CRU E-mails and data

[osmposm]

Oh dear, getting close to a Goodwin now...

Not Goodwin, it seems, but Godwin, Dev. But thanks for the link, I'd not come across it before....Godwin's Law, that is, not the phenomenon. I like the description of the related logical fallacy, Reductio ad Hitlerum, too, though in this case only a more general and commonplace reductio ad fascistum.

Sorry, mods, this is really one for Grammarian's Corner in The Lounge...but the essential point remains that comparing destruction of embarrassing evidence (allegedly) with the burning of books in a totalitarian state is an absurd analogy; comparing it with lost expenses claims is perfectly valid, however.

[Devonian]

Well I've stated many times, that I believe Co2 has played a small part in our previous warming Pete. It's the manipulation and fabrication of data, which really does science no favours. And that's the reason why the general public are so scathing!

I'm sure the private emails of McIntyre and Watts are as incriminating as the CRU ones...

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I'm sure the private emails of McIntyre and Watts are as incriminating as the CRU ones...

Mine are too probably. The difference? Mine and theirs aren't going on to form global policies with ramifications for all of us. Which bit of that is hard to comprehend?

[Devonian]

Mine are too probably. The difference? Mine and theirs aren't going on to form global policies with ramifications for all of us. Which bit of that is hard to comprehend?

Actually, I think it could be argued that Watts and McIntyre are, politically at least, pretty damn influential. I think we should know what they've been saying in private as well. Why not? Sauce, geese and all that.

[VillagePlank]

Look guys, I've been pretty indeterminate in this debate, and I think, rightly so.

Evidence is evidence. CRU and NASA are guilty of failing to adhere to the scientific method. This cannot be denied, their output, now, cannot be recreated because an awful lot of data was deleted in the 1980's. This is probably the reason why they've been so closed about what is going on. Embarrasement.

BUT, you have to remember the state of computing in the 1980's. Storing data of this magnitude would have cost £millions, and climate science would not have been in it's infancy, it would have been a core kernel of an idea, with abstract researchers doing a job that, probably, no-one would see any value in it.

My opinion, which I am sure is just about to ridiculed 4e4, is that these guys are being scapegoats. Other independent researchers have come to the same conclusion, I can correlate sunspot data with their output, the list goes on ....

This does NOT mean that I agree with the underlying opinion of the most fervent AGW supporters, here. I strongly do not; but there is a standard of evidence that must be adhered too.

My feelings go out to those researchers who, now, and their families, are going to have a terrible Christmas whilst the worst of humanity fires upon their white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by some people; and then, as if their chests had been a mortar, they burst their hot heart's shell upon it

Edited December 4, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Actually, I think it could be argued that Watts and McIntyre are, politically at least, pretty damn influential. I think we should know what they've been saying in private as well. Why not? Sauce, geese and all that.

Go on then, argue it. I'm intrigued.

[jethro]

Ah VP, a voice of sanity in a mad world, thank you, thank you, thank you.

[Methuselah]

Ah VP, a voice of sanity in a mad world, thank you, thank you, thank you.

Seconded, thirded and fourthded, Jethro! Thanks, VP...

[Moomin]

This is my greatest fear realised, but I didn't expect it to manifest itself in this way. I have always been unconvinced of our influence on global warming, perhaps because I'm a geologist. However, I have always feared that science would be irrevocably damaged in the eyes of the general public by the intensely political nature of this debate and this is exactly what has happened. It is difficult to comment without the fullfacts and because the documents may have been tampered with, but at face value it would seem there has been some sharp practice on the part of CRU scientists which will damage the credibility of all of us involved in environmental science whichever side of the 'fence' we site and dare I say it whichever disciplince we practice in within environmental science - no good for anyone

[jethro]

Another voice of reason!

Absolutely agree.

[Kained]

Think on it as a positive step Moomin. Tim Berners-Lee invented the concepts of the World Wide Web to "facilitate sharing and updating information among researchers" this idea is reaching the next level of maturity, the scientific community will be better for it.

[cyclonic happiness]

There was quite an interesting debate on this subject on BBC Radio 2 today on the Jeremy Vine show, here's the link..........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p3qtg

It's the first debate so no need to trawl through trash to get it (click on "listen now")

Edited December 4, 2009 by cyclonic happiness

[Devonian]

Go on then, argue it. I'm intrigued.

I don't have their emails

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I don't have their emails

Then you cannot possibly know, which makes your first statement ("I think...") a little null and void

As for sanity... we'll have none of that in here!

[Devonian]

Look guys, I've been pretty indeterminate in this debate, and I think, rightly so.

Evidence is evidence. CRU and NASA are guilty of failing to adhere to the scientific method. This cannot be denied, their output, now, cannot be recreated because an awful lot of data was deleted in the 1980's. This is probably the reason why they've been so closed about what is going on. Embarrasement.

BUT, you have to remember the state of computing in the 1980's. Storing data of this magnitude would have cost £millions, and climate science would not have been in it's infancy, it would have been a core kernel of an idea, with abstract researchers doing a job that, probably, no-one would see any value in it.

My opinion, which I am sure is just about to ridiculed 4e4, is that these guys are being scapegoats. Other independent researchers have come to the same conclusion, I can correlate sunspot data with their output, the list goes on ....

This does NOT mean that I agree with the underlying opinion of the most fervent AGW supporters, here. I strongly do not; but there is a standard of evidence that must be adhered too.

My feelings go out to those researchers who, now, and their families, are going to have a terrible Christmas whilst the worst of humanity fires upon their white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by some people; and then, as if their chests had been a mortar, they burst their hot heart's shell upon it

Well, given some of our past exchanges, I must say that's a first class post. I do disagree with your opening comment though - you have to judge science by it's time (as you allude to). We also know we disagree about AGW but I'm with you 100% on your last paragraph . Of course we're judging Jones et.al. on the basis of 'evidence' we don't have about others....

Then you cannot possibly know, which makes your first statement ("I think...") a little null and void

Indeed but, otoh, perhaps I'm just throwing mud like everyone else? Or, perhaps, the reality that out of the thousands of emails only a few have been paid attention suggest this affair is (who'd guess) being spin totally out of proportion...

You'd almost think there is an important conference that some people want to fail...

Edited December 4, 2009 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

Do you have their emails, DM???

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Do you have their emails, DM???

Whose?

The original point I made was that there was an investigation into the known email leak because (and rightly so) the results from CRU led to the IPCC report which in turn is leading to Copenhagen and will no doubt impact on the lives of everyone - globally - at some point or another.

Dev then said that Watts et al emails were probably just as incriminating, to which I said but they aren't dictating global policies as a result of them.

Which IMO is fair enough, they aren't.

What we do know is that the emails re CRU were damning enough for various investigations and for Mann to distance himself.

[Devonian]

This is my greatest fear realised, but I didn't expect it to manifest itself in this way. I have always been unconvinced of our influence on global warming, perhaps because I'm a geologist. However, I have always feared that science would be irrevocably damaged in the eyes of the general public by the intensely political nature of this debate and this is exactly what has happened. It is difficult to comment without the fullfacts and because the documents may have been tampered with, but at face value it would seem there has been some sharp practice on the part of CRU scientists which will damage the credibility of all of us involved in environmental science whichever side of the 'fence' we site and dare I say it whichever disciplince we practice in within environmental science - no good for anyone

I'm a geologist too. As to the political nature of this - yes, it's been made political by people like Daly, Watts, McIntyre, Sen Inhofe, Re. Barton and the rest. Before them it was science, after them it will be science, now it's being deliberately obfuscated by said people and their cohorts

Anyway, I think theft is a crime. And I'm afraid I don't judge a science based on the words of those grubbing around in peoples private correspondences picking out odd words here and there out of thousands of emails. But, hey, feel free to post all your emails somewhere so we can do the same

Whose?

The original point I made was that there was an investigation into the known email leak because (and rightly so) the results from CRU led to the IPCC report which in turn is leading to Copenhagen and will no doubt impact on the lives of everyone - globally - at some point or another.

Dev then said that Watts et al emails were probably just as incriminating, to which I said but they aren't dictating global policies as a result of them.

And here you forget that I said that McIntyre, Watts and the rest are politically influential - they could also be said to be helping decide global policies (especially if Copenhagen produces no result - which seems likely). it's amazing what a bit of subterfuge can achieve

Which IMO is fair enough, they aren't.

What we do know is that the emails re CRU were damning enough for various investigations and for Mann to distance himself.

No, sorry, thats is no the case either. You need to read ALL of what Dr Mann said.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Devonian

[The PIT]

I'm a geologist too. As to the political nature of this - yes, it's been made political by people like Daly, Watts, McIntyre, Sen Inhofe, Re. Barton and the rest. Before them it was science, after them it will be science, now it's being deliberately obfuscated by said people and their cohorts

Anyway, I think theft is a crime. And I'm afraid I don't judge a science based on the words of those grubbing around in peoples private correspondences picking out odd words here and there out of thousands of emails. But, hey, feel free to post all your emails somewhere so we can do the same

Funny it became really political when Governments got involved.

Too be honest Devonian you don't judge the science at all. For you it's set in concrete and everyone else is wrong. As posted earlier if you haven't got the emails you can't comment. I've got them at work and slowly working my way through them. Theres lots and not a lot of spare time even in my lunch break. Plus a lot are quite boring.

Anyway the enqiry is a good idea and if it clears them good and if it doesn't it leads to question what next. You have to remember the science may still be basically sound and people involved may lost there way and it just needs someone new to work on it. Hopefully in future whatever happens the data and methology will be published so anyone can have a look at it check it. The problem has been the cloak and dagger stuff.

By the way if on your work email you say stupid things it can come back to haunt you later on as some people have found out.

Edited December 4, 2009 by The PIT

[Devonian]

Funny it became really political when Governments got involved.

Too be honest Devonian you don't judge the science at all. For you it's set in concrete and everyone else is wrong.

Oh no you don't. I've never said anything is certain. I think it's LIKELY we'll see warming in line with IPCC projections and the science. Not certain.

As posted earlier if you haven't got the emails you can't comment. I've got them at work and slowly working my way through them. Theres lots and not a lot of spare time even in my lunch break. Plus a lot are quite boring.

This is is a bit like saying if you've not peered into next doors window (ie private lives) you can't comment on the people who live there. Well I know well enough that looking through windows wont tell you about people, (though it might feed malicious rumours) time getting to know them will though...

Anyway the enqiry is a good idea and if it clears them good and if it doesn't it leads to question what next. You have to remember the science may still be basically sound and people involved may lost there way and it just needs someone new to work on it. Hopefully in future whatever happens the data and methology will be published so anyone can have a look at it check it. The problem has been the cloak and dagger stuff.

Oh, indeed. That's why McIntyre and Watts should publish their private emails - just to allay the suspicions of people like me. But, I expect their emails have been destroyed...

By the way if on your work email you say stupid things it can come back to haunt you later on as some people have found out.

And your emails? Safe I guess

Edited December 4, 2009 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

Science is one thing, politics another???

On that, I'm with dev.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

But the science HAS to become political if anything is to be done.

[Methuselah]

But the science HAS to become political if anything is to be done.

I agree. But, obfuscation will not help...

[Devonian]

But the science HAS to become political if anything is to be done.

Surely the politicians have to act based on the science if the science points to that being necessary? You can't make 'the science' political, you can't make Pythagorean geometry left or right wing - it simply 'is'.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Which means the science becomes political, as an aside, who funds NASA? Who funds CRU? Who funds NOAA?