Al Gore Slamdunked

[Stu Peters]

I don't suppose this adds to the debate, but it made me laugh...

[Terse]

For a simplified version of what Climategate is all about click HERE

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

 

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

 

The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

 

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

 

This may be 'only' an opinion piece, but it puts the whole scandal into layman's terms.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Terse

[Chinahand]

The idea that the data is hidden is bullshit. This is about the most comprehensive list of the data both raw and processed - Link.

 

I've posted this before, but I think it is a pretty good explanation of the so called fudging to get different data sets to match up.

 

As the data collection method changed from open buckets, to insulated buckets to the temperature on the water intake leading to the engine over a 100 or so year period the scientists have to correct for these differing methods being used in a changing mix throughout the period.

 

It is highly empirical - but subject to peer review - they can quantify how much temperature difference there is between a bucket and an water intake in different seasons and temperatures and then justify how many ships were sampling with the different methods , from what nations over what periods to explain how this creates the overall fudge.

 

Yes it is a fudge - one captain in 1942 measured the sea temperature from their boat one way and put it into a table, someone else measured the temperature a different way - those figures are mixed up in the averages produced.

 

Nowadays they have floating buoys specifically designed to measure sea temperature - they also still have records from boats using various measures - they can combine these together to understand the variations and then back project to the times when they only had the manual methods.

 

Its a dirty process - and guess what the scientists have error bars on their results, but the idea it is done to deliberately distort the results is bull. Look at the papers connected with the link - its massively detailed work attempting to understand the past.

[Ringwraith]

The interviews contained in the following link are very interesting -

 

http://www.infowars.com/lord-monckton-shut...arrest-al-gore/

 

If you only listen to one, make it the last one -

 

[Slim]

The interviews contained in the following link are very interesting -

 

Why are they interesting Ringwraith?

 

Do you agree with his other rants, eg "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."?

[VinnieK]

For a simplified version of what Climategate is all about click HERE

 

This may be 'only' an opinion piece, but it puts the whole scandal into layman's terms.

 

Sure, but that doesn't mean the scandal, or that the points the article makes are justified.

 

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal

 

At first this does seem pretty off, but journals vary in respectability. If you read the e-mails themselves more closely the impression is more that the CRU people are concerned that politically motivated and flawed science is making its way into a particular journal and that partisan appointments are being made to the IPCC committee, something which they believe needs to be addressed (and, quite naturally, you're not going to want to publish in a journal you perceive as being hostile to your science and as hosting flawed research).

 

Now, I'm sure that paragraph will be scoffed at for being a bit pot/kettle, but let's put this in context: a number of those most prominantly opposed to the idea of climate change, many of whom have demonstrable links with the energy industry (compared with implied or insinuated links between the CRU and government) have been pursuing the CRU and other climatic research centres relentlessly for years now. As a part of that, these have been publicly accused of dishonestly, incompetance, and corruption and their research attacked at every single turn. I agree that things may have gone too far with regards to FOI requests, and the intemperate language employed, but if climate science has become too polarized and politicised, who's fault is that? At the very least, the CRU had the dignity to keep their sniping to themselves, whilst much of the opposition displays it as a badge of honour (and it's telling that they've managed to get away with it).

 

What's more, where were all the tutting voices and clucking hens when scientists were being pressured in this way? Where was the concern that those who are now crying that they're the victims of a politically motivated campaign against them are often the same people who apparently saw no conflict of interest between dismissing climate change and their links with industry and business? Even though I disagree with the sentiment, I can understand that many people are concerned that they're being taken for a ride by what they view as government sponsored research. What I can't understand is why they appear so complacent when it comes to the possibility that what they accept as legitimate criticism of the CRU and similar institutes may be influenced by other vested interests and lobby groups.

 

To be honest, it smacks more than a little of rank hypocrisy, a willingness to overlook the motives of one side, because they happen to be saying the 'right' things, whilst endlessly questioning the motives of the other; of wholeheartedly accepting one side's criticism of the other; and, at the most paltry hint of shenanigens, get up in arms, condemning the CRU as 'taking sides' and furthering their own personal aims when, if we're honest here, much of the sceptic camp and indeed their supporters have been unashamedly doing for years now.

 

There are serious questions to be asked here in the wake of the CRU e-mails, but I suggest that they're less about climate change, and more about how those campaigning against the notion of climate change, aided in no small part by those in the public who have happily remained silent or oblivious regarding the motives and methods of those who promise they can keep their lightbulbs and cars, have successfully politicised and manipulated the debate to near unprecedented levels and ushered in an age where scientific research runs the risk of being at the mercy of factional politics and vested interests at every turn.

 

 

*edited to add: The author of the article, Christopher Booker, is an aging historian who, in addition to being a long time opponent to current theories of climate change, has argued that white asbestos is chemically identical to talc and thus poses no health risks, claimed a shyster prosecuted under the trades descriptions act for falsifying qualifications was the foremost expert on asbestos, and that BSE and CJD are unrelated. In short, I would ask my cat to explain scientific matters before I asked that old fool!

[Dr_Dave]

Evil, secretive, data-withholding scientific cabal have now created a page linking to raw data:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...heres-the-data/

 

Be interesting to see what sceptics, like Ringwraith, make of it.

 

Dave

[Ringwraith]

Evil, secretive, data-withholding scientific cabal have now created a page linking to raw data:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...heres-the-data/

 

Be interesting to see what sceptics, like Ringwraith, make of it.

 

Dave

 

 

Seeing as one of the main accusations of climategate is that the raw data has been manipulated I don't think much of this release at all Dr_Dave.

 

Naturally I'll wait for the independent inquiry to assess all the data and allegations, as I would you hope you would also, but thanks for the link anyway.

[Terse]

To be honest, it smacks more than a little of rank hypocrisy, a willingness to overlook the motives of one side, because they happen to be saying the 'right' things, whilst endlessly questioning the motives of the other; of wholeheartedly accepting one side's criticism of the other; and, at the most paltry hint of shenanigens, get up in arms, condemning the CRU as 'taking sides' and furthering their own personal aims when, if we're honest here, much of the sceptic camp and indeed their supporters have been unashamedly doing for years now.

TIMES LINK

 

Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

 

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said

 

Is this carelessness? Or is this simply the arrogance of scientists who, having examined data, cannot conceive that anyone else might wish to do so?

Whatever the answer, the fact is that public confidence in the scientific institutions is bound to be reduced by such things.

[Dr_Dave]

Is this carelessness? Or is this simply the arrogance of scientists who, having examined data, cannot conceive that anyone else might wish to do so?

Whatever the answer, the fact is that public confidence in the scientific institutions is bound to be reduced by such things.

 

I don't think you fully appreciate how storage has changed in the last 30 years. I remember in the late 90s when I was working at Jodrell Bank in Cheshire, there was a programme running where postgrads would help contribute to VLBI observations by sitting up overnight and changing tapes in the recording machines. Each tape, being about the diameter of a vinyl record held about a gig of data and each one was packed up and sent to Berlin for processing, whereupon it was sent back and recorded on again. There simply wasn't the space to store these things - even in 1997. And hard drives were extremely expensive.

 

Similarly, data that was retained was extremely fragile. I remember attempting to recover some early 80s data from a magnetic tape that would turn to dust when ran through a tape player.

 

Combine this with the fact that climate science simply wasn't the concern that it is now, so what reason to retain these records?

 

It's all very well to look back with hindsight and declare these researchers negligent (or even corrupt, if you're so inclined). But this was standard practice across all sciences. Try to see things in context.

 

Dave

Edited November 30, 2009 by Dr_Dave

[Slim]

Is this carelessness? Or is this simply the arrogance of scientists who, having examined data, cannot conceive that anyone else might wish to do so?

Whatever the answer, the fact is that public confidence in the scientific institutions is bound to be reduced by such things.

 

Again, if you take it in context, it's not so surprising. This happened in the early 80's, when nobody gave much of a stuff about this kind of research and storage of large amounts of data was very difficult indeed. I don't think it's sinister, or arrogant at all. It's a shame, and they've been silly, but that's about it.

 

Not really sure why it's big news, other than it follows the recent story.

[Ringwraith]

Again, if you take it in context, it's not so surprising. This happened in the early 80's, when nobody gave much of a stuff about this kind of research and storage of large amounts of data was very difficult indeed. I don't think it's sinister, or arrogant at all. It's a shame, and they've been silly, but that's about it.

 

Not really sure why it's big news, other than it follows the recent story.

 

What's that Slimy? The raw data fell down a mine shaft and only the manipulated data is left!

[VinnieK]

Is this carelessness? Or is this simply the arrogance of scientists who, having examined data, cannot conceive that anyone else might wish to do so?

Whatever the answer, the fact is that public confidence in the scientific institutions is bound to be reduced by such things.

 

Dr Dave has already covered much of what I'd want to say with regards to this. However, it's worth adding that the raw data was probably dumped because there was no further use for it, any research directly based on it had been assessed, accepted, and refined via peer review. Given this, what would be the point in keeping it, especially when the data was not recorded by the CRU itself but by weather stations who presumably had their own records?

 

If public confidence in scientific institutions is shaken by this particular matter, I'd say that it's less the fault of the scientists and more due to the fact that the public don't actually have realistic expectations of what they do and the resources at their disposal. For instance, why would you expect scientists to hold onto all of the data they'd worked from during their careers, in most cases long past its usefullness? Furthermore, where and how would it have been stored? Would there have been some kind of archival system in place to ensure that data wasnt duplicated across institutions? And, perhaps most relevant (and remember, we're talking about the 80's here) who would have paid for all of this? I somehow doubt that during a period of high unemployment and strained public finances, that either the government or the public would have been too eager to devote god knows how much money towards preserving vast quantities of raw data "just in case".

[Dr_Dave]

What's that Slimy? The raw data fell down a mine shaft and only the manipulated data is left!

 

Do you understand that manipulation of data is necessary? Can you see why this might be? It's a serious question...

 

Dave

[Ringwraith]

Do you understand that manipulation of data is necessary? Can you see why this might be? It's a serious question...

 

Dave

 

I have some questions for you Dr_Dave.

 

1. When was the CRU set up?

 

2. Why was it set up?

 

3. Who funded it?

 

4. When the data was requested under Freedom of Information requests, why did CRU scientists deny access under reasons of 'proprietary' - why didn't they just say that they dumped it in the 80's?