Friday, November 20, 2009

RealClimate On CRU Hack

...more particularly, on Phil Jones' "trick":

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

29 comments:

St. Catharines, Ontario said...

Suppressed Medical Records (File 5100-13465/001)

St. Catharines, Ontario

- Privacy Commissioner of Canada (Sect. 25,26,28)

- C.M.H.A / C.A.M.H. - Brock University

Further details Google:

Medicine_Gone_Bad

or

http://medicine-gone-bad.blogspot.com/

Ti-Guy said...

Note to trolls: The above comment is an example of how to do irrational properly.

FrankD said...

You and your warmer friends can parse words all you like BCL. And with 62 megs of data out there most of which we haven't yet seen, you will be parsing the rest of your life.

What has come through so far from what little we have seen speaks clearly: The scientists at Hadley CRU, who provide much of the data/research relied upon by the IPCC, are far from being dispassionate, truth seeking scientists,- they are climate ideologues bent on promoting their theory/ideology about climate change and doing everything within their power to obfuscate their own data and work (on which the IPCC relies) in order to stifle open debate. This renders anything they or the IPCC have to say entirely suspect.

While this fact has been well known to the skeptic community for some time, it will come as news to much of the MSM, the political class, and most of the general public.

It's going to get a lot more interesting.

In the words of the inestimable Kate "Yowza".

Ti-Guy said...

FrankD, save yourself time and just link to the Small Dead Mind directly.

The wingnut over-exuberance and premature ejaculations over there are choice. This one's my favourite so far:

Boom de Adda
Boom de Adda
Boom de Adda
Boom de Adda
Boom de Adda
Boom de Adda
Boom de Adda
Boom de Adda

If thisis real, we have numerous counts of criminal fraud.

There should be lots of jail time coming up for the fraud propagators, there should be firings for cause, refusal of pensions.

Boom de Adda
Boom de Adda
Boom de Adda
Boom de Adda
Boom de Adda
Boom de Adda
Boom de Adda
Boom de Adda


Its going to be a good schadenfreude kinda day :)


From, who else, but "Fred?"

All of Canada's favourite trolls and right wing psychos are putting in a performance: Jay Currie, Biff, The Phantom, Bill D. Cat, Louise, Lawrence Joseph Garvin, etc. etc.

It's a gala for the Twitterati.

Fred said...

This one is good . . .

"A hacker has leaked thousands of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University that show how climate change data was fudged and the peer review process skewed to favor the manmade climate change hypothesis."

Nice way the story is being broken in the media. When the MSM realizes they have been had, they are going to turn on the warmongering hysterics faster than than you can say "Next Ice Age"

Ti-Guy said...

No "boom de adda's?" No "boo yah's?" No "Bah dump bump's?"

Tell, me Fred...when was the last time the Right was right about anything?

sharonapple88 said...

You and your warmer friends can parse words all you like BCL. And with 62 megs of data out there most of which we haven't yet seen, you will be parsing the rest of your life.

I'm pretty sure that whoever released these e-mails took the time to go through them. And so far they've been parading one e-mail as propping up their conspiracy theory.
Nice way the story is being broken in the media. When the MSM realizes they have been had, they are going to turn on the warmongering hysterics faster than than you can say "Next Ice Age"

Nice that you didn't provide a link to that article Corbett Report's not the MSM.

The mainstream media is more like this guy.

Louise said...

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

What a privilege to be listed amongst such greats of the blogosphere.

Loser.

Rob Harvie said...

Well.

Firstly, I would think that if I felt quite strongly about climate change, I would be pissed as hell about so-called scientists using language in their communication which is so clearly evidencing an "agenda".

But.

That being said, the fact that a scientist is an ideologue does not disprove the theory.. it merely creates significant mistrust for the concept of science as an "objective" analysis of the world around us.

We should, perhaps, be asking ourselves, why is it that a recent Washington Post poll suggested 1/2 of all parents would not have their children vaccinated for swine flue.

If scientists want to know why they can't seem to get fundamental acceptance of the risk of climate change, they need look no farther than these assholes.

Ti-Guy said...

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

What a privilege to be listed amongst such greats of the blogosphere.

Loser.


How did this bitch find her way here?

Back to your pen, you fucking harridan.

Ti-Guy said...

Rob are you sending loudmouth prairie harridans over to this blog?

Look, boys...you have to learn to deal with these broad-beamed, big-boned cart-horses yourselves. Stop pawning them off on the rest of us.

We had our fill with Deb Gray.

Cherniak_WTF said...

We should, perhaps, be asking ourselves, why is it that a recent Washington Post poll suggested 1/2 of all parents would not have their children vaccinated for swine flue.
And too many believe in UFOs... why?

Mostly because they are idiots.

Ti-Guy said...

Mostly because they are idiots.

Well, in the US, it really is an issue of appallingly bad science journalism. This latest incident, in which Health News Review declared it will no longer bother reviewing television health news reports, is symptomatic.

It's gotten so bad that skeptics find themselves applauding shows like Mythbusters as astounding contributions to public science education.

Rob Harvie said...

CWTF..

How many lawsuits do we see every year because some "safe" drug is suddenly causing brain tumors, etc..

"New Science" brings us things like thalidomide and asbestos and such.. and the public just starts to distrust it. And saying they're just stupid ignores the problem.

Even if so-called "educated" people can feel smug with their superiority over those who don't have their level of knowledge.. the reality is that with so many issues, matters require a democratic, not a simply scientific, solution..

So - with the climate change issue, while you may deride those who don't feel the same as you, if enough voters aren't convinced, you can be "right" all you want, and you're still going to get stuck with the status quo.

This is something I get beat up on all the time on "progressive" sites, but, for example.. if I don't agree with your point of view, you need to educate me, not insult me, if you want me to perhaps get onside and support your call for change.

So. I get back to my point. These chumps should have their asses kicked. Whether their science is right or not doesn't excuse their attitude..

Rob Harvie said...

Holy Shit.

An "Amen" to Ti-Guy.

While we don't see eye to eye on the substance of many issues, here is an excellent commentary on part of the problem..

"Entertainment" masquerading as "science".

Here's the thing.. science is mostly pretty dull stuff. Even when it's pretty important and life-altering.

But, people like "Good Morning America", and, oh, Al Gore, need to "sex it up" to have people pay attention, and if the science needs to be bent a little to make a better story, well, so be it.

So. When the public starts to pretty much treat any scientific discussion in the media as pretty much on the same plane as "ab rollers", well, are they really that stupid.

Maybe not.

As Ti_guy suggests.. maybe 80% of the time they are bang on for ignoring MSM advice on science. The problem is with the other 20% of the time.. like not vaccinating children for example because of some fear-mongering they picked up on Montel of some such garbage.

Ti-Guy said...

Here's the thing.. science is mostly pretty dull stuff.

That's not really true. The language of science, math, especially statistics, is dull. And the people who excel at it are duller still.

What a number of scientists are now complaining about are the lack of experts who are qualified to communicate...to laymen...the core of a scientific issue without pulling them into a morass of mostly irrelevant detail. A big part of that problem is the result of credentialed journalists, who, while not educated in the sciences, are nevertheless conditioned by an academic environment to believe that someone who is telling them something they don't understand must be really smart. When in fact, the reverse is quite often the case; people who can't communicate something clearly usually have a shaky grasp of the matter at hand, or are, at best, too vainglorious to understand what the particular priority in a conversation with a non-expert might be.

Rob Harvie said...

While I think that you may be right to a great extent, TG, in terms of the need for intelligent people to speak to the masses.. I still believe the media is more complicious in really not caring whether what they serve up is factual or not. The media blurs the lines between who is and who isn't an "expert" and who is or isn't to be believed.

In my own field, my favorite is "Nancy Grace". Here is someone who is a so-called "lawyer" and makes more fundamentally incorrect suggestions and statements of law on a daily basis than I would exect of a Grade 12 high school student.

But this stuff is served up on a platter - along with other "Noted Experts" or "Guest Commentators" on CNN, or Fox, or whatever.. and the public just gets confused, and it becomes impossible to distinguish between truth and myth.. until "science" just becomes another article of "faith", like Catholocism or Buddhism, with "camps" either believing or disbelieving based upon the collective wisdow of their "community"... which may in fact be worshipping at the feet of (I know you love him) Glenn Beck.

Ti-Guy said...

Interesting that all of your examples are American.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Rob you seem to be confusing the scientific method and increasing our body of knowledge with every idiot monkey and conservative that will jump on half understood sensationalist headline to decry that science in wrong and push their faith/political agenda.


I notice, like Ti-Guy, that you seem to be pushing American and Democratic example (Montel).

Why don't you go after oil funded Tim Ball and his cohorts of ignorant jackasses?

As for "education", I think that Brian Dunning (of Skeptoid) said that there is no point of debating with the stupid as it only seems to validate what they call "their science" (which is 100% based on bullshit and misinterpretations).


There is a need for vulgarization in every field (Joe Escalante does a good job with certain aspect of the law).


Science only becomes a "religion" when people don't understand some basics...

Louise said...

"How did this bitch find her way here?"

I followed the stench.

Ti-Guy said...

Only dogs follow stenches, Louise.

FrankD said...

CRUgate just rolls on. For those interested, Bishop Hill has a compendium of CRU email issues here.

It's pretty frightening stuff. Like the head of CRU writing to another university to complain about a skeptic in their employ, discussions about deleting information...

Dispassionate scientists just going about their work? Seeking the truth? My ass.

FrankD said...

More neat stuff from the hacked CRU files: Climate scientist changes graphs to eliminate cooling? "Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years."

BTW, it's looking less like a hack and more like an insider whistle blower. Some of the emails show concern over possible skeptics at CRU. Can't have that now can we.

mauser98 said...

carbon pimp Al Gore now a billionaire.

FrankD said...

"it's got to be criminal"-Dr Tim Ball

In this nine minute video Dr Ball gives his views on the emerging CRU emails. The attempts at "orchestration" of the journal and peer review process, and overt data manipulation ripple through the correspondence of these highly regarded scientists. But what seems to irk Dr Ball the most are the visceral attacks on skeptic scientists including the apparent glee over the death of one.

BTW, the data and code files are starting to get looked at and it appears things will really hot up.

FrankD said...

Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into global warming data manipulation - London Telegraph

"He claimed that the credibility of the university's world-renowned Climatic Research Unit - and British science - were under threat.
"They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth," he told the BBC Radio Four Today programme."

I suspect we will see more like this shortly. The actions of the motley CRU (part of East Anglia University) casts a cloud over British university science in general which only a public inquiry can clear up. Also, possible collusion to thwart applications under Britain's Freedom of Information (FoI) laws needs to be looked at. The home of responsible government and parliamentary democracy can't let this slide under the waves.

FrankD said...

The MSM in general has been slow to pick up on the CRU hack story (not surprisingly). But some outlets, notably the London Telegraph, Mail, and Wall Street Journal are providing some honest commentary. The WSJ has this today: Global Warming With the Lid Off The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science

FrankD said...

Is the MSM starting to wake up? Just maybe.

"Clearly, someone at the BBC realised that this is a global scoop in which the blogosphere has left the Corporation and all the dead-tree media standing."-London Telegraph

If the alarmist "the science is settled" BBC can start to report sorta objectively, there may be hope for the CBC, Globe, Star. Na, forget The Star, those "Toronto Elites" who just killed the Liberal Party will have none of it.

MKUltra said...

Progressives need to stop parroting what realclimate.org says about the hack and start getting up to speed on what's really in these documents.

Realclimate is not a disinterested party. They are exposed in this scandal as being a propaganda organ for the IPCC.
It's seriously like going to Fox News and asking for an honest assessment of the Bush years.

The reality of the situation is that there is so much damning material, that we really need to re-evaluate our position. It is clear that IPCC has been gatekeeping and stifling alternate (and likely valid) viewpoints on climate change.

Also, the entrenched viewpoint that energy money is pouring into science to muddy the waters might be a bit anachronistic in the shadow of the approaching carbon markets.

Carbon prices will likely be driven up sharply by speculation in the offset markets, and that will be money in Exxon et. al.'s pockets.

Also, the usual suspects are already gaming the system in the offset markets. http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/goldman-sachs-buys-into-carbon-offsets/
That's right, Goldman Sachs will not only be speculating in carbon offsets, they'll also be certifying carbon offsets.

Personally, I wonder how long it will be before they start selling "bundles" of their activities in trading carbon offsets AS carbon offsets. Since they own a certification company, they could do it. And, seriously, who'd be the wiser?

It's like we're begging Bernie Madoff to save the world. Pure insanity.