CRU E-mails and data

[Iceberg]

I remember having having an agreement with Tamara(yes it does happen ; ) ) above the ever growing chasm between the AGW thoery and it's skeptics and how this is only going to get wider.

This event will make things alot worse which is rather sad for something this important.

There has been a fair amount of comment regarding hiding things.

I would ask people to try and put themselves as the scientist:

He's spent 20 years studying his chosen subject and has now produced a paper which has taken several years and probably a lot of personal anguish. He knows that his paper points towards manmade AGW having an effect, BUT if the results are fully put on the web then bits of it could be taken out of context to undermine the general conclusions of the paper.

Does he a) just point publish the general conclusions or publish all of it ?

If he choses b there is a good chance that his name will be all over the internet, that his work will be in speechs from the likes on Monkton etc and that as a scientist he will be undermined.

If he chooses a then he's true to the conclusions of his science, but will be accused of hiding things..

My view is that as long as skeptics continue to deliberately mispresent science and opinions and to twist events (see the global warming swindle program) scientists will try to hide things and because they something to hide, but to protect themselves.

What this sorry episode(including some of posts on this thread) has done is widen the chasm now to make skeptical analysis of the science incredible difficult now. I hope we can prove its not now impossible.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Iceberg

[Devonian]

I remember having having an agreement with Tamara(yes it does happen ; ) ) above the ever growing chasm between the AGW thoery and it's skeptics and how this is only going to get wider.

This event will make things alot worse which is rather sad for something this important.

There has been a fair amount of comment regarding hiding things.

I would ask people to try and put themselves as the scientist:

He's spent 20 years studying his chosen subject and has now produced a paper which has taken several years and probably a lot of personal anguish. He knows that his paper points towards manmade AGW having an effect, BUT if the results are fully put on the web then bits of it could be taken out of context to undermine the general conclusions of the paper.

Does he a) just point publish the general conclusions or publish all of it ?

If he choses b there is a good chance that his name will be all over the internet, that his work will be in speechs from the likes on Monkton etc and that as a scientist he will be undermined.

If he chooses a then he's true to the conclusions of his science, but will be accused of hiding things..

My view is that as long as skeptics continue to deliberately mispresent science and opinions and to twist events (see the global warming swindle program) scientists will try to hide things and because they something to hide, but to protect themselves.

What this sorry episode(including some of posts on this thread) has done is widen the chasm now to make skeptical analysis of the science incredible difficult now. I hope we can prove its not now impossible.

Excellent post Ice.

[Iceberg]

Sorry for the spelling mistakes and appaling grammer in that post, I was typing it with a 3 yo on my knee (well thats my excuse anyway)

[The PIT]

or as an alternative Iceberg.

He knows there's very little proof for man made warming and is struggling to make a concrete case. He then knows that grants will be cut making further research more difficult so the temptation comes to falsify the work. Once down that slippery road you have to make more and more cover ups.

There maybe something still in the tainted science but the only way to clear up the mess it's get all the data and methods in the open. Then properly reviewed by people not of there own choosing and take it from there.

I can see people are finding it very hard to come to terms that they have been misled and the natural reaction is anger. It seems that anger is being misdirected and should be more directed to people who have and probably will be tempted again to lead them up the garden path.

As for humans having no effect we will have some effect but not as much as some wish. The ironic thing about all this it's getting us to move in the right direction. Renewable energy cleaner air and trying to protect the environment. Of course the government and probably others have seen this as an excuse to introduce more taxes rather than actually providing alternatives but that's politics for you.

[Iceberg]

PIT where have we been mislead ?

Again you are doing exactly what I described skeptics do in my most i.e mispresenting a tiny bit of something.

There is nothing to suggest that the crave for funding that you describe is going on, however the evidence that skeptics like Monkton are deliberately misrepresenting stuff could sink an island.

[The PIT]

PIT where have we been mislead ?

Again you are doing exactly what I described skeptics do in my most i.e mispresenting a tiny bit of something.

There is nothing to suggest that the crave for funding that you describe is going on, however the evidence that skeptics like Monkton are deliberately misrepresenting stuff could sink an island.

Alteration of data is misleading people. Lets make it simple. If I do a graph showing my car doing 0 - 60 in 10.2 seconds. I then realize I've claimed too have modded the car. I then alter the graph to show the car going 0 - 60 in 3 seconds to back up my claims of improved performance. I have misled you have I not.

Again if you haven't read or got the files you cannot comment as your speculating on the content.

[Iceberg]

Of course you can comment, I've read various things on the web, but never seen anything which categorically says that the data was deliberately manipulated to prove a enable a paper to reach a certain conclusion.

Feel free to prove something though.

[SteveB]

Of course you can comment, I've read various things on the web, but never seen anything which categorically says that the data was deliberately manipulated to prove a enable a paper to reach a certain conclusion.

Feel free to prove something though.

Do you feel that strongly that global warming is man made, that when something like this happens it doesn't put a small amount of doubt in your mind.

I have never believed global warming is man made, but if the reverse had happened, then I would bring my believe into question.

My point is, is that while I believe global warming is not man made, I am not blinkered in my believe as to dismiss any evidence that comes to light which goes against my believe.

Make no mistake, this is nothing other than damaging to the whole AWG agenda.

I wonder what the Chinese & Indian governments will make of it, as in my believe, that is why AWG was jumped on by the Western governments, to control the growth of these emerging super powers.

[VillagePlank]

I've just started looking. Leaky Integrator doesn't return any results .... so our secret is safe with us.

"Hide the Decline" is an interesting turn of phrase, and, I think may well be misinterpreted by some vehement sceptics, so I thought I'd put my thoughts out.

(i) The email with the phrase in is dated 1999. Nothing at all to do with the last ten years. Nothing

(ii) "the trick" is a phrase mathematicians and computer nerds use all the time to mean "something clever" - that's a neat trick etc etc.

I must report - no smoking gun so far found ...

[The PIT]

Of course you can comment, I've read various things on the web, but never seen anything which categorically says that the data was deliberately manipulated to prove a enable a paper to reach a certain conclusion.

Feel free to prove something though.

No you can't comment as you're merely speculating on edited versions on the web. That's why I downloaded the stuff too see myself. I can't post if for legal reasons.

The scary thing about this is is the number of people that won't move from their entrenched views. Anything that slightly hints of undermining their beliefs they round on it lack a pack of wolves.

Although climate science, well this bit of it has been discredited somewhat it doesn't mean it's all junk.

What it does mean that the data and methods need to be out in the public domain and they certainly do now.

Why should you be afraid of saying this is how i did it if you're one percent sure you're right.

[VillagePlank]

re: FOI

It seems that PJ was well prepared for any FOI requests given that in 2005, the alleged emails suggest he was already preparing to hide behind data agreements with suppliers, and, if that didn't work, the use of intellectual property rights (IPR) might work particularly with reference to "computer code". Why these people can't call it "source code" like everyone else is beyond me.

Bit naughty - ie it's a commercial conversation (who funds the UEA?) - but nothing outright unethical.

(EDIT - the source-code for the LI is thoroughly being re-written because in it's original form it's a pile of poo-poo, and I'd never ever let that out in the public domain precisely for that reason - it doesn't mean to say it doesn't work, just that the quality is poor)

Edited November 22, 2009 by VillagePlank

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

Currently doing a search looking for the term "sunspots" (yes, I really am that predictable) and I've come across an interesting one from 2005 regarding suggested tweaks to the AR4 prior to publication.

Hi CB,

Glad to know there are some others that are as predictable as me !!

I've been saying for years, to those that would listen, that it's the sun with it's spots, or lack of them that is a long term driver.

It's amazing what the difference in the meaning of a sentence is when you change 'THE' to 'A'. Politics seems to over rule all.

[johnholmes]

I've just started looking. Leaky Integrator doesn't return any results .... so our secret is safe with us.

"Hide the Decline" is an interesting turn of phrase, and, I think may well be misinterpreted by some vehement sceptics, so I thought I'd put my thoughts out.

(i) The email with the phrase in is dated 1999. Nothing at all to do with the last ten years. Nothing

(ii) "the trick" is a phrase mathematicians and computer nerds use all the time to mean "something clever" - that's a neat trick etc etc.

I must report - no smoking gun so far found ...

nice post VP

[The PIT]

I'll have a good look at the rest of the posts during this week. There is a lot too look at by the way.

[shoreham]

I have been following this story on a number of weather and news boards.

From what I can determine the most damaging item in the entire collection of hacked (or leaked ?) files is the HARRY_READ_ME.txt document. It is far more revealing than the emails about the state of research at the CRU.

This is a 194 KB text file describing in detail (including code extracts and lists of data readings) the trials and tribulations of the eponymous 'harry' trying to produce a new master database of readings from various weather stations. Despite the fact that the old master database appears to have been full of corrupt data it was still used as the basis for validating and incorporating new readings. As someone who works in IT this document reads like the real deal to me (ie if it is a forgery or has been amended then someone has gone to get the feel right). In some circumstances it looks as though the CRU has lost its original source material and had to reconstruct it. Given this situation it may explain why the they have been reluctant to provide its records for open peer review since that would expose many of the faults and inconsistencies. If this data was used as input to predictive models I would regard any output as being highly dubious.

Normally this sort of thing would just be a small storm in academia. Unfortunately, this is simply too important an issue with implications for housing, food, energy, economic and social policy effecting billions of people to allow this type of ropey data vetting to pass unchallenged. As so often happens in the world of learning I suspect that questions of jobs, careers, research grants, desire for acceptance by ones colleagues etc is playing a significant and not always benign role in how studies are carried out.

Edited November 22, 2009 by shoreham

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

Let me start this with a comment about my position on AGW.

I remember the original idea of us heading back to an ice age proposed by Professor Lamb, back in the 1970's, at the time, I followed that and was amazed to see how quickly the idea went from a new ice age to AGW. At the time, between 1995 and about 2004, I thought AGW was a viable hypothesis, since that time I've decided that there is too much focus on the role of CO2, and not enough on the role of Methane and water vapour.

I just wonder how much personal "Attachment" these scientists feel towards the idea of AGW. I also wonder whether in 50 or more years, when the current scientists are no longer on the scene, we'll be looking at the whole AGW saga as a bunch of scientists who took a political stance (that's political with a small 'p') on the role of CO2 within the atmosphere, perhaps just to contradict the orthodoxy of the day, Lamb's view that we were heading back to an ice age, that in turn was picked up by Politicians and used in Politics (with a big 'P') to change the way that populations behave.

I actually think that we need to split the whole AGW, Climate Change and 'Green' agenda's into 3 separate parts.

In reverse order

I truly believe that the population of this planet would benefit from embracing a 'Greener' lifestyle, we should, where possible, consume less and therefore we would waste less. That is, or at least should be totally divorced from any Climate Change or AGW debate. It there is an impact on CC or AGW from a greener lifestyle it should be beneficial, but CC and AGW should not be used as the stick to beat people into a greener lifestyle.

Climate Change, simple, it's always happened. Whether it's a long term slow process caused by mechanisms such as Continental drift, or whether there are step changes such as at the end of the last Ice Age, and the time following that when the Sahara and most of Northern Africa became a desert. We should take long term views on what mechanisms we understand and plan with them, not against them, but we should always be prepared for some variability.

AGW. For me, this still has to be proved, and is getting more difficult of the scientific/political consensus to justify as temperatures are almost certainly on the decline globally. We have, IMO, about 5 years before we really start to see the effects of the lack of Sunspots in Solar Cycle 24, in that time, the net long wave radiative balance will decrease the temperature of the planet by a couple of degrees and the oceans will be seen to be colder as a result.

Back on topic, although no one should condone the theft of the data from UEA, I find it incredible that long term climatic data can be declared as 'Commercially sensitive'. There are no companies that operate on financial strategies in excess of 50 years -- which is what climate data should be about -- so how can anyone claim commercial sensitivity?

Perhaps in 50 years the AGW grouping will be seen as the equivalent to to Catholic church at the time of Galileo

That's enough for now,

Mod's if you think this shouldn't be here please feel free to move it

[SteveB]

I don't know if this has been posted, but a report on the BBC website on the hacking.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm

[The PIT]

VP The question is whether by referring to "The trick" they actually mean altering the equation to get the desired result because they can't obtain it or just extending the existing formula. Either way it shouldn't really matter if the data and method is available as the results could be verified.

[jethro]

Can I just say, having looked around at other discussions on the net about this topic, it's a credit to you all that this hasn't descended into the food-fight evident elsewhere.

Grown ups, having grown up conversations :unsure:

[Slinky]

I don't know if this has been posted, but a report on the BBC website on the hacking.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm

I am shocked and to be honest, disgusted at the BBC's lack of coverage on this story.

I was not shocked however when this first came to my attention. Why anyone is surprised that this has happened is beyond me! Take a branch of science (i use the term "science" quite loosely) worth millions in research alone (disregard the billions made through advertising ect) of course there will be those that will modify the facts to fit, to achieve grants and funding. What shocks me is that this has not happen sooner then now. You also have to consider those that are not doing it for money but have been religiously arguing for years that we are doomed, seeing new data apposing their theories and tweaking said data to fall in place. Again with the vast amount of monies the vast amounts of ego flying about this "science" are you really surprised?

I am not, and I sit back and chuckle :unsure:

Edited November 22, 2009 by Slinky

[jethro]

But is there any evidence of anyone fiddling anything to get more grant money? You've got to have supporting evidence if you accuse anyone of foul play, a hunch may be good enough for Columbo but it's not good enough in real life.

[Slinky]

But is there any evidence of anyone fiddling anything to get more grant money? You've got to have supporting evidence if you accuse anyone of foul play, a hunch may be good enough for Columbo but it's not good enough in real life.

Hi Jethro, I was not trying to state that this instance was anything to do with grant money or indeed passing any comment on this incident. I was trying to point out that when things, in this instance an idea or theory, are worth a lot of money there are always those (always) that will go to great lengths to earn what they can out of it. Again if your reputation or ego is threatened, there are some that will go to great lengths to hide and minimize that damage....

I was just surprised that others seemed shocked that this has "possibly" happened!

[Devonian]

I am shocked and to be honest, disgusted at the BBC's lack of coverage on this story.

I was not shocked however when this first came to my attention. Why anyone is surprised that this has happened is beyond me! Take a branch of science (i use the term "science" quite loosely) worth millions in research alone (disregard the billions made through advertising ect) of course there will be those that will modify the facts to fit, to achieve grants and funding. What shocks me is that this has not happen sooner then now. You also have to consider those that are not doing it for money but have been religiously arguing for years that we are doomed, seeing new data apposing their theories and tweaking said data to fall in place. Again with the vast amount of monies the vast amounts of ego flying about this "science" are you really surprised?

I am not, and I sit back and chuckle :unsure:

You're assuming guilt - civilised societies don't do that. How would you like it if a bunch of politically motivated activists attacked your integrity by stealing you correspondence and then misinterpreting it?

Or, to take your line of argument, why do you trust sceptical scientists funded by right wing political organisations or oil companies? I don't see it fit to suggest they are thus tainted - it's better to point out sceptic science's, blog science's, failings than to play the man.

I've meet Dr Phil Jones he is a scientists of the highest integrity and YOU should be ashamed of what you said of people like him.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I have serious doubts about this "twisting results to get grant funding" idea. If a piece of work raises strong conclusions then it's a nice claim to fame for those who worked on it. If not, it opens the door for more work and more funding- so it's more like a tradeoff. Btw, if AGW was shown to be being seriously overestimated there would still be a need for research into the natural forcings on climate particularly as they are less well understood than the anthropogenic ones.

Good post above by Iceberg about how some scientists may want to hide aspects of their work from the public because of the likelihood of some of the sceptics taking it out of context to grind axes. There are certainly issues with that, but I think it's a better reason for it than the fight to protect intellectual property to the max, and illustrates that some of the sceptics are merely out to undermine the climate scientists. Which is a shame, because many other sceptics are sceptical for perfectly good reasons and are happy to play an active role in furthering the debate.

[Slinky]

You're assuming guilt - civilised societies don't do that. How would you like it if a bunch of politically motivated activists attacked your integrity by stealing you correspondence and then misinterpreting it?

Or, to take your line of argument, why do you trust sceptical scientists funded by right wing political organisations or oil companies? I don't see it fit to suggest they are thus tainted - it's better to point out sceptic science's, blog science's, failings than to play the man.

I've meet Dr Phil Jones he is a scientists of the highest integrity and YOU should be ashamed of what you said of people like him.

Pmsl

why so defensive?

To be fair to me I did not pass any comment on this incident whatsoever, or indeed accuse anyone of any wrong doing ?

You know nothing of me, why do you think i trust "sceptical scientists funded by right wing political organisations or oil companies"? Are you not jumping to conclusions?

Just for the record, I dont!

Why should I be ashamed? I have not passed judgement on Dr Phil Jones, i know nothing of the man, and nor do I care whether or not there is any guilt to be had.

Sorry for any misunderstandings though....

I have serious doubts about this "twisting results to get grant funding" idea. If a piece of work raises strong conclusions then it's a nice claim to fame for those who worked on it. If not, it opens the door for more work and more funding- so it's more like a tradeoff. Btw, if AGW was shown to be being seriously overestimated there would still be a need for research into the natural forcings on climate particularly as they are less well understood than the anthropogenic ones.

Good fair point TWS :unsure: Still I think there are those that would push through things for ease to get said funding. What about the reputation ego side of it, if someone has spent 10 years arguing till they are blue in the face, and lets face it people are passionate about this subject, religiously so.........

Edited November 22, 2009 by Slinky