Science vs. Politics: Tipping Points in Climate Change Communication

[Sorry!]

Maybe the information escaped on it's own.
(working on next year's humor award)

You're not going to win it like that... (LOL Also working on the award! joking :tongue)

Anyway skypunter, you I'm just curious as to your position on the whole situation is currently. Merely about the information released and the "scandal" that has come out of it... nothing to do with data or AGW. Strictly about the scientists and their conduct involved. (Including use of words, behaviour, etc. etc.)

@Evo, do you honestly think that the climate scientist are just trying to cover up up all this information that has "exposed" them? I feel the need to ask you for a source to back-up your counterclaims to their reasoning for a majority of things which is given in that Nature article. (I may have misunderstood your post however who knows.)

 

[D H]

Maybe the information escaped on it's own.
(working on next year's humor award)

Actually, that is pretty close to one of the conjectured mechanisms. There are two obvious mechanisms: (1) a hacker, and (2) a whistleblower.

There is at least one other mechanism:
(3) The CRU was being "attacked" with Freedom of Information requests. A packet was prepared in response in case these "attacks" could not rebuffed. Some one inadvertently put that packet on a CRU anonymous FTP server so that various members of the team could evaluate it. From there, it is easy to get out. No hacking, and the data are already nicely packaged.

Far fetched? No. This is exactly how other shielded data accidentally slipped out of their hands.

One thing is certain from browsing through these emails: These researchers were bad, really, really bad when it came to computer security issues. There are a number of sites on the net where one can do keyword searches of the leaked emails. If you find one of those sites, search for "password". The results are quite amazing. These researchers exchanged accounts and passwords through unsecured and unencrypted email.

 

[sylas]

(3) The CRU was being "attacked" with Freedom of Information requests. A packet was prepared in response in case these "attacks" could not rebuffed. Some one inadvertently put that packet on a CRU anonymous FTP server so that various members of the team could evaluate it. From there, it is easy to get out. No hacking, and the data are already nicely packaged.

None of the FOI requests wanted emails of this nature. It's not something that you could even get by FOI. Seriously; check the guidelines. There was an FOI request for correspondence pertaining to review of IPCC WG1, I think; and possibly other similar requests. FOI won't let you just get a large chunk of general email spanning 13 years.

One thing is certain from browsing through these emails: These researchers were bad, really, really bad when it came to computer security issues. There are a number of sites on the net where one can do keyword searches of the leaked emails. If you find one of those sites, search for "password". The results are quite amazing. These researchers exchanged accounts and passwords through unsecured and unencrypted email.

Actually, it is not nearly as bad as it sounds.

The passwords were not to personal computer accounts, but for limited use access to some particular item of information.

Specifically, the following passwords were sent.

• The IPCC sent a password to Steve McIntyre, so that he could access ipcc reviewer information, in 2005.
• Passwords were sent on a number of occasions from a journal to let authors and co-authors access camera ready copies of their paper.
• A password was sent from the IPCC to a couple of hundred emails addresses for use of reviewers.
• A password was sent for ftp access to a particular dataset.

All these are cases were it is normal practice to share a password to a number of different people for access to material that is not exactly public, but neither is it a serious problem if compromised. The same thing has happened for me when I have submitted papers for a journal.

In all cases, bar one, the emails were not from the scientists, but from the IPCC or journals.

I have the emails myself, precisely because I have felt the need to check claims like this for myself. I held off obtaining these private emails at first, as I felt there were ethical concerns with reading them without proper permission; but given the flood of claims being made I changed my mind.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[D H]

FOI won't let you just get a large chunk of general email spanning 13 years.

This wasn't general email spanning 13 years. Think of it this way: It was only a 1000 or so messages, involving multiple recipients. Some people get 1000 email messages a week. I get messages about picking up food on the way home and where to go for Friday lunch, email from professional organizations, bureaucratic BS email, email about company sports teams. I get an email message every time I dork with our software CM system, every time I check in a file, or anyone on the team I lead updates the trunk.

Where is all that? This is not general email spanning 13 years. It is a very focused collection of email messages.

Edit
Communications are exactly the kinds of things one can get with an FOI request.

 

[sylas]

Communications are exactly the kinds of things one can get with an FOI request.

Emails are covered under the FOI legislation, of course; but you can't just request a block of emails like this. The people making FOI requests have not been shy about what they are wanting, and none of the requests correspond to what you see in this collection. An FOI request has to be specific on what information is required. Normally you should indicate the required information, and then include in your request that you want emails relating to that as well. It must be focused; and this 160 Mb collection is not focused at all. They cover a huge range of topics.

The relevant guidelines are here: Freedom of information; in the guidance section of the UK ministry of justice. Within these guidelines, the http://www.justice.gov.uk/information/make-freedom-information-request.htm guideline states:

Be specific. [...]Make sure that you provide us with a narrow, tightly focused request and give, where appropriate, a relevant time-frame, for example, 1999 to 2000 or January to April 1985.​

Also, from the "The Campaign for Freedom of Information" in London, their guideline states (page 7)

"You could also ask for information which the authority holds about a particular topic. If so, try and ensure that the topic is relatively narrowly defined. Don’t ask for “everything you hold about” a subject, unless that is likely to involve a relatively small amount of material."​

Also relevant are the guidelines I showed previously, which indicate that an FOI request is for "information" rather than "documents". Emails can certainly be included in a request, but the request does have to indicate what information is required: not just say they want all emails, or all emails relating to climate research, or something that broad.

This odd speculation has been made in various articles or blogs, but it is very far fetched given the FOI guidelines and given the scope of the hacked files. I am not a lawyer, of course. But quite obviously neither are any of the people suggesting this possibility.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Al68]

Stick to the facts and the scientific method. Assertions and claims require evidentiary substantiation, e.g., peer-reviewed scientific journals or news articles from hopefully objective news sources (assuming that there is such a thing).

I think that's a bad assumption, all sources are biased, even if they contain true factual data.

Since some posts in this thread were deleted for containing links to "biased" sources, and since there are no other kind of sources:

Which is it, are links to (biased) sources allowed or not?

What criteria should be used for sources, other than "hopefully" (but obviously not) objective?

 

[Coldcall]

I think considering that Jones, Mann and other attempted/succeeded to manipulate the peer review process means we should stop using "peer review" as a defence for the so-called "consensus".

The peer review process itself is in question, at least in relation to climatic studies.

In fact I am starting to doubt there really is a consensus other than that one contrived by the IPCC, which after all, is a global political organisation. The fact that they clearly blocked sceptical colleagues from getting anywhere near the final report, makes the claim of a "consensus" highly questionable.

 

[f95toli]

I have not seen the word "trick" used in such context, but it would not be surprising at all.

It is pretty common, at the least where I work (in London). When I talk to or send e-mails to colleagues we quite often use the word "trick" , a typical sentence would be "One trick you could try in order to improve the SNR is to use a lock-in amplifier". It just means "clever technique" or method.

I might be wrong (I work in England, but I am obviously not English), but I think it is rare for the word "trick" to mean "cheating" or anything like that in British-English (it usually just means something clever), whereas it seems(?) to nearly always carry negative overtones in AE.

 

[Andre]

Speculating without exact context does not make not much sense but rest assured that somewhere else this case is scrutinized, to see whether it was a cheating 'trick' or a clever solution.

 

[Sorry!]

Speculating without exact context does not make not much sense but rest assured that somewhere else this case is scrutinized, to see whether it was a cheating 'trick' or a clever solution.

The only reason that people possibly could be speculating without exact context is if they do not believe the scientists. There are no other reliable sources on the matter other than themselves.

Why would you ever even believe it means a cheating trick when the people claiming this have nothing to do with the e-mails what-so-ever and are basing THEIR perspective only on the context we have available anyways? That makes no sense to me.

 

[DanP]

The only reason that people possibly could be speculating without exact context is if they do not believe the scientists. There are no other reliable sources on the matter other than themselves.

Why would you ever even believe it means a cheating trick when the people claiming this have nothing to do with the e-mails what-so-ever and are basing THEIR perspective only on the context we have available anyways? That makes no sense to me.

Because is in the first place political. And political battles are not fought with peer reviewed papers or scientific truths, or reliable sources. It's about gaining support and leverage. Anything is fair game. Besides, no human is above cheating. Scientists are not above the level of trust of your "average human".

 

[Sorry!]

Because is in the first place political. And political battles are not fought with peer reviewed papers or scientific truths, or reliable sources. It's about gaining support and leverage. Anything is fair game. Besides, no human is above cheating. Scientists are not above the level of trust of your "average human".

Well firstly Dan I was responding to Andre in which he clearly says that speculating without context should not occur. What someone would have to do in order to think that the word trick implies cheating is speculate on people FAR removed from the 'ring' of scientists the e-mails came from, who are trying to make the scientists look bad, speculating themselves on what the word meant.

So it makes more sense to allow 'speculation upon speculations' instead of just believing what the scientists who actually wrote the e-mails speak about? Thats absurd and it would definitely show who is biased. As well yes, scientists generally do have more trust than your 'average' human...

 

[Andre]

Well firstly Dan I was responding to Andre in which he clearly says that speculating without context should not occur.

It would be better to quote, because that is not what I said. I said that it makes no sense.

So it makes more sense to allow 'speculation upon speculations' instead of just believing what the scientists who actually wrote the e-mails speak about?

Believing is not what science is about, is it? It's about transparancy and reproduceability. If if the word "trick" is used in a good scientific context, it would be easy to reproduce and explain what it was all about. And of course, also about the word "hide" that was in the same sentence, as far as I remember.

 

[turbo]

Because is in the first place political. And political battles are not fought with peer reviewed papers or scientific truths, or reliable sources. It's about gaining support and leverage. Anything is fair game. Besides, no human is above cheating. Scientists are not above the level of trust of your "average human".

One thing about collaborative research is that personal biases tend to get evened out through feedback within the group - a level of self-check that you don't get with solo researchers. This makes charges of dishonesty or fraud quite serious, because the clear implication is that the researchers colluded to knowingly produce a fraudulent result. Such charges are political in nature, and when made by "scientists", are quite unprofessional.

 

[DanP]

So it makes more sense to allow 'speculation upon speculations' instead of just believing what the scientists who actually wrote the e-mails speak about? Thats absurd and it would definitely show who is biased. As well yes, scientists generally do have more trust than your 'average' human...

The problem is that you can't stop "speculation upon speculation". It's also not a issue of "believing the scientists". Even if the exact meaning and context of the word "trick" (and I agree about the fact the words "hack" "trick" are often used for legit work) it still doesn't matter. It's a thing which can be twisted to offer leverage, and it'll be used even if they know it's usage was honest to god.

As for bias, is very hard to blame on side or another. Both sides are resorting to shady practices. And about trust, there are enough money at play in GW issue to make a nun change into a home-wrecker *****. Noone sane will go on trust when so much money are involved.

 

[DanP]

One thing about collaborative research is that personal biases tend to get evened out through feedback within the group - a level of self-check that you don't get with solo researchers. This makes charges of dishonesty or fraud quite serious, because the clear implication is that the researchers colluded to knowingly produce a fraudulent result. Such charges are political in nature, and when made by "scientists", are quite unprofessional.

Of course. Making such statements may be very unprofessional, but are effective tools to gain political support. When was last time we seen politics "professional" ?

 

[D H]

One thing about collaborative research is that personal biases tend to get evened out through feedback within the group - a level of self-check that you don't get with solo researchers.

You are ignoring groupthink, turbo. Groupthink coupled with a self-righteous belief that they are saving the planet can (and apparently did) lead to all kinds of shenanigans.

 

[Andre]

One thing about collaborative research is that personal biases tend to get evened out through feedback within the group - a level of self-check that you don't get with solo researchers.

With all respect, Turbo, maybe you should take note of the phenomenon group think.

 

[Sorry!]

It would be better to quote, because that is not what I said. I said that it makes no sense.



Believing is not what science is about, is it? It's about transparancy and reproduceability. If if the word "trick" is used in a good scientific context, it would be easy to reproduce and explain what it was all about. And of course, also about the word "hide" that was in the same sentence, as far as I remember.

I did quote you if you read my post above. What I'm saying is that you put the skeptics and the scientists at the same level of scrutiny. This makes no sense considering one is speculating only with the intent of hurting the reputation of the other, and the other are the actual ones who wrote the e-mails.

As well these terms have been explained again and again and again, if people just choose not to believe the scientists then so be it. That's their personal decision but they can hardly say they made it unbiased.

Yes, science is about reproducibility and not 'believing', sure... We've already gotten into a discussion about whether to 'believe' the data and people claiming it's not 'reproducible' but even though I previously posted MANY links to data and sylas even made a post about how he personally constructed and coded his own models with similar results, people still would rather believe in the speculation of others on the scientists.

Mann said the “trick” Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. “It’s hardly anything you would call a trick,” Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.

Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html

The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

From skepticalscience.com http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html

If you want reproducible head on over to http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes you can see the CRU compared to multiple other independent sources. What decline are they hiding from 1981 onwards? Here's a good article: http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/hacked_emails_tree-ring_proxie.php .

Which is why scientists are spectacularly unimpressed with the emails being evidence of anything much at all. It’’s not that they are “circling the wagons” and “protecting their own” (as I have seen some suggest). They just “understand the language.” Not simply the words, but the structure and patterns that make up the “scientific dialect.” Even Denier Patrick Michaels said the emails were “just the way scientists talk” (although he has apparently now gotten “on msg” with the rest of the Denier choir).Who's group thinking again?

Bold mine.

 

[seycyrus]

**...it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.***

"Hiding" is not an accepted data handling technique. Never has, and never should be.

Just as "redefining peer-reviewed" should not be acceptable.

I love how all of a sudden we now have a *consensus* of scientists that think climategate is not a big deal. Gotta love how the powers that be are so quick to decide what the consensus thinks on the matter.

 

[Sorry!]

**...it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.***

"Hiding" is not an accepted data handling technique. Never has, and never should be.

Just as "redefining peer-reviewed" should not be acceptable.

I love how all of a sudden we now have a *consensus* of scientists that think climategate is not a big deal. Gotta love how the powers that be are so quick to decide what the consensus thinks on the matter.

It never was a big deal to the scientist, more of a nuissance I guess. Really annoying when people claim they know everything about things you are an expert on, especially when they begin to claim knowing things to do with your PERSONAL life, such as language they use...

As well before I ever read any statements by the scientists I knew immediately what they meant by 'hide the decline'. Why you may ask yourself? I have been interested in the area of climate research for QUITE some time. I'm young and obviously not a scientist on the subject or by any means a professional but I have done extensive research into the area multiple times.

I would also cite the area of where peer-review gets pinned on these scientists as well because of the content in their personal e-mails but I can't really be bothered. It is quite clear to me where people stand on this matter.

 

[skypunter]

You're not going to win it like that... (LOL Also working on the award! joking :tongue)

Anyway skypunter, you I'm just curious as to your position on the whole situation is currently. Merely about the information released and the "scandal" that has come out of it... nothing to do with data or AGW. Strictly about the scientists and their conduct involved. (Including use of words, behaviour, etc. etc.)

First point agreed, not very funny.

My position about the information released is that it is for the most part pretty mild stuff, but if you extrapolate...

Hiding the decline may be about more than simply masking atypical data.
For me it is an attempt to withold from public view the possibility that tree ring proxies may not be very useful. I expect that the same may be true of ice core data.

 

[skypunter]

I also agree with the "Groupthink" motive as opposed to the "Conspiracy" strawman.

 

[DanP]

It never was a big deal to the scientist, more of a nuissance I guess. Really annoying when people claim they know everything about things you are an expert on, especially when they begin to claim knowing things to do with your PERSONAL life, such as language they use...

As well before I ever read any statements by the scientists I knew immediately what they meant by 'hide the decline'. Why you may ask yourself? I have been interested in the area of climate research for QUITE some time. I'm young and obviously not a scientist on the subject or by any means a professional but I have done extensive research into the area multiple times.

You just took a leap of faith and accepted a version. You have no data whatsoever to conclude one way or another in regard with the exact meaning of the words used. The fact that you accepted one meaning for 'hide the decline' is no proof of the sense in which it was used. It may be so, then it might be not.

The fact is, you can't cry foul play if others choose not to take this leap of faith.

 

[Andre]

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/hacked_emails_tree-ring_proxie.php .[/URL]

Who's group thinking again?

Looks almost like an excellent mind guard job

 

[Andre]

There is also this one to consider. It appears that the 1974 report of the Club of Rome titled, "Mankind at the Turning Point” says:

It would seem that humans need a common motivation.. .either a real one or else one invented for the purpose...In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

Could that imply that global warming was invented for the purpose of having an enemy to unite us? How scientific is that?

 

[DanP]

There is also this one to consider. It appears that the 1974 report of the Club of Rome titled, "Mankind at the Turning Point” says:



Could that imply that global warming was invented for the purpose of having an enemy to unite us? How scientific is that?

I don't think that GW is invented. However, it doesn't have to be invented to serve a political scope. Real or imaginary, a phenomena with worldwide exposure can be used as a modern version of "panem et circenses".

 

[Sorry!]

You just took a leap of faith and accepted a version. You have no data whatsoever to conclude one way or another in regard with the exact meaning of the words used. The fact that you accepted one meaning for 'hide the decline' is no proof of the sense in which it was used. It may be so, then it might be not.

The fact is, you can't cry foul play if others choose not to take this leap of faith.

You sir have not been following the thread to take in the full context of comments. You are guilty of the exact same thing the people who say 'hide the decline' ACTUALLY meant this and yada yada.

I'm replying to a specific comment made by Andre, namely:

Speculating without exact context does not make not much sense but rest assured that somewhere else this case is scrutinized, to see whether it was a cheating 'trick' or a clever solution.

My point is that the scientist were having a private discussion between themselves where they ALL know what terms mean and imply. You can go look them up if you don't understand, read the articles yourself (they do exist if that's what you imply by I have no data and blaming me of taking a leap of faith? Do you know what a leap of faith is?). Then some outsiders takes these e-mails and THEY speculate on what the words impy and particular terms imply. Anyone who follows climate research could have easily understood what they probably implied(I assume easily because I understood well before they released statements... yet somehow I took a leap of faith... weird.) So climate researchers say 'no-no-no it just means this and that' and people are going on speculating about what was originally speculated by the skeptics that released the e-mails... with the intent of making the CRU look bad ON TOP OF IT ALL...

I responded to Andre, maybe my first post wasn't the clearest but regardless it was comments directed at him then someone else comes in and speculates on what my comments meant and implied... so I respond. Then YOU come along and are speculating on TOP of the other persons speculations... the only sides I see to this are: There is what has 'actually' occurred and there is what randoms are 'speculating' occured.

 

[DanP]

You sir have not been following the thread to take in the full context of comments. You are guilty of the exact same thing the people who say 'hide the decline' ACTUALLY meant this and yada yada.

I'm replying to a specific comment made by Andre, namely:My point is that the scientist were having a private discussion between themselves where they ALL know what terms mean and imply. You can go look them up if you don't understand, read the articles yourself (they do exist if that's what you imply by I have no data and blaming me of taking a leap of faith? Do you know what a leap of faith is?). Then some outsiders takes these e-mails and THEY speculate on what the words impy and particular terms imply. Anyone who follows climate research could have easily understood what they probably implied(I assume easily because I understood well before they released statements... yet somehow I took a leap of faith... weird.) So climate researchers say 'no-no-no it just means this and that' and people are going on speculating about what was originally speculated by the skeptics that released the e-mails... with the intent of making the CRU look bad ON TOP OF IT ALL...

I responded to Andre, maybe my first post wasn't the clearest but regardless it was comments directed at him then someone else comes in and speculates on what my comments meant and implied... so I respond. Then YOU come along and are speculating on TOP of the other persons speculations... the only sides I see to this are: There is what has 'actually' occurred and there is what randoms are 'speculating' occured.

Do you realize that we all can read ? Keep your comments out of a internet forum if you have a problem with ppl not agreeing with what you say.

 

[Sorry!]

Do you realize that we all can read ? Keep your comments out of a internet forum if you have a problem with ppl not agreeing with what you say.

The problem isn't people not agreeing with what I say. The problem is people speculating on what was said ontop of other speculations of what was said.

Yes you can read the question is did you?

You claim there's 'no data whatsoever' to support what hide the decline meant or these 'tricks' mean. Have you read the articles which explains them? Have you read the reports and more articles that support the position of the original article? Do you even know what the 'trick' is that's implied? Do you have any idea of what they imply when the say 'the decline'?

 

[DanP]

The problem isn't people not agreeing with what I say. The problem is people speculating on what was said ontop of other speculations of what was said.

Sure. Everything of what you said is speculative. An educated guess is speculative until you can prove it. You took a position and blindly defend it. It's OK. Just don't expect everyone takes your speculations for facts. You can of course open a thread in "Earth" science forum and produce proof.

In not saying that there not what you say. Or there it is. Only that you don't have data to produce an evidence.

 

[Sorry!]

Looks almost like an excellent mind guard job

This is true, I've never heard of that term before. Thanks.

There is also this one to consider. It appears that the 1974 report of the Club of Rome titled, "Mankind at the Turning Point” says:

Could that imply that global warming was invented for the purpose of having an enemy to unite us? How scientific is that?

I don't think that the comment you quoted is implying that global warming was invented. I think that they are saying that the politicians came up with the idea that those things listed would fit the bill as serving as an enemy to humanity to force us into unity. It's a political move based on the science, not a political move in science. (Not quite sure how to word this one.) You can hardly say that famine was 'invented' and it's on that list too...

 

[Sorry!]

Sure. Everything of what you said is speculative. An educated guess is speculative until you can prove it. You took a position and blindly defend it. It's OK. Just don't expect everyone takes your speculations for facts. You can of course open a thread in "Earth" science forum and produce proof.

In not saying that there not what you say. Or there it is. Only that you don't have data to produce an evidence.

Ok so me reading articles which defines which tricks are being used (prior to knowing they called it 'a trick') and knowledge on the decline (I'm pretty sure it was something about 1981 decline the skeptics say they are hiding) makes my comments purely speculative at this moment? Sure at the beginning it was just speculation, I already said that, but after the scientists confirmed in a statement what they were talking about, it's no longer speculation on my part. It is what it is.

 

[DanP]

Sure at the beginning it was just speculation, I already said that, but after the scientists confirmed in a statement what they were talking about, it's no longer speculation on my part. It is what it is.

As long as the integrity of those scientists is put in question, it's a mater of faith if you believe their press releases or not. Some do. Others dont.

 

[Sorry!]

As long as the integrity of those scientists is put in question, it's a mater of faith if you believe their press releases or not. Some do. Others dont.

Lol, so then conduct some research.

EDIT: Needs to meet guidelines right? DanP I suggest you do some personal research into the area of climate research. It is of my opinion that through this personal research you will see, at least hopefully, the errors made in the skeptics claims reagarding the terms used in the e-mails.