When ClimateGate first surfaced in the form of University of East Anglia emails that had been posted to the Internet, Phil Jones at UEA and Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate quickly circled the wagons and went in to damage control mode.
The talking points that emerged were primarily two:
First, that the emails had come from a hacker and that they were thus illegal, and that by viewing them, one was unethical. Here at SP, our own lefty regurgitators quickly followed orders and puked this back again and again. But this defense didn't work so well, because many respected journalists throughout the world were reading the emails and reprinting them and commenting.
Second, that the emails were "taken out of context" and that they thus, did not accurately represent the conversations that Phil Jones and the rest of the Hockey Team were having with each other over email.
Now, to the blind partisan worker bee, this would probably sell well, but to anyone who read the emails, this was obviously false. Nevertheless, if you get this much screeching about context, the Internet will deliver.
Enter Willis Eschenbach. Willis is the guy who placed the original FOI (Freedom Of Information) request with the University of East Anglia CRU to get their data and methods so he could attempt to reproduce the results that the CRU has been calling consensus. Willis has a long chain of emails that he sent to the UEA in his quest for information. Now that the CRU emails have been published, Willis has taken his own thread of emails and the replies from UEA and woven them in with the chronologically correct internal emails from the published CRU email from Phil Jones and the rest of the team.
If you are looking for context, you can read Eschenbach's account right here. It's easy to see from the dates, when the initial awareness at CRU of the FOI request occurred, and then the subsequent discussions on how best to avoid, destroy evidence and generally subvert the FOI process, and how that played to the responses being sent back to Eschenbach.
This is a disgusting look at the depravity and antithesis of science that is the UEA CRU. In real science on non politicized topics, you will find researchers putting their data, results and methodologies on the web for all to see and particularly for other scientists to replicate and confirm or refute their hypothesis. Not so in climate science.
In climate science, Phil Jones reveals a tight knit oligarchy where peer review consists of peers that Phil has reviewed and selected to make sure that they will stay on message when reviewing any other work. If that's not enough, Phil and team would manipulate data and/or results to make sure that any trends that would lead away from AGW would never emerge in their papers. And if that still was not enough, Phil would seek to suppress and opposing science by working with specific science journals to make sure their editors were on board with printing only what he sanctioned.
And more are now calling for action, here are some of the updates:
Update:
Eschenbach has published another good article that puts the CRU Emails in to context. This also dismisses yet another talking point similar to the one in Rathergate, that the CRU personnel were behaving badly, but that their science was still sound.
This one shows another climate scientist, Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, attempting to reproduce IPCC results presented by Jones, Trenberth and others. Karlen repeatedly emails with his data sets and methods asking for data from Jones, et. al. Trenberth and Jones use various excuses to try and explain why their work always shows the temperature rising after the 1970s, even though Karlen is unable to reproduce that result in any of the data sets to which he has access. Karlen then begins to wonder if Jones' data is biased with urban locations which do show a warming by what is known as the Urban Heat Island effect. (UHI is basically pavement, buildings, and other monolithic substrates which are dense in urban areas and retain heat.) Eschenbach goes on to show how his FOI request has filled in the missing holes in Jones and Trenberth's flimsy dodges to Karlen's questions. And in the end, Jones and Trenberth did indeed bias their data by cherry picking large urban cities to bias their dataset with UHI.
So the warming, wasn't.
And keep in mind that this small Jones Oligarchy based at UEA CRU, with its two refuted Hockey Stick studies and pre-cooked datasets were some of the primary basis for all of the AGW hype in the first place.
Posted by JeffB. at November 27, 2009 10:28 PM | Email ThisTruth is an amazing thing.
Posted by: Michele on November 29, 2009 02:41 PMAnd since you'll likely delete this in your quest to "keep the thread respectable"...
Posted by: demo kid on November 30, 2009 07:48 AM
With respect to the FOI request... sure, this is a case where a researcher's territory comes into play, and certain information should remain public regardless of academic ego. Still, this does not get the way of the fact that the data has not been altered or edited. No claim exists that the data itself has been falsified.
Finally, for some folks that have lofty ideas about how science works, but this is pretty much it: an academic slapfight. People have massive differences in opinion, there are nasty public fights, etc. etc. You get it in archaeology, 14th-century Persian literature, whatever.
But the fundamental flaw in the deniers' position is that they are latching onto criticisms of relatively minor details, and ignoring a larger body of data. If you take out the laughable alarmism related to comparing a future under climate change to Mad Max, there is a distinct body of data that supports the notion that the planet's climate is changing in a way unique from typical cycles. Regardless of the cause, the ability for deniers to shove their heads in the sand and believe that these risks are minimal is irresponsible.
Posted by: demo kid on November 30, 2009 08:05 AMTo your second point. There's a varying level of criticism which is natural. Since Hulme is a UEA and a climate scientist, I don't expect him to support everything that other scientists outside the IPCC oligarchy would support. However it is notable that he sees the corruption and politics at CRU that need reform, and that was the point of the sentence. Zorita, who is outside of UEA takes it further, and other scientists and commentators have other views as well. Anyone who reads the CRU emails can see that there is both a problem with the corruption of the scientific method and peer review process, and with the biased HadCRUT dataset. In order for Climate Science to get back to reality, both will need to be reformed.
The trouble for Warmists is that if the politicization and biased data are removed, there's nothing left that warrants even the slightest emergency, let alone dumping billions and trillions in to climate change when there are far more pressing problems. It's tough for men to admit that there is no justification for the funding that gives them their livelihood.
A strawman to say that because there are other fights in science, that warrants the obvious corruption at CRU with regard to climate. Logical fallacy.
Minor details are what you call things you wish would go away. Like being drunk at the scene of a car crash you caused. Yes, the planet's climate is changing, it always has, and it has varied to extremes far greater than what we see today, and humans survived. Al Gore originally made utterly ridiculous and fantastic claims to 20 foot sea level rise, and those claims were quietly revised back to the few centimeters we might see in 100 years. A few centimeters results in human adaptation, not crisis. If science was appropriately spending a few hundred million like we do for sending rovers on space missions, that would be one thing, but with no provable crisis, we've already dumped about $80 Billion. I sure wish all of that money had gone to cancer research as I don't know a single person who died from climate change, but I know several who have died from cancer.
This is not a left or right issue. It is about truth, objective science, and the best use of limited resources for humanity. Find a different horse to back, because you are losing this debate.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 30, 2009 08:25 AMFirst, there's a distinct difference between calling for "reform" and saying that it's a "corrupt" system. Do I deny that corruption exists everywhere? No. However, you've pretty much failed to establish any kind of endemic, systematic corruption that would call any results into question. (No phone calls from George Soros to intentionally change the data points, from what I can gather.) Public transparency and access to data is not a bad thing, but you fail to recognize that this doesn't call the data itself into question.
Then again, with your idiotic remark:
It's tough for men to admit that there is no justification for the funding that gives them their livelihood.
you show a distinct naiveté about the flip side of this arrangement: who has money to make from heading off climate policy in the short term? You rake academics over the coals for what, in the grand scheme of things, is minor chump change, while turning a blind eye to the larger rewards fossil fuel industries have to gain. By completely ignoring that side of the equation, you're willfully blind to other very real forces of "corruption" in play.
Also, corruption of the scientific method is pretty much evident from your statement:
The trouble for Warmists is that if the politicization and biased data are removed, there's nothing left that warrants even the slightest emergency, let alone dumping billions and trillions in to climate change when there are far more pressing problems.
Discussions about the effects of climate change are not simply based on a single data set from a single research outfit out there. Other researchers are exploring different questions, and also seeing rather concerning results that would suggest that climate change is an issue. By your argument, a few emails stating that the way ONE person decides to model climate data in one case invalidates that data. That's inane, and it doesn't nearly begin to cover the entire range of studies into this issue.
In terms of cost-benefit analyses, best use of limited resources, etc. I'll be the first one to agree with you. Lomborg's statements about the relative good that can be done with different interventions in the Third World is actually important, and when you hear about European companies pursuing minor factory upgrades in China to get emissions credits while villages in Africa are going without clean water, it's hard to see the net environmental benefit to the planet. Likewise, apocalyptic scenarios get in the way of reasonable changes to energy and environmental policy.
Still, to whine about the "corruption" and "subjectivity" of some researchers while ignoring your own? Silly.
Posted by: demo kid on November 30, 2009 09:46 AMNone of the research out there shows that there is any basis for a crisis. Much of what has been published has been debunked. For example, there was a paper on rising temperatures in Antarctica that was an alleged basis for fear of large scale Antarctic melting. Ice extent data shows for one that there is no large extent melting. And two, the paper was debunked because it used a tiny dataset of sensors in one small part of Antarctica. The crisis does not exist, and you won't find a study that has withstood scientific scrutiny outside of the limited CRU circle that conclusively shows that it does.
I'm glad you see that drinking water in Africa is far more important and immediate as a problem. We agree there. Thus, I assume you are against UN efforts to waste a significant portion of our economic resources on what has not proven a crisis, especially where there are plenty of real crises.
There's no whining about corruption here, simply reporting on what Willis Eschenbach has said. If you don't like that, take it up with Eschenbach. He is a real climate scientist, and perhaps he will change his argument if you tell him he is whining and subjective.
No... these are people in ONE RESEARCH GROUP. One. These leaked emails are not from the accounts of everyone doing climate change research around the world, this is just from ONE center, from ONE university.
Sure, they do have say and input into the IPCC reports... but they're not the only source.
For example, there was a paper on rising temperatures in Antarctica that was an alleged basis for fear of large scale Antarctic melting. Ice extent data shows for one that there is no large extent melting.. And two, the paper was debunked because it used a tiny dataset of sensors in one small part of Antarctica. The crisis does not exist, and you won't find a study that has withstood scientific scrutiny outside of the limited CRU circle that conclusively shows that it does.
Two Decades of Temperature Change in Antarctica
Over 100 icebergs drifting to N.Zealand: official
Calling climate change "global warming" doesn't account for the fact that there may be local areas where temperature, in fact, does go down. Sure, East Antarctica on the mainland isn't expected to have large temperature increases, but the Antarctic Peninsula IS experiencing a distinct rise in temperatures, and that is actually a big concern.
Suggesting that global warming is a sham involves casting doubt onto a LARGE number of datasets of varying types that all show similar trends. Are there methodological issues? Sure. Do some folks publish bad papers at times? Sure. Regardless, global warming deniers need to debunk a large number of studies, ALL pointing to the same thing.
Thus, I assume you are against UN efforts to waste a significant portion of our economic resources on what has not proven a crisis, especially where there are plenty of real crises.
I think that climate change policy needs to be multiobjective, and far more efficient and effective. It's pointless to retrofit Chinese factories to control HCFCs when there are projects readily available that can address goals with both improving water quality AND reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Adaptation is also a concern, and one that global warming denying morons that think that these temperature trends are "natural" should be quick to get behind.
There's no whining about corruption here, simply reporting on what Willis Eschenbach has said.
No, you're whining plenty enough for the two of you.
Posted by: demo kid on November 30, 2009 12:49 PMBut good to see that you are coming around and realizing that science needs to be objective, and not the purview of a small cadre of key reviewers. And good also of you to see that if we ignore China and India, then any policy is effectively moot. Anyone who has been to Bejing will tell you just how bad the air quality is there.
What temperature trends? There are dozens of papers showing how there are no clear historically anomalous temperature trends in the latter half of the 20th century, and first part of the 21st. The satellite temp records don't show it. The SST records don't show it. The only thing that did show it was datasets like that of the HadCRUT. But it is now known that HadCRUT threw out the data that those sets were based upon, and that both studies that formed the basis of such Hockey Stick graphs have been debunked. There is nothing out of the ordinary or significant to the degree that it is out of line with any previous natural trend.
The Steig Paper that you quoted on Antarctica was debunked here by Jeff Id. The problem is that Steig heavily weighted more of the greater number of stations in his study that are located on the West Antarctic Peninsula. The WA Peninsula is warming, but it forms a tiny percentage of the Antarctic, and is close to the southern tip of South America. As you can see from the many graphs presented, not only were the stations overly weighted to the W. Antarctic Peninsula, but the other stations are but a tiny number representing mostly the circumference of the vastness that is Antarctica, with nothing in the center, where most of the ice, and most of the mass is concentrated. Further, the Satellite records which don't bias towards any one part of Antarctica, were excluded by Steig.
But kudos for bringing up misrepresented AGW from UW's Steig right here in our own backyard.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 30, 2009 02:02 PMAnd Rick Moran asks a poignant question in his piece. This scandal is exposing those who have intellectual honesty and those who don't, right or left. Because one can't read those emails with integrity, and not see that science has been brutally corrupted, right when trillions are at stake.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 30, 2009 03:18 PMIn terms of the disputes between scientists and "dozens of studies"... do I deny that there are objections or alternative points of view? No. However, you're establishing your opposition not based on the quality of their research, but on the desirability of their results.
And this gets to the root of why I object so vehemently to global warming deniers. To talk about corruption and whine about how politics gets in the way of science is absurd, because it pretty much drives the deniers FAR more. There is more money involved with suppressing evidence or making noise to distract from problems that exist. Minor points or objections with theories are jumped on as absolute proof that climate change does not exist, while equally as compelling evidence that change IS occurring is just thrown out or treated as "natural change".
So sure, there are plenty of questions that exist about what trends we are actually observing. There are distinct questions as well about the overall impacts of climate change, and the most effective policies to enact to address them.
However, to believe that there is not a compelling financial and ideological reason to take the deniers' side, and then lambaste climate change researchers or policymakers for corruption or "bad science" is horrifically hypocritical.
Posted by: demo kid on December 1, 2009 07:56 AMAnd more money for the skeptics? Again, just plain wrong. There is far more money given to pro AGW researchers by governments the world over, precisely because they have done a good job of convincing governments to do so. It's become a vicious cycle, and it has been based on the corrupt efforts of a small number of scientists, most notably, Mann and Jones. Bloggers and retired scientists don't get paid anything to do the research and journalism that debunks the so called consensus. But those in the consensus get millions to keep that consensus going.
Above all, there's simply no crisis. A few centimeters of sea level rise in the next 100 years will have no effect at all on humans. A degree or so of temperature would be welcome to humans as some of the most prosperous periods in human history have been accompanied by warmth.
All of the money that goes to "consensus" science would be far better spent on more than a dozens of other pressing human problems. And yet it gets wasted on Phil Jones as he does his level best to suppress opposing science and impress government grant writers to give him more money to continue to do so.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 1, 2009 10:08 PM"Isolated warming" is where it counts when it comes to losing sea ice in key areas. And no one is debating that in some areas, the temperature has been decreasing.
And more money for the skeptics? Again, just plain wrong. There is far more money given to pro AGW researchers by governments the world over, precisely because they have done a good job of convincing governments to do so.
What? Seriously? Do you really think that research budgets in academia even compare to the money that oil and gas companies have been throwing at this? I'm actually sad that someone is as naive and, quite frankly, kinda stupid about the way the world works.
Above all, there's simply no crisis. A few centimeters of sea level rise in the next 100 years will have no effect at all on humans. A degree or so of temperature would be welcome to humans as some of the most prosperous periods in human history have been accompanied by warmth.
Will we live in Waterworld? Hardly. That's not the big objection. The objection is a small amount of rise (well over "a centimeter" but well under "oh-my-god-oh-my-god-I'm-drowning-in-Denver") resulting in higher water levels in very low-lying areas.
With temperature... sure, taken alone, the idea of an increase in temperature sounds great. However, that is only one fragment of the whole story. Changes in pine beetle populations in British Columbia, for example, can be connected to a greater range due to recent warming. Changes in precipitation and temperature associated with climate change can affect available water resources. The list goes on, and while deniers are content with poo-pooing any but the most beneficial effects, this is far more complex and detailed than what they'd like to believe.
All of the money that goes to "consensus" science would be far better spent on more than a dozens of other pressing human problems.
No. Money going to research? That's just fine. Some moron looking at minor issues in an attempt to derail a much more massive body of evidence doesn't amount to an effective rebuttal, or a compelling need to stop research in this area.
Ugh. This is lapsing into parody here. I'm amazed that deniers think of themselves as "scientists" when they're committing such egregious acts of scientific fraud, and then whining about how they're the "victims".
Posted by: demo kid on December 2, 2009 08:15 AMThis is absolutely false. You would not accept cherry picking of data that shows that isolated cooling is where it counts. The datasets that show the least bias and largest aggregate summary of world temperature all show that there has been no rise in temperature for ten years. The databases that show aggregate world ice, also show that there has been gain, not loss.
What? Seriously? Do you really think that research budgets in academia even compare to the money that oil and gas companies have been throwing at this?
Also absolutely false. In fact, Shell is now running pro-AGW ads because it has a heavy vested interest in Green Energy initiatives. Show me the links for where Oil money totals the billions spent yearly by government to fund AGW science. I don't get paid a penny to debate you, I take away from my own private enterprise to do so. Where is all that oil money? Where does it go? How does it influence bloggers? Show the funding links? Do you get paid to sit at your computer and debate? Given the hours you put in here at SP, I think you probably do.
The pine beetle epidemic has been linked to humans, but not with respect to climate. Read more here. In Colorado, they found similar pine beetle infestations. They found that the beetles were more a product of forest management policy, and localized water, sun exposure, and a lack of fire. As you may know, man's quest to prevent forest fires has created big problems with abundant forest undergrowth that would have otherwise been burned away in periodic natural burns. This turns out to be exactly the environment that is ripe for pine beetles to flourish. This is not at all unusual, and it happened previously with the Spruce beetle. I heartily agree than mankind should work to have less impact on forests by allowing more natural burn cycles.
Why is someone looking at minor issues a moron? Can you explain that? Or is that just an ad hominem attack? And no one said stop all research. But we should expect that science and not politics determines where and when research dollars are granted.
Ugh. This is lapsing into parody here. I'm amazed that deniers think of themselves as "scientists" when they're committing such egregious acts of scientific fraud, and then whining about how they're the "victims".
I don't even know what this is referring to. Which scientists? I'm not a scientist, but someone reporting on what I read from scientists. And is there something wrong with skepticism in science? Or are all things known such that those who disagree can simply be labeled as deniers?
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 2, 2009 12:08 PM