Climategate

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Negative results and neutral results

Define a negative and neutral result.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by Bagor

100% agreed and to be honest your post rubbed me the wrong way, I was being a bit of a smartarse dick in my reply and apologise.

My point is that as the sample size grows (e.g. 41 games), new variables are understood, models are refined then there is a greater likelihood for a more accurate projection. And as has been proven on the FOI section of the board, you can twist stats to make your point.

IMO of course you can treat data, as long as you don't falsify it.

No-one's claiming things as fact, it's just an educated consensus based international best guess.

I would also like to apologize if my tone in my original post rubbed you the wrong way. I completely agree with everything you said above. I was only trying to urge caution in reliance on models and forecasting, because even though more data leads to better models (as you point out), they will never be 100% accurate. I also don't have a problem with treating data, as long as it is done objectively and not in a way that will force some desired result.

That being said, I think we're still on opposite sides of this debate .

[HOZ]

Here is a site that has links for the alleged e-mails.


I think the warm fuzzy is about to be rubbed out. Already, in this forum we have the AGW wagons being circled. Yet no proof that these e-mails are true, though CRU has confirmed they have been hacked. I think the haze you see in the sky is the heat from the deletion of remaining CRU e-mails.

BTW:Try page 12 and look for
Original Filename: 1037241376.txt
Original Filename: 1037394925.txt

Interesting conversation on tree rings science.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by puckhog

I also don't have a problem with treating data, as long as it is done objectively and not in a way that will force some desired result.

That being said, I think we're still on opposite sides of this debate .

So .. basically you think the data is being forced?

[T@T]

WOW this must be one great thread (can't be bothered reading it all..or the links) but I'll just say a couple of things.

1) I could care less who gets the research money to study global warming.
2) I'm 47 years old and in my very miniscule lifetime I can see it with my own eyes and don't need any scientist to prove it one way or the other.
3) Global warming is real,money made/lost over the the study of it makes no difference at this point.
4) I don't think it can possibly be reversed, too many humans with big lifestyles=doom for this planet for our ancestors.

[TheU]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

LOL internet idiots and conspiracy whack jobs versus an entire canon of academic research.

I love reading some of the pseudo-scientific garbage in an effort to refute peer reviewed research. There's a reason those guys have PhDs and research funding and you are typing on a hockey board on the internet. It's because they know what they're talking about.

This part of your post here demonstrates you don't know what your talking about. Read about the hockey stick graph from any website you choose after googling it, and you will read about how the peer review process was bypassed completely.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by T@T

3) Global warming is real,money made/lost over the the study of it makes no difference at this point.

Global warming was real about 15 years ago and the people then and now that was most evident and most impacted upon by the Inuits. They're the feckers getting wrecked by sea surges.

They're the feckers getting infrastucture wrecked by melting permafrost.

But here's what me and you once upon a time inadvertently elected to help these people. Some half wit gobe that wanted them to cut down on ski-doo time

The federal government's priority is to help northerners reduce greenhouse gas emissions rather than adapt to climate change, Environment Minister John Baird says. Baird made the comments Monday when asked about requests from Yukon Premier Dennis Fentie for federal help to deal with the results of global warming.
"Certainly adaptation is a significant challenge," he said. "It's obviously got to be part of any initiative but we can't set our sights away from the need to reduce greenhouse gases, the need to tackle climate change head on, which is obviously the most urgent priority."
Although he has "certainly been told about the schools that are beginning to shift because of the permafrost melting and the huge impact on public infrastructure and highways," Baird said these things have to be balanced against the need to slow down climate change.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story...rd-change.html

Originally Posted by T@T

I don't think it can possibly be reversed, too many humans with big lifestyles=doom for this planet for our ancestors.

Not a hope in hell. But the least they can do is adapt, learn and minimise consumption.

I'm calling it now. India is effed. Next 20-30 years you'll see a mother od all famine there from lack of water/food. Water table has dropped significantly. There's not a hope in hell of them sustaining their population.

[TheU]

Originally Posted by T@T

WOW this must be one great thread (can't be bothered reading it all..or the links) but I'll just say a couple of things.

1) I could care less who gets the research money to study global warming.
2) I'm 47 years old and in my very miniscule lifetime I can see it with my own eyes and don't need any scientist to prove it one way or the other.
3) Global warming is real,money made/lost over the the study of it makes no difference at this point.
4) I don't think it can possibly be reversed, too many humans with big lifestyles=doom for this planet for our ancestors.

Fascinating. Care to comment on the fact that global average temperature hasn't gone up in 10 years?

Or that carbon dioxide has been historically proven to go up AFTER the increase in temperature?

Anyone wanna take a shot at either of those questions?

[TheU]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/1...he-same-trend/
CO2 still going up, but temperature not following the same trend

Despite the economic effects of the global financial crisis (GFC), carbon dioxide emissions from human activities rose 2 per cent in 2008 to an all-time high of 1.3 tonnes of carbon per capita per year, according to a paper published today in Nature Geoscience.


http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/nina/
No rise in world temperatures for the past decade, UN’s top weather man admits in BBC news revelation that also concedes some scientists doubt climate change theory


Sometimes there is a simple fact that is impossible to ignore. I have been vaguely aware of claims that the earth’s temperature has not warmed one little bit for a decade now, but had assumed they were the manufacturings of the anti-globalwarmists, so I ignored them. But on Friday night it leapt from the middle of a weather item buried in the BBC World news. It therefore must be true, and I say that with no sense of irony.


January 2008 – 4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months

19 02 2008 January 2008 was an exceptional month for our planet, with a significant cooling, especially since January 2007 started out well above normal.
January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators. I have reported in the past two weeks that HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year.
Also see the recent post on what the last 10 years looks like with the same four metrics – 3 of four show a flat trendline.
Here are the 4 major temperature metrics compared top to bottom, with the most recently released at the top:


http://www.spiegel.de/international/...662092,00.html

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/...ng-temperature

Has global warming stopped?

David Whitehouse
Published 19 December 2007
'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'. Plus read Mark Lynas's response



There's thousands of articles, go ahead and google it. While your at it, watch "the great global warming swindle". There's actual university professors and real climatologists in it explaining the real reason behind why we had a temporary warming in climate that has been finished for 10 years... yet here we are still talking about global warming. I actually emailed one of the profs after finding his email on his schools webpage... really nice guy (ian clark if curious).

[TheU]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Define a negative and neutral result.

Simple. I'm a scientists studying... bird migration. I want money... so I change my study to "the effects of global warming on bird migration", and I get my grant because global warming is a hot button issue.

Or I'm a climate projection scientists. I tweak my model to get outrageous results that make the news. Hello more grant money to keep my ass employed.

Or some scientist trying to do a study on XYZ in relation to global warming.. you name it, you got it.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by TheU

This part of your post here demonstrates you don't know what your talking about. Read about the hockey stick graph from any website you choose after googling it, and you will read about how the peer review process was bypassed completely.

I refrained from replying to your earlier rant because it came across as idiotic. I'm going to suggest for your benefit if you want to debate with me, might you refrain from referring to those that disagree with you as
"liberal tree hugging bleeding hearts and team them up with evil scientists who take a result and fit the theory to match it. These greedy climate change scientists who are reading results and running projections in such a way to get scary predictions are literally raping science. Jail time should be in order as far am I'm concerned"

Doesn't further nor strengthen your argument no more than if i was to think of you as a red neck uneducated h-i-c-k, that's doing poitical science.

Anyways from Nature for your reference:

Nature 441, 1032-1033 (29 June 2006)

It's probably the most politicized graph in science — an icon of the case for climate change to some, and of flawed science in the service of that case to others — and it has coloured the climate-change debate for nearly a decade. Now the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has weighed in with a report on the 'hockey-stick' plot, which it hopes will finally lay the controversy to rest.
The graph purports to chart global temperatures over the past millennium; a sharp rise at the current end is the 'blade' that makes the otherwise flattish line look like a hockey stick. Climate groups have claimed it as evidence of dangerous global warming; sceptics, especially in the United States and Canada, have questioned the study's merit and statistical methodology.


In its report, released on 22 June, the NAS committee more-or-less endorses the work behind the graph. But it criticizes the way that the plot was used to publicize climate-change concerns. And it leaves open big questions about whether researchers should be obliged to make their data available (see Plotting a course)."We roughly agree with the substance of their findings," says Gerald North, the committee's chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a "high level of confidence" that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global-warming sceptics claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a 'little ice age' around 1600. Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right.

Originally Posted by TheU

Fascinating. Care to comment on the fact that global average temperature hasn't gone up in 10 years?

Or that carbon dioxide has been historically proven to go up AFTER the increase in temperature?

Anyone wanna take a shot at either of those questions?

Yes.
First: Whoopee effin dooo. Care to defract from yout defraction and discuss sea level rise, perma frost ....
Secondly: You haven't the sweetest clue what you're talking about. Start a new thread with your question. Be my guest.

[GreenLantern]

Please everyone who wants to educate themselves on the topic of climate change I hope you will visit this website: http://www.ipcc.ch/

I hope you will all take a few hours out of your life to educate on the subject.



I really can't break down every post but I remember reading one saying it was too late to change, it is not too late.. if you understand the concept of peak oil think about the concept of peak pollution. We are nearing the point where we can't turn back. We have altered the climate beyond repair, but there is still time to stop before we alter it so much that it becomes inhospitable.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by TheU

Simple. I'm a scientists studying... bird migration. I want money... so I change my study to "the effects of global warming on bird migration", and I get my grant because global warming is a hot button issue.

Or I'm a climate projection scientists. I tweak my model to get outrageous results that make the news. Hello more grant money to keep my ass employed.

Or some scientist trying to do a study on XYZ in relation to global warming.. you name it, you got it.

Nice rant. What's a positive one then?

[HOZ]

Wall Street Journal

Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor


Feel the love and heat!!!

The picture that emerges of prominent climate-change scientists from the more than 3,000 documents and emails accessed by hackers and put on the Internet this week is one of professional backbiting and questionable scientific practices. It could undermine the idea that the science of man-made global warming is entirely settled just weeks before a crucial climate-change summit.
****
A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."
****
The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example
*****
In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.

I know shocking....

I think Carthage felt something like this.....

Far more juicier stuff still left on the link.

[Devils'Advocate]

HAH..... I'm reading this morning that the "disparaged" scientists; the ones that were not unified... were researchers John Christy and Roger Pielke Sr.. These researchers DO believe, based on their scientific studies, that global warming is real AND man-made. They just disagree on how to solve the problem... for example Dr. Pielke says that global warming policy needs to deal with far more than CO2 and we need to stop producing black carbon soot from biomass burning. However, by claiming it's not just CO2 it makes people question their policies.

Pete Spotts writes:
Nothing in the package appears to overturn the general idea — arrived at via many lines of evidence — that the CO2 humans have been pumping into the atmosphere is warming the planet, nor does anything bolster the notion some put forward of a hoax on the part of climate scientists.

[Calgaryborn]

This is from the article Hoz links above:

In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.

Wow! So I guess something being Peer Reviewed by your buddies doesn't mean it is necessary correct or even honest. Also, apparently scientific journals can be influenced to not publish research unfavourable to their scientific camp.

More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.
Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make their data public.

Powerline quoted some of these E-mails yesterday(Nov21). I wonder what the penalty in England is for destroying information requested by the Freedom of information act. You would think the government of England would at least try to receive deleted data from the computers of the scientists who sent those e-mails. That might reveal even more than what has already been hacked.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by Bagor

So .. basically you think the data is being forced?

Well, getting back to the initial post, it seems like a definite possibility, from quotes such as the following:

From Michael E. Mann (witholding of information / data):

Dear Phil and Gabi,

I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.

Seems like there's an attempt to avoid any critical review process here.

From Dr. Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

This may be innocuous, with a bad choice of words; or it could be, as you and I previously discussed, a treatment of the data to arrive at a pre-conceived result.

From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):

Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

So we're all on the same page (I had to look it up) AR4 is referring to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report. Having a group of 4 people erase all records of communication about a landmark, possibly policy-guiding report seems a little off, doesn't it? (I know this is speculation on my part)

From Thomas R Karl (witholding data) :

We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.

If their research is being funded in any part by government, their results and findings are part of the public domain. Trying to stop someone from getting their hands on the data simply because they're a pest is not okay.

From Tom Wigley (ousting of a skeptic from a professional organization):

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

Blackballing someone from any organization because they don't share your views is detestable, IMO.

From a document titled "jones-foiathoughts.doc" (witholding of data):

Options appear to be:

1. Send them the data

2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.

3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

Again, we have possible treatment of data in a manner to avoid sticky issues.

Overall, I've read arguments from academics on both sides of the debate, and to me, those on the side against AGW seem to make more sense. They argue more about real data whereas the AGW side uses a lot of modeling and forecasting (which I've already discussed my viewpoints on).

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

HAH..... I'm reading this morning that the "disparaged" scientists; the ones that were not unified... were researchers John Christy and Roger Pielke Sr.. These researchers DO believe, based on their scientific studies, that global warming is real AND man-made.

I'm not sure where you're getting this, but John Christy does not attribute global warming to human activities (assuming we're talking about the same John Christy). See a clip of him debating the issue on youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ml9zs9aZQ. It's quite long, but a very good debate, IMO.

In one of the parts of that debate, Dr. Christy takes the rather pragmatic viewpoint that while human activities have some impact (which I don't believe anyone on this board has argued) the magnitude of human contribution to the current warming trend is minimal when compared to other factors.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by TheU

climate change is bogus. the earths average temp hasn't gone up in 10 years, and were about to go into a global cooling period. its just sad the average person doesn't take the time to look up actual data and look at it. go ahead, google it, go thru it, oh, better yet... just listen to al gore.. a politician.. show you sad video of polar bears frantically swimming. lemmings.

Because you are so much smarter than the average person, eh. That's a pretty dismissive and petty way of treating people, particularly since we know you aren't a climatologist yourself, and you yourself are limited and dependent on the subset of data that is made available, often not even as primary source material, to the public, to form your opinion, not fact, which you hold so dearly superior.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by puckhog

I'm not sure where you're getting this...

The article I linked to said that Dr. Christy does not deny human contribution to global warming. Which is basically what you say is in the video.

In one of the parts of that debate, Dr. Christy takes the rather pragmatic viewpoint that while human activities have some impact (which I don't believe anyone on this board has argued)

Actually TheU said that it is all cyclical and actually we are in a period of global cooling. If he doesn't believes that temperatures haven't gone up in 10 years, how can he believe that human activity isn't part of that non-existent warming?