Science vs. Politics: Tipping Points in Climate Change Communication

[Astronuc]

There really is no excuse for dumping raw data. A hard copy would suffice.
No data...no publish.

This is my understanding as well. In my profession, we must maintain 'traceability'. We can't simply report final results and be done with it. We must maintain records of inputs and developments of models to the 'raw data'.

AFAIK, any scientist must retain raw measurments in a lab book, so that anyone can go back to the 'source' and perform an independent review.

If data is destroyed, that is troublesome. Either the persons who destroy the data are sloppy or they are being inappropriate, if not dishonest.

Now - it appears that UEA CRU is one of several/many datasets. If one rejects (throws out) CRU's models (based on their homogenized data), do the other datasets (and derived models) still show an increase in corresponding temperature (mean/average/. . . .)?

From where I sit, I see the opponents of CC/GW/AGW claiming bad/dubious/questionable science on the part of proponents of CC/GW/AGW, and the fact that proponents (more so alarmists) have politicized the process. However, also note that opponents (particularly so-called skeptics/deniers) are equally guilty in this regard.

 

[russ_watters]

From where I sit, I see the opponents of CC/GW/AGW claiming bad/dubious/questionable science on the part of proponents of CC/GW/AGW, and the fact that proponents (more so alarmists) have politicized the process. However, also note that opponents (particularly so-called skeptics/deniers) are equally guilty in this regard.

While I agree, that's a completely irrelevant red herring, isn't it? The fact that some/many(?) skeptics/deniers commit scientific fraud or even just mislead with propaganda does not change the burden on the proponents at all. **If anything, when the proponents do the same thing it implies the case is weaker than the scientific consensus -- which is what we are finding here with this specific issue.**

Someone posted earlier, a Rush Limbaugh link(tongue-in-cheek?) , saying that since Rush Limbaugh says Global Warming is a hoax, that's proof that it is real. But it doesn't really work that way, does it?

But I've gotten the impression from some global warming proponents that lying/manipulation -- ie, propaganda -- is ok when the issue is important enough.

**Edit: very sloppy wording corrected.

 

[Coldcall]

While I agree, that's a completely irrelevant red herring, isn't it? The fact that some/many(?) skeptics/deniers commit scientific fraud does not change the burden on the proponents at all.

Someone posted earlier, a Rush Limbaugh link(tongue-in-cheek?) , saying that since Rush Limbaugh says Global Warming is a hoax, that's proof that it is real. But it doesn't really work that way, does it?

Agreed. Just because there are unsavoury characters jumping on the sceptic bandwagon does not justify the actions at CRU.

Equally agw could be quite correct and the poor conduct of a few climate scientists does not falsify the its premise.

As an agnostic I am hoping that regular everyday scientists who work on really difficult projects which don't make the headlines are the ones infuriated at the behaviour of these gold plated funded climate scientists at CRU. Its been reported Dr Phil Jones has been the recipient of over $20million in funding in recent years. That's a lot more money than most scientists will ever see in a lifetime of funding.

Time for the silent majority in the scientific community to get mad because (in my opinion) the CRU emails stains the whole community.

There is also another really serious angle to this. Let's say we discover that humans are not primarily responsible for climate change. Science is going to have a really hard time ever being taken seriously again by government. There could be a really serious threat in the future from some direction and the public and the government will just glaze over and think "here we go again".

So i am gobsmacked when i see scientists hand waving away this scandal because it is likely to have a serious impact on future careers, funding, and how science is viewed by the wider community.

 

[skypunter]

There is also another really serious angle to this. Let's say we discover that humans are not primarily responsible for climate change. Science is going to have a really hard time ever being taken seriously again by government. There could be a really serious threat in the future from some direction and the public and the government will just glaze over and think "here we go again".

So i am gobsmacked when i see scientists hand waving away this scandal because it is likely to have a serious impact on future careers, funding, and how science is viewed by the wider community.

Maybe that the practice of science will eventually be improved by this mess.
Open sourcing would make information available to a much larger set of creative minds.
Am I being overly optimistic?

 

[sylas]

This is my understanding as well. In my profession, we must maintain 'traceability'. We can't simply report final results and be done with it. We must maintain records of inputs and developments of models to the 'raw data'.

AFAIK, any scientist must retain raw measurments in a lab book, so that anyone can go back to the 'source' and perform an independent review.

If data is destroyed, that is troublesome. Either the persons who destroy the data are sloppy or they are being inappropriate, if not dishonest.

I'm not so sure it is quite that simple. Sure; it would be better to keep everything you can, but it looks as if what was lost/destroyed/deleted/whatever is not actually original data at all; but merely the copies sent the the CRU. The original data in this context is, and always has been, maintained by the overseas meteorology institutes that released copies to the CRU for their limited use under a promise of confidentiality. There's nothing in principle preventing others requesting that data from the source as well; but it does have commercial value in some of these other jurisdictions and you can't presume a right to availability.

Large amounts of data were involved, apparently, and it all had to be brought into a common unified format. I think it may be the case that the large combined databases are still there; because there is (and has been for some time) an ongoing effort by the CRU to arrange for permissions required to let this combined database of underlying data be made available.

This was all first collated back thirty years ago or so, it seems; and though I can well believe processes were not up to the highest standards of data management, I really think it is unlikely anyone ever expected the kind of campaign that is going on now. We are not just talking notebooks here; but rather collating a lot of data into a common record. Although I do tend to agree that keeping everything is best; it's not really that unusual to have raw data records from decades into the past not actually archived indefinitely, particularly back in the 80s.

Now - it appears that UEA CRU is one of several/many datasets. If one rejects (throws out) CRU's models (based on their homogenized data), do the other datasets (and derived models) still show an increase in corresponding temperature (mean/average/. . . .)?

Yes. And furthermore this kind of independent work is far more useful scientifically than an audit of an existing experiment. You can get the vast majority of the underlying data behind the CRU datasets now; and that is enough to replicate the results in the more usual scientific sense, of doing an independent calculation of your own rather than auditing someone else's calculations.

At the same time there are two other major independent projects that do pretty much the same thing. They are not entirely independent because there's a lot of overlap in the underlying data used... but the overlap occurs precisely in that data that IS available for anyone else to have a look at. The ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/ (link to the ftp site at NCDC). I've this data myself a couple of times.

I have given the references and links for the three main professional level global anomaly constructions in [post=2464019]msg #17[/post] of "Climate Science Update".

From where I sit, I see the opponents of CC/GW/AGW laiming bad/dubious/questionable science on the part of proponents of CC/GW/AGW, and the fact that proponents (more so alarmists) have politicized the process. However, also note that opponents (particularly so-called skeptics/deniers) are equally guilty in this regard.

I won't presume actual "equality"; but I do support the idea of an independent inquiry with terms of reference that would allow them to consider both the nature of the response within the CRU to the actions of "skeptics"; AND the actions of the "skeptics" which have been such a source of frustration and distraction to the scientists. If the guilt turns out to be "equally" shared; so be it. If it's not a matter for "guilt" but simply a matter of dealing with the conflicts in better ways; great. But look at the whole thing. This will take some time, of course; and meanwhile in some quarters there will be no let up in the mutual wars of words, unfortunately.

I'm not that much concerned to deal with ethical judgments. My major concern is to clear up some simple underlying facts that should be the basis of any judgment anyone cares to make. Specifically, in this case, the loss of raw data is not quite as has been reported. The raw data is still out there; all that was "lost" is copies given to the CRU once they had collated them into a combined record... I think. We'll know better when the CRU is able to release that underlying data, as they have been working towards now for some time. The never-ending flood of demands and FOI requests and speculative attacks on certain notorious blogs that has been ongoing now for ages, is a pretty clear indication that nothing will ever satisfy a certain vocal minority. A recurring theme is that the scientists should simply open everything up right now; and that is neither legally nor pragmatically possible, nor would it help as much as everyone seems to think.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Coldcall]

Maybe that the practice of science will eventually be improved by this mess.
Open sourcing would make information available to a much larger set of creative minds.
Am I being overly optimistic?

Open sourcing would be a great idea. Especially for this type of climate science which is then used by politicians and has an effect on all of us. The very idea that publicly funded *raw* climate data from around the world is not available to all researchers is a disgrace.

If agw is as serious as these people claim then there appears no good reason not to make the data publicly available.

 

[D H]

Its been reported Dr Phil Jones has been the recipient of over $20million in funding in recent years. That's a lot more money than most scientists will ever see in a lifetime of funding.

Red herring, and no, it's not a lot of money. That amounts to a few million a year, and that is the funding for the entire CRU. That is a rather small budget.

There is also another really serious angle to this. Let's say we discover that humans are not primarily responsible for climate change. Science is going to have a really hard time ever being taken seriously again by government. There could be a really serious threat in the future from some direction and the public and the government will just glaze over and think "here we go again".

The problem here is not so much with the government but the people. As far as politicians are concerned, scientists are a bunch of convenient fools. Politicians of all ilk only care whether scientists say something that furthers or interferes with their political agenda. If science happens to say something that comports with a politician's world view, great. Fund it. If science says something otherwise, squash it. Politicians don't give a hoot about scientific truth.

What this could do to the public perception of science is another matter. The US at least has always been plagued with a decidedly anti-intellectual bent. This will only encourage that sentiment.

 

[sylas]

Open sourcing would be a great idea. Especially for this type of climate science which is then used by politicians and has an effect on all of us. The very idea that publicly funded *raw* climate data from around the world is not available to all researchers is a disgrace.

If agw is as serious as these people claim then there appears no good reason not to make the data publicly available.

Once again, with feeling. The raw data is from all over the world, and it is owned by all sorts of different national meteorological bodies with different jurisdictions and commercial interests in the data -- and in many case the organizations are contractually obligated to consider the commercial value of their own data.

However much you'd love to have immediate access to everybody's data from all over the world right now; and no matter now important ANYONE thinks it is; you just can't do that.

In the mean time, the vast majority of the data being used IS available, and always has been. Vast amounts of code ARE open source (in particular, the climate models used by NASA).

The ongoing meme about a serious problem with hidden data is codswallop. There's a vocal band of "skeptics" who have done an excellent job of promulgating this idea of hidden data, by honing in on small bits of the data that they just can't have, or even raising a ruckus about data that IS available because hard working scientists won't take time out to hold their hand through an endless series of questions about finding stuff; especially when the major apparent use of the data is to produce incompetent error ridden criticisms. I am not kidding. The frustration of scientists about this is enormous; and if you read ALL the stolen emails (it will take a long time) you will get some pointers to some of this background.

One response to this has been mentioned in the thread already. It is (yet another) directory to help newcomers or interested amateurs find their way around the mountain of information that has been available now for years.

See: Data Sources: a catalog of publicly available data and code relating to climate. Nothing there is new; it is just a simple list to help you discover the world of code and data that is out there.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Coldcall]

Red herring, and no, it's not a lot of money. That amounts to a few million a year, and that is the funding for the entire CRU. That is a rather small budget.


The problem here is not so much with the government but the people. As far as politicians are concerned, scientists are a bunch of convenient fools. Politicians of all ilk only care whether scientists say something that furthers or interferes with their political agenda. If science happens to say something that comports with a politician's world view, great. Fund it. If science says something otherwise, squash it. Politicians don't give a hoot about scientific truth.

What this could do to the public perception of science is another matter. The US at least has always been plagued with a decidedly anti-intellectual bent. This will only encourage that sentiment.

The amount of money is relative to the field of scientific research. Climate research is relatively well funded compared to other more obscure subjects. And i reckon $20million is enough for them not to have to suffer from the apparent lack of resources and poor climate databases moaned about by coders in the harry_read_me file and others.

While I agree with some of your points above i don't think its fair to pass this one off on the fault of politicians. Its vital that if politicians are going to be influenced by an "intellectual bent" then it should be based on proper science and those scientists advising should be conducting themselves with the highest possible standards in scientific method.

 

[Coldcall]

Sylas,

"Once again, with feeling. The raw data is from all over the world, and it is owned by all sorts of different national meteorological bodies with different jurisdictions and commercial interests in the data -- and in many case the organizations are contractually obligated to consider the commercial value of their own data."

Exactly why they should have kept the raw data drom all these disparate sources! They put together a dataset from a wide variety of sources and that process is of fundamental importance to methodology behind their models.

What you are suggesting is that its okay for them to throw away that raw data and make it that much more difficult to reproduce their work in order to validate process, methods involved in setting proxies.

So any scientist who wants to replicate their "experiment" now has to go all request all the same old raw data from all those organisations.

You sure you have the best interest of science in mind? Doesn't sound like it to me.

 

[Andre]

The problem with the so-called skeptics is that they just want to take the data already assembled by others.

This is simply not true. The request for data has always been the urge to duplicate the information processing. See how it has been done and if that was to be acceptable.

Nice insinuation with the use of "so called". To a lot of people sceptics stands as equivalents for greedy pocket fillers with oil money, crackpots (no straw man - you did not say it), etc. Maybe, one day, it will be scrutinized why these scientists had to be character murdered.

Let's introduce a few, here for instance, in Solomons book "The Deniers"

Or the signees of http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/alternate_version.html

 

[f95toli]

And i reckon $20million is enough for them not to have to suffer from the apparent lack of resources and poor climate databases moaned about by coders in the harry_read_me file and others.

$20 million isn't all that much. Most research project that last a few years will have multi-million dollar budgets. Remember that even just a single PhD student can easily cost about $0.5 million (over four years) once you factor in salary, social security, office space, additional equipment etc and a senior scientist will cost several times that amount. And then you need to add in the cost for equipment and lab space for the actual research. My time is about £50 an hour or so in our internal budgets (I am a research assistant in the UK).

I was recently involved in writing a grant application for a relatively small project (solid state physics) involving 4-5 senior scientists (none of them full time) plus a post-doc and a PhD student. As far as I remember the budget was about £2 million over four years.

 

[sylas]

Sylas,

"Once again, with feeling. The raw data is from all over the world, and it is owned by all sorts of different national meteorological bodies with different jurisdictions and commercial interests in the data -- and in many case the organizations are contractually obligated to consider the commercial value of their own data."

Exactly why they should have kept the raw data drom all these disparate sources! They put together a dataset from a wide variety of sources and that process is of fundamental importance to methodology behind their models.

What you are suggesting is that its okay for them to throw away that raw data and make it that much more difficult to reproduce their work in order to validate process, methods involved in setting proxies.

So any scientist who wants to replicate their "experiment" now has to go all request all the same old raw data from all those organisations.

You sure you have the best interest of science in mind? Doesn't sound like it to me.

I think you still don't get it. They can't give you that data. It isn't theirs to give. When all the various data sources were collated, they had the start of what they could work with as a global data set; and it still includes all the individual stations -- including those additional stations for which they can't release the data.

It might be possible to trawl through and pull out the individual records that have restrictions on redistribution; but that's a massive amount of additional work; the data was never set up with the intent of doing that. And why would you bother? What you would end up with is pretty much the GHCN data -- which IS available -- plus a bit extra maybe. You couldn't use that to get a perfect audit of the CRU result; but you could use it to get an independent cross check -- and that has already been done anyway!

What the CRU is trying to do -- and they've been working towards this for a while now -- is get permissions from everyone involved to make the whole collated data available. That requires co-ordination with a whole pile of national bodies that work under different regulations and ideas for the value of their data.

What do you think I should do to show that I support the free exchange of data? And I certainly do. Shall I raise up and army and overthrow other nations and organizations that treat data as a commercial asset? Shall I demand the CRU release everything right now regardless of their existing legal obligations? WHAT?

In the meantime, the big bad CRU when it started out this work long ago went around and obtained formal permission to use a whole pile of data -- the more data the better, right? Now (for shame!) it turns out that you can't get hold of it yourself to audit every last detail of their calculations. It also turns out that some of the individual records were not archived after they were merged into the global set that people actually use.

Some folks seem to think that is terrible. I'm rather "meh" about it, honestly. The data isn't lost; it's still maintained by the original owners of it. It is just copies that were no longer needed. Sure, in the modern day and age it would have been better to keep everything; but that's actually pretty expensive and they probably never even imagined this ludicrous state of affairs now. But suppose they find it again, in closet that has been overlooked. What changes?

NOTHING. You don't actually use that data; you use the merged data. Do you want to audit the process of putting it together? OK; I don't see any great value in that, but there's no harm in it. Once you get over the hurdles of obtaining all the permissions you need! Which will be much much harder with these sets than with the single collated set. But suppose we get those permissions. Given all the other independent calculations around we already know it isn't going to make substantial differences even if any errors are found; but it's still a nice thing to do. But wait! Can you be sure the files in the closet are correct? Why not audit them against the original data? Where does it end? What what difference does it make?

----

Tell you what; you plainly are not convinced and think there's something deeply wrong with the work the CRU has been doing. So forget the CRU. Use the GISS datasets instead. In that case you DO have access to all the data and all the code. Is that going to satisfy you? Surprise me. Here's the ftp site which will take you though the code, the makefiles, the raw data, and the procedures required to put it all together into anomalies.

ftp://data.giss.nasa.gov/pub/gistemp/[/URL][/indent]

Here's another clue for you. This is not just a game. It isn't just some media savvy trick in response to the CRU hack. It's a different independent analysis -- and THAT is far more useful scientifically than an audit. Further more it has been there for some time.

I've used this myself; for some time now. I have not simply compiled their code; I prefer to write my own. (I tried it at first, but I didn't have a suitable fortran compiler available and anyway I wanted the flexibility to try out processes of my own.) I have repeated various parts of the calculations that are of interest to me. Not a complete audit, but a fair bit all the same. I've written a suite of programs of my own to trawl through the raw data and pull out records I want for whatever reason. I haven't done anything much with it for some months now; but at the time I did a repeat calculation -- completely independent with my own programs -- of a regional anomaly around the continental USA, in order to test out some ideas for myself about the alleged problems with certain USHCN stations.

The data is there. Now what do [u]you[/u] propose to do with it?

Cheers -- sylas​

 

[Coldcall]

$20 million isn't all that much. Most research project that last a few years will have multi-million dollar budgets. Remember that even just a single PhD student can easily cost about $0.5 million (over four years) once you factor in salary, social security, office space, additional equipment etc and a senior scientist will cost several times that amount. And then you need to add in the cost for equipment and lab space for the actual research. My time is about £50 an hour or so in our internal budgets (I am a research assistant in the UK).

I was recently involved in writing a grant application for a relatively small project (solid state physics) involving 4-5 senior scientists (none of them full time) plus a post-doc and a PhD student. As far as I remember the budget was about £2 million over four years.

I'm sure you guys could use more money so I'm not going to argue about it but they certainly had enough money to make sure they were properly resourced to come to such extreme conclusions re agw.

 

[sylas]

Nice insinuation with the use of "so called".

It's not intended simply as an insinuation, but as a serious problem I have with what is often incorrectly called skepticism. And note, none of the people I was alluding to that instance were scientists. Of those involved in the whole FOI harassment (people are going to object to that word as well, but it is very apt) McIntrye would be the closest to a scientist, and I am also willing to call him a skeptic.

Skepticism is a very good thing and an essential part of a genuinely scientific attitude. I am not saying that there is no such thing as a genuine climate skeptic. Of course there is.

On the other hand, there are many people around who describe themselves as skeptics, but who don't measure up as skeptics, IMO. It is a kind of faux-skepticism, and often a deep conviction that AGW is all wrong; and this is in full hue and cry at the moment all across the internet.

You can see this most plainly, perhaps, in the speed at which rumours and stories are picked up and seized upon and then treated as gospel. As soon as any paper comes out which has any possibility of being seen as a criticism of conventional climate science, it sweeps across the internet within a day of publication and sometimes even before hand, as the new proof that AGW is all wrong. That isn't skepticism. It is the opposite of skepticism; it is credulous naivety.

I have another problem here, because I don't want to single out any individuals as false skeptics, particularly people here engaging in the discussions. I tend to assume good faith all around with the people I debate. It's only a couple of individuals who really go the whole hog with simplistic immediate acceptance of any alleged problem with conventional climate science; and I think most of the really bad faux-skeptics would have a bit of a problem at physicsforums. The way the site works, there seems to be some natural weeding out of the worst cases.

Now I could avoid giving any offense by simply avoiding such insinuations about climate skepticism. But on the other hand -- particularly here in the politics forum -- I think a major part of the reason climate is such a hot button issue is actually because so much of it is being driven by "so-called skeptics"; and those who are genuinely skeptical and unsure of what to trust and careful about jumping to conclusions can end up being unsure of what to believe.

I've previously mentioned the comparison with creationism, or perhaps better "Intelligent Design" in biology. It's not a perfect match, but I think there's a lot in common. Interestingly, there is a certain amount of overlap in the people also! There's a strong resistance to the conclusions of a certain field of science; a spurious notion that there is actually a substantial and credible scientifically based objection to the main conclusions of that field; and a credulous naivety on the part of many individuals that makes education a far from straightforward matter of just explaining with better information. There's a mental block at work as well.

Now of course there are many people who disagree with me vehemently with this comparison; or who think that I (and, I suppose, all the various scientists who accept anthropogenic global warming as a solidly established discovery) are the ones who are being naive and failing to have proper skepticism.

That doesn't bother me all that much. It underlines that there is a massive gap here; and usually I prefer to address the scientific issues case by case by case in the science related forum; for anyone to read and consider.

Sorry, I am rambling a bit here. The point is; a lot of climate skepticism I really do not consider to be actual skepticism at all; rather just the reverse.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Sorry!]

Sylas it just won't work that way I think. Most people see very linear, they think that CRU is the centre organization for all climate research and whatever happens to them effects all research ever done by any organization on the climate. I've already posted many links to data and sourcecode and so far no one here has come up to the challenge to take the data and sourcecode and show where other organizations have gone wrong with their data. There is even that link actually to that 'directory' of data sets and sourcecode.

I'll assume that most people on here don't actually know what to do with the data and are just going to keep crying because certain media outlets are saying 'this and that'. So the skeptics propaganda has worked against the CRU and so far it's working against climate research as a whole. Sucks but who cares?

Most people here do not understand what 'skepticism' is climate research in relation to the CRU so they don't understand fully what is going on. Regardless of how well you explain it they just won't see eye-to-eye in my opinion. Which is why I gave up on this thread after I posted the data.

 

[Coldcall]

Sylas,

"I think you still don't get it. They can't give you that data. It isn't theirs to give. When all the various data sources were collated, they had the start of what they could work with as a global data set; and it still includes all the individual stations -- including those additional stations for which they can't release the data."

Why does every post you make begin with an assumption that i am "just not getting it"? I get it very well thank you. To suggest otherwise is very patronising, and is very represenative of the sort of attitude taken by the agw lobby. Howabout i just don't agree with you? Okay?

The fact is CRU only recently announced they had dumped all the data. So if it is common practice as you are implying then why not come out much earlier before the FOI requests are piling up and just say: "we can't give you the raw data becaus we dumped it", instead of what they did was first to say they couldn't because they did not have the right to distribute - impying they still held the raw data.

Listen you won't convince me there is no fire here, and please don't insult my intelligence by resorting to questioning whether i "get it".

 

[Sorry!]

Sylas,

"I think you still don't get it. They can't give you that data. It isn't theirs to give. When all the various data sources were collated, they had the start of what they could work with as a global data set; and it still includes all the individual stations -- including those additional stations for which they can't release the data."

Why does every post you make begin with an assumption that i am "just not getting it"? I get it very well thank you. To suggest otherwise is very patronising, and is very represenative of the sort of attitude taken by the agw lobby. Howabout i just don't agree with you? Okay?

The fact is CRU only recently announced they had dumped all the data. So if it is common practice as you are implying then why not come out much earlier before the FOI requests are piling up and just say: "we can't give you the raw data becaus we dumped it", instead of what they did was first to say they couldn't because they did not have the right to distribute - impying they still held the raw data.

Listen you won't convince me there is no fire here, and please don't insult my intelligence by resorting to questioning whether i "get it".

Question: Because CRU dumped raw data for whatever purpose (I haven't been keeping up with this anymore because it doesn't really matter to me anymore) how does this effect AGW? Makes their position stronger? How does this effect global cliamate research from other organizations? Discredits them even though they have had public available data for the longest time?

 

[DanP]

Forum chemistry students
url deleted

What link has this with CRU ?

Besides, Google reports this site as malicious:


*********************************************************************
What is the current listing status for **url deleted **?

Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this website may harm your computer.

Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 4 time(s) over the past 90 days.


What happened when Google visited this site?

Of the 118 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 38 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-11-29, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-11-27.

Malicious software includes 1 trojan(s), 1 exploit(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 1 new process(es) on the target machine.

Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including cosa83.se/.

This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS4323 (TWTC).
***************************************************************

 

[Coldcall]

Question: Because CRU dumped raw data for whatever purpose (I haven't been keeping up with this anymore because it doesn't really matter to me anymore) how does this effect AGW? Makes their position stronger? How does this effect global cliamate research from other organizations? Discredits them even though they have had public available data for the longest time?

Sorry,

Let not confuse matters intentionally :-) I think you are perfectly capable of reading this thread and the basic complaints being made about the behaviour at CRU re openess to scrutiny.

 

[Astronuc]

What link has this with CRU ?

Besides, Google reports this site as malicious:


*********************************************************************
What is the current listing status for **url deleted **?

Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this website may harm your computer.

Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 4 time(s) over the past 90 days.


What happened when Google visited this site?

Of the 118 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 38 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-11-29, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-11-27.

Malicious software includes 1 trojan(s), 1 exploit(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 1 new process(es) on the target machine.

Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including cosa83.se/.

This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS4323 (TWTC).
***************************************************************

That was spam. Spam was deleted and spambot destroyed.

 

[Sorry!]

Sorry,

Let not confuse matters intentionally :-) I think you are perfectly capable of reading this thread and the basic complaints being made about the behaviour at CRU re openess to scrutiny.

I'm not confusing matters intentionally. Most posts from here indicate the poster thinks that since this hack of CRU has occurred that the position for global warming is pointless skeptics were right all along etc. etc. I'm asking you what your position is on this.

 

[Andre]

Maybe that this hack gives further food to the possible thought that AGW has been constructed, like for instance:

http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

or Chris Landsea:

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press
conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting
hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that
press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor
were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current
research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable,
long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones,
either in the Atlantic or any other basin.

Or http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we21.htm

It would also be interesting to know which side of these stories relates to Sylas:

comparison with creationism, or perhaps better "Intelligent Design" in biology

 

[sylas]

It would also be interesting to know which side of these stories relates to Sylas:

Exactly. I think we can all agree that this issue involves, somewhere, something that is not quite kosher. Skeptics who aren't skeptical, or scientists who aren't scientific, and some people who are letting their social or political or economic or self-interest views drive their opinions about scientific questions relating to climate.

I think we can all agree that there are a whole pile of people who are not facing up to the obvious that (take your pick)... (1) climate is really uncertain and there's no good evidence to sort out with any confidence what is causing climate changes, if any, or what they might do in the future -- or (2) the evidence has established pretty solidly that the planet is warming primarily under the influence of an anthropogenic enhanced greenhouse effect, and will continue to do so.

Which ever side you want to think has gone off the rails of rational consideration of available evidence; there's something here a bit like the whole Intelligent Design debate.

The trick, somehow, is to continue to engage robustly with the various topics that crop up, without getting too angry with one another; and seeing if we can all relax and share a beer or a joke at the end of the day.

One of the aims I try to keep in mind (and I don't always succeed) is that you can't change the mind of another person against their will. If anyone does happen to change their mind on something, that is invariably something they do for themselves, on their own time. A simple error of fact can often be picked up and corrected and everyone moves on; a major shift in perspective is less easy. It can happen... many of us have experienced something like that once or twice... but when it occurs it occurs in stages.

For me, a debate is a success when two sides have been able to express their perspective or input for consideration of each other -- and other readers. Whether someone later actually shifts a view point is their own business; not mine. I have enough trouble trying to keep myself as honest as I can. My own personal biggest win is when I learn something new for myself. I presume it is the same for others.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[D H]

Of those involved in the whole FOI harassment (people are going to object to that word as well, but it is very apt) McIntrye would be the closest to a scientist, and I am also willing to call him a skeptic.

Then stop calling it harassment. The tree ring data were hidden for years. The data finally did come out recently, but that was by mistake rather than by intent.

I've previously mentioned the comparison with creationism, or perhaps better "Intelligent Design" in biology. It's not a perfect match, but I think there's a lot in common.

There are complete idiots on both sides of this issue.

It is time for a truce and it is far past time to stop with the name calling. I'm guilty of this, too. I will stop calling you a true believer (a definite perjorative). Would you please refrain from perjoratives such as denier/denialist and comparisons with creationism?

 

[sylas]

Then stop calling it harassment. The tree ring data were hidden for years. The data finally did come out recently, but that was by mistake rather than by intent.

I'm proposing to look at that issue of the tree ring data when I have time; and I will take it up in the science thread where we can just look at the science without distracting into matters of who had what data when and how. (A very tempting distraction... )

However, note that it is entirely possible to be both a skeptic and also a complete [strike]imagine rude word[/strike]. Heck, there have been some first rate scientists who were also horrible human beings.

I think it will be crucial that the inquiry into this affair consider the harassment as well; and it is rather counter productive to simply take that off the table. I do call what was happening harassment. The extent to which it was or was not co-ordinated is unclear; but it is a pretty important part of this whole affair. The scientists involved (whether anyone thinks this is justified or not) were angry and frustrated and wasting a lot of time dealing with stuff that distracted from their real business. One of the criticisms being leveled at them is that they were evidently able to persuade the FOI staff of the nature of the problem they were facing, and received considerable sympathy. I think they were entirely correct to show what was going on and it's no surprise that it was persuasive. The FOI officer is not at fault for this as long as they continue to apply the rules fairly and correctly -- and so far there is no sign that they did not. The implicit co-ordination of the campaign at a rather notorious blog is a matter of record, and in fact it is entirely proper under the legislation to take into consideration a co-ordinated set of FOI requests. That also will definitely be in the remit of the inquiry.

There are faults here on both sides, and they should both be within the terms of reference of the inquiry to consider.

There are complete idiots on both sides of this issue.

It is time for a truce and it is far past time to stop with the name calling. I'm guilty of this, too. I will stop calling you a true believer (a definite perjorative). Would you please refrain from perjoratives such as denier/denialist and comparisons with creationism?

I'll do my best not to apply any name calling to individuals here in our discussions.

I might say something unkind from time to time about individuals out in the big bad world; but hopefully not too often. I also try to direct remarks at ideas or hypotheses rather than the person who presents them. I don't think there is a parity of ideas here with all ideas under debate being equally scientific or sensible, and I shall continue, I am afraid, being very dismissive of some notions.

It's also important to note that it's not a straight binary decomposition of ideas into solidly supported and thoroughly falsified. There are plenty of wide open questions in climate science; and also some basic discoveries. I prefer to sort those out on their merits as much as possible, case by case by case, in the Earth subforum.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Astronuc]

I would think the UEA/CRU could provide the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) ID Numbers for the stations they used, or other sources, so that anyone challenging their data can reviewed/tested. Presumably they have hard copies, even if they don't have electronic storage.

I can't accept the argument that they didn't have facilities or storage or whatever. If one is collecting data then one should be continually backing it up as well as transferring data to larger systems as time goes on. Afterall - this is climate science - or is supposed to be, and the means records retention over the period of interest, which would seem to imply when one started collecting data to essentially in perpetuity.

 

[sylas]

I would think the UEA/CRU could provide the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) ID Numbers for the stations they used, or other sources, so that anyone challenging their data can reviewed/tested. Presumably they have hard copies, even if they don't have electronic storage.

Have you looked? Here it is: Land Stations used by the Climatic Research Unit within CRUTEM3; and the file itself: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/crustnsused.txt.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[turbo]

There is a mountain of raw data, processed data, code, etc, out there in forms that are publicly available. It is puzzling that so many anti-AGW folks claim corruption, fraud, and suppression when all they have to do is access the data, process it, and come up with publishable results that support their views.

I am not convinced that AGW have thoroughly made their case, but I'm certainly not too proud of the deniers, because they have not made their cases in scientifically-rigorous methodology. I am agnostic about AGW, though I readily acknowledge that our climate is changing, and perhaps swinging into something that could surprise us in the short term. Are we causing it, contributing to it, or just "along for the ride"? I don't have the answer.

 

[arildno]

That's completely irrelevant, turbo-1.

The point is NOT that "anti-AGW"'s COULD, and for some strange reason of yours, SHOULD use other data sets.

Rather, the point is that these Climate Centres have refused access to THEIR sets of data, which is a serious breach of scientific conduct.

Even worse is, of course, that it seems they have "lost" great amounts of data that others now have to take on trust on a much larger scale than what is ordinarily called for (i.e, trusting that measurements reported in the initial, AVAILABLE report is accurate)

 

[Sorry!]

Rather, the point is that these Climate Centres have refused access to THEIR sets of data, which is a serious breach of scientific conduct.

Is it? Really? You work for the CRU and know everything that occurred so you know they are breaching scientific conduct?


I'm just wondering (I'm not asking this to be rhetorical I actually want to know) if I say e-mail NASA and ask them for data pertaining to missions they have conducted will they give me all the data I ask for just because I asked for it?

 

[Sorry!]

Have you looked? Here it is: Land Stations used by the Climatic Research Unit within CRUTEM3; and the file itself: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/crustnsused.txt.

Cheers -- sylas

You can find this information for all organizations too; not only the CRU.

 

[arildno]

Is it? Really? You work for the CRU and know everything that occurred so you know they are breaching scientific conduct?

Indeed they are.

I'm just wondering (I'm not asking this to be rhetorical I actually want to know) if I say e-mail NASA and ask them for data pertaining to missions they have conducted will they give me all the data I ask for just because I asked for it?

If you have your scientific credentials in order, and that those data do not have any bearing on legitimately sensitive issues like the whereabouts of military installations and machinery, sure.

 

[Evo]

Have you looked? Here it is: Land Stations used by the Climatic Research Unit within CRUTEM3; and the file itself: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/crustnsused.txt.

Cheers -- sylas

You can find this information for all organizations too; not only the CRU.

You are seriously claiming that the specifc data requested under the FOIA is already out there? Please back that statement up by posting the specific data requested and the data available so we can see that you are making a true statement. Thanks, we'll be waiting for your post.

Smoke and mirrors. This isn't going to fly.

 

[turbo]

The "biased blog" contains links to more climate data resources than you can get about anywhere else. If you want to delete the link, then fine. Still, there is real historical climate data that is available, including paleo sources that real people can access. The folks that are asserting conspiracy and fraud on the part of climate researchers do not want to acknowledge the vast amount of information that is available for public consumption, and want to pretend that a little cabal of scientists are skewing their results and suppressing raw data. The latter is demonstrably NOT true, since the data resides in databases scattered all over the globe, under supervision of entities with a wide range of guidelines under which such data can be accessed, used, and distributed.

Edit: deleted link to biased blog