite differently in statistics.

Why has the term straw man started being used interchangeably with the red herring ?

I thought the 2 were different ?

http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/dr392d17.jpg

Yes they are different - but plok seemed to be getting agro at me for defending the peer-review process, which I never did. I also never denied that there has been wrong doing in this specific case - I just haven't seen any convincing evidence (in the crikey post or in this thread). I have no idea why Hogfather is so upset with me, but it hurts. I have not even argued for or against global warming. I DID preface one statement with, "In my opinion, from what I hear in the media and read online..."

Billy: I'm just amazed and disappointed that as a scientist you would find this sort of thing OK, regardless of your opinion on AGW.

This isn't private science, this is science being done for the greater good of humanity, to identify a potential threat to our civilisation. As such, playing political games with data and deliberately dodging Freedom of Information requests strikes me as profoundly amoral and unethical.

Science should (to me) be dry, objective and based on the facts. Heated argument over postulates should be encouraged at every level, as it is through such grinding debate that theories can be most rigorously tested.

A scientist undertaking such important work should expect - and welcome - the highest level of scrutiny. This important science is increasingly forming the basis for much of the global economic, social and moral framework for the coming century.

Deliberately subverting the process and obstructing FOI requests for this data is - to me - utterly unconscionable. One thing I've noted from your many posts is that we must always seek the objective truth, and I'm astonished that you seem to think that this sort of behaviour and attitudes are appropriate from scientists at this level, performing this work.

last edited by Hogfather at 12:43:51 24/Nov/09

None of these emails, to my knowledge, establish the reasoning behind hiding their data, it's not a logical conclusion to go from they hid data to they hid data as their data was wrong or misleading.

I honestly can't think of a single good reason why any data on this subject should be hidden from scrutiny. Can you?

Australia is being asked to commit 7 billion dollars per year because of this science. This is massively more expensive than the NBN, or the Chairman's oft-maligned stimulus packages.

It is an unprecedented commitment, based solely on the science of AGW.

Shouldn't we know all the facts, and have all the data before we sign up? Given the stakes, why is anything being hidden?

imitation has pretty much summed up my point, but here we go anyway:

Billy: I'm just amazed and disappointed that as a scientist you would find this sort of thing OK, regardless of your opinion on AGW.

I'm still not sure what "this sort of thing" is??????????????????????

This isn't private science, this is science being done for the greater good of humanity, to identify a potential threat to our civilisation. As such, playing political games with data and deliberately dodging Freedom of Information requests strikes me as profoundly amoral and unethical.

I tend to agree, but like I have said before, there are a few legitimate reasons why data might not be shared (although these reasons might not apply in this case).

Science should (to me) be dry, objective and based on the facts. Heated argument over postulates should be encouraged at every level, as it is through such grinding debate that theories can be most rigorously tested.

I agree, and it is.

A scientist undertaking such important work should expect - and welcome - the highest level of scrutiny. This important science is increasingly forming the basis for much of the global economic, social and moral framework for the coming century.

Yes...

Deliberately subverting the process and obstructing FOI requests for this data is - to me - utterly unconscionable. One thing I've noted from your many posts is that we must always seek the objective truth, and I'm astonished that you seem to think that this sort of behaviour and attitudes are appropriate from scientists at this level, performing this work.

From just reading this thread, I haven't seen any evidence to claim there has been "deliberate subverting" of a processs. I have admitted that I may have missed where this was made clear, but no one has pointed it out to me yet.

I honestly can't think of a single good reason why any data on this subject should be hidden from scrutiny. Can you?

No I can't for this specific instance. But does that mean there isn't a legitimate reason for keeping it hidden?

Shouldn't we know all the facts, and have all the data before we sign up? Given the stakes, why is anything being hidden?

I agree that it is important to know all the facts before we invest billions of dollars - anyone would be crazy to argue against that.

1. Think I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.

This is fine? Why?

Shouldn't we know all the facts, and have all the data before we sign up? Given the stakes, why is anything being hidden?

No that's wrong, if waiting for all the facts has a higher average cost than the cost of acting prematurely then we should act prematurely. That's just about making the bet with the highest expected result over the long-term.

I can think of reasons that data would be withheld, but I would only be surmising which is no better than saying it was to protect falsified or erroneous data.

1. Think I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.

This is fine? Why?

Debating if a decision is moral doesn't provide us with reasoning as to why the decision was made.

For example, you get HIV and post on here "Hey guys anyone know of HIV cure?", Billy thinks "I got that, but as I recall Hogfather tried to piss on me in the Global Warming thread, screw that guy." Billy messages all the other HIV cure holders and says lets not tell him. Billy's messages private messages are leaked, now someone concludes from the emails Billy doesn't even have a cure for HIV. See how that last bit doesn't make any sense.

Holy s***, Billy can cure aids? Is there anything he can't do?

Debating if a decision is moral doesn't provide us with reasoning as to why the decision was made.

For example, you get HIV and post on here "Hey guys anyone know of HIV cure?", Billy thinks "I got that, but as I recall Hogfather tried to piss on me in the Global Warming thread, screw that guy." Billy messages all the other HIV cure holders and says lets not tell him. Billy's messages private messages are leaked, now someone concludes from the emails Billy doesn't even have a cure for HIV. See how that last bit doesn't make any sense.

Your analogy is kind of wack dude. I don't do analogies and won't debate its fitness with you.

How about this: I'm outraged and appalled at the apparent deliberate and complicit obfuscation. As always I'll be the first person to stick my hand up and admit I'm wrong if a compelling explanation comes to light, I just can't think of anything that would satisfy me.

The 'cost of inaction' argument is central to the pro-AGW movement and deserves a thread all of its own. My position is that I would rather face the consequences of inaction than to take massive action based on incomplete science.

"Its too much to risk" is scaremongering and emotional blackmail, usually accompanied by something about our f***ing children. Its the same argument used by religious people to attempt conversions for decades, this fear of a potentially disastrous outcome because you didn't do what an authority told you to do, even if there evidence is not 100%.

If you don't believe you might burn in hell! Belief costs you nothing really, what's a couple of percent in tithe compared to safeguarding your SOUL? What's a percent of GDP if it might save the planet!

Its not f***ing science that's for damn sure.

last edited by Hogfather at 13:45:58 24/Nov/09

it's amazing how if a tobacco or pharmaceutical company engaged in this kind of ethically questionable behaviour there would be government enquiries and media outcry, but if its pro-global warming scientists the intelligentsia defend them - i am sure they have a valid reason. what a double standard.

I can appreciate the need to be really careful when trying to frame a response (ie ETS legislation) because you have all sorts of nutters claiming all sorts of left leaning mumbo jumbo..

I went to one of those 350 gigs here in SF and I left in disgust - it was overridden by mouth-frothers, irrationals, ranting almost non-sensibly about THE CORPORATIONS and blah blah blah. Yes it is a religion. It was also a pretty poor turn-out. Maybe most Americans don't care :(

Stewart Brand reckons you have three types of enviro-hippies:

* romantics, who push the abstract, unrealistic but semantically correct view
* scientists, who _apparently_ collate, augment and review data based on scientific observation and analysis
* engineers who recognize opportunity

Maybe there's a 4th - policy makers. Or maybe where the real problem lies at.

We are the world's leading coal exporter, by a wide margin. We export about 30% of worldwide exports, well over 3/4 of what we mine, and most of which is bound for Japan or Korea. China & India are coming up in a big way. Per capita we are one of the biggest, if not the biggest, producer of carbon emissions. But, by volume, we contribute 4/5ths of f***all in comparison to say China or USA (on current 'externality' accounting). And the world is going up 2degC no matter if we legislate ourselves back to the stoneage.

Romantics reckon we should abandon our cars, live in caves, basically completely f*** over our current economic system and our lives, which, obviously, we've all since stopped listening.

Even if the whole AGW is bulls***, resources are finite. f*** saving the planet, I want a pony. I want to drive really fast in my electric car, have my lifestyle, and not have to feel guilty about being successful or buying what I want. For example I'm flying back to vegas in a couple of days, well, that's a footprint. Well obviously there are exceptions right!!!

I reckon trog is right where the emphasis has to come from - grass roots. We're going to have to become better educated about our environmental impacts and make our purchasing decisions based on that. Call it a movement, call it economics, or call it common sense, but that's something that will work.

last edited by dranged at 14:43:11 24/Nov/09

i think per-capita on carbon-dioxide emission we are not that big. the problem is we have other large sources of greenhouse gas that make us relatively bad.

last edited by hast at 14:59:14 24/Nov/09

the problem is we have other large sources of greenhouse gas.

yeah, politicians!

haw haw ^

it's amazing how if a tobacco or pharmaceutical company engaged in this kind of ethically questionable behaviour there would be government enquiries and media outcry, but if its pro-global warming scientists the intelligentsia defend them - i am sure they have a valid reason. what a double standard.

It's OK, the bloggers will rabblerabblerabblerabble till their heads explode. But again, has anyone read all of these emails? The Crikey post made it sound pretty sedate, one instance of possible number fudging between two people taken 'out of context'. Hardly a nail in the coffin. Though I suppose the conspiracy theorist proponents believe that every single person who has ever made comment about us affecting our environment are all in league with each other to 'jew' their money away. Keep yelling bloggers, keep yelling and wearing that tin foil head protection.

It's OK, the bloggers will rabblerabblerabblerabble till their heads explode

I stopped reading after this; you have nothing of worth to contribute. Begone.

Dirty bump, but I thought this was a cool graphic:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/