CRU E-mails and data

[The PIT]

hey up slinky.

Academia you're right we shouldn't be surprised. Like when one prof won't take any notice of another prof because he got his/her qualifications at the wrong University regardless of the quality of work.

Too Devonian. As too meeting people briefly this doesn't give you an insight as too what type of person they are. Only their actual deeds do this. Sometimes even knowing people for years you don't find the darker side of people until much later.

Indeed the constant jumping on anyone who shows possible or imagined dissent is one thing that stifles argument and movement forward in any field. It also shows a lack of confidence in ones work or someones elses work.

[VillagePlank]

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.

All science is in a state of flux. That is, it is always subject to change. That is the essence of the matter at hand.

The guys and gals who have had their private correspondence disseminated across the web for every Tom, Dick, and Harry, to have a comment on is most unfortunate - indeed, it will, in the long run, serve to discredit the 'real' sceptics who simply don't subscribe to wholly or fully to the CO₂ hypothesis (for whatever reason) and are actively searching for alternatives. I count myself in that latter group, as well as a few others around here.

It isn't about point-scoring, it isn't about personality - and it certainly is not about what someone has said (or written) that they always expected to remain private. The point being is that these people might well have been exploring ideas over the email medium, and for any of us, without the full-thread including seminars, telephone calls, minutes of meetings etc - which are not in the public domains - to come to some conclusion such as "they can't obtain the result they are looking for" or similar seems to me to be erroneous logic. I've looked, and I can't find any smoking gun that would serve to reach such a conclusion.

So, as I've already said, if something is found that might point to some inkling of foul-play then is up to an independent committee, perhaps government appointed, to investigate given the gravity of the results that are published and the affect it will have on all of us and our children.

It is not for us to conclude - because it is plainly clear that all the evidence is not to hand.

(And in any regard "the trick" means someone being clever and not much else)

Edited November 22, 2009 by VillagePlank

[SteveB]

You're assuming guilt - civilized 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 sceptically scientists funded by right wing political organizations 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.

I assume by putting a question mark after misinterpreting it, that is still open to question?.

And yes why so defensive, surely if global warming as been blown out of proportion that is a good thing, & we are not all going to drown from rising sea levels.

With all this alarmist reports such as 50 years to save the world, or 6c increase in x amount of years is over the top, then we can get on with cleaning up our act, and looking into renew ables with a little less haste, and make better judgments on where we go from here.

[Slinky]

ello PIT glad to see you on here still!

Quote - "Academia you're right we shouldn't be surprised. Like when one prof won't take any notice of another prof because he got his/her qualifications at the wrong University regardless of the quality of work"

Well said :unsure:

I must confess I didn't expect to get jumped on so quickly returning to this forum, but I must keep in mind how heated these sort of threads can get.

[Devonian]

hey up slinky.

Academia you're right we shouldn't be surprised. Like when one prof won't take any notice of another prof because he got his/her qualifications at the wrong University regardless of the quality of work.

Too Devonian. As too meeting people briefly this doesn't give you an insight as too what type of person they are. Only their actual deeds do this. Sometimes even knowing people for years you don't find the darker side of people until much later.

Indeed the constant jumping on anyone who shows possible or imagined dissent is one thing that stifles argument and movement forward in any field. It also shows a lack of confidence in ones work or someones elses work.

I post to this thread because I don't like the idea that for some people it seems science may be 'advanced' by stealing peoples private correspondence and going through it looking for juicy misinterpretable section with which to attack the characters of said scientists. My bad?

Oh, and please don't tell me about the character of a man you've never met who can only be discredited based on n'th hand claptrap from blogs. OK :unsure:

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

It's now strongly suspected to be a leak rather than a "hack". All passwords to the CRU database were revoked shortly after the news broke.

Let's also note that only a selected portion of the emails have been released.

So, theory goes that the leaker may actually have deliberately withheld the other portion that completes the FOI data set, until that data is officially released under the Freedom of Informationa Acts?

Or maybe the leaker or hacker (cannot be ruled out yet) will "drip feed" us more emails next week. That would disprove the above theory.

[Iceberg]

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.

Hi, NNW, I am not trying to take anyway away from what a very good post. But why do you think that global temperatures are certaintly on the decline ? I've tried to put alot of work into this and can find no evidence.

surely if global warming as been blown out of proportion that is a good thing, & we are not all going to drown from rising sea levels.

It is a good thing, but what has this to do with anything as nothing suggests that GW has been blown out of proportion.?

[SteveB]

Hi, NNW, I am not trying to take anyway away from what a very good post. But why do you think that global temperatures are certaintly on the decline ? I've tried to put alot of work into this and can find no evidence.

It is a good thing, but what has this to do with anything as nothing suggests that GW has been blown out of proportion.?

GW contributed to by humans

[The PIT]

Oh, and please don't tell me about the character of a man you've never met who can only be discredited based on n'th hand claptrap from blogs. OK

How do you know I haven't. Anyway I haven't and the point I made was valid which you avoided of course.

Nothing sinister about passwords being changed. Of course you change all passwords after the event it's common sense. Financial information may also be on the server in question. Want your bank emptying. Noooo.

[PersianPaladin]

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.

Well said.

I also want to point out that there are continuous efforts to block progress on the climate-change issue by those linked to the big energy companies. Do people really think the big corporate interests (that use politicians as their vehicles) want change? For starters, Afganistan was primarily invaded in order to secure a huge natural gas pipeline from Uzbekistan, through Tajikistan, Afghanistan and towards India (according to the former British ambassador who mentions it in this video): -

Edited November 22, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[Devonian]

How do you know I haven't.

A guess, and right it seems.

Anyway I haven't and the point I made was valid which you avoided of course.

Which was, I think, to assume guilt, or rather not to assume innocence until guilt was proven? Or something else?

Pmsl

why so defensive?

Defensive? No, angry that the private lives and words of a lot of first class scientists are being abused by politicing blogs. Do I 'PMSL' about that? No.

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

No? Then what did "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" refer to? Not climate science?

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!

My bad, the 'why' shouldn't be there, so 'do you trust sceptical scientists funded by right wing political organisations or oil companies?'.

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.

So, again, in a thread about e mails lifted from the CRU, a part of climate science people often say is driven by money and research grants, when you said "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" you were not thinking of climate science? Good, then my bad for thinking you might mean said

Edited November 22, 2009 by Devonian

[The PIT]

Devonian how long did you meet the honarable gentleman for??

I've also met Paul Hudson Micheal Fish etc doesn't mean I know them at all does it.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Good fair point TWS 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.........

I don't see the latter as an argument for the "we want to mislead in order to get funding" position? It's more as it is expressed- a reputation/ego thing, where it is difficult, after having held a view for many years, to accept that it might be wrong.

Researchers generally don't get funding according to the results they obtain from their work, they get funding according to the topic they are proposing and its chances of furthering scientific understanding, and the track record of those who are going to be doing the work- i.e. they get funding before they do the work, not after. The last bit is the bit that can potentially lead to some pro-AGW bias (sceptics having to work harder to get funding than those who follow the scientific consensus). But it doesn't support the idea that scientists push through things to get funding because if they're doing the work, and it's funded, they will have the funding in the first place.

There are quite a number of peer-reviewed papers out there that question the extent of the human contribution to global warming, and while the policymakers may sometimes be guilty of glossing over them in order to make the issue seem more settled than it really is, the papers do exist and the people who do the work do get funded.

[Slinky]

No? Then what did "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" refer to? Not climate science?

Are you telling me that you truly beilive that there are no bad apples in climate science............?

My bad, the 'why' shouldn't be there, so 'do you trust sceptical scientists funded by right wing political organisations or oil companies?'

I will put my 'why' whereever I like To answer your question though, no I do not trust them for the very same reasons.

So, again, in a thread about e mails lifted from the CRU, a part of climate science people often say is driven by money and research grants, when you said "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" you were not thinking of climate science? Good, then my bad for thinking you might mean said

You got me there lol Maybe I should of worded it better so apologies for that, I did not intend to insult your friend. I was not stating anyone/everyone in climate science was corrupt, just trying to get across that its a very high probability that there are such people in all kinds of organizations. (Just take the expenses scandal as an example)

Again sorry to upset you

I don't see the latter as an argument for the "we want to mislead in order to get funding" position? It's more as it is expressed- a reputation/ego thing, where it is difficult, after having held a view for many years, to accept that it might be wrong.

Researchers generally don't get funding according to the results they obtain from their work, they get funding according to the topic they are proposing and its chances of furthering scientific understanding, and the track record of those who are going to be doing the work- i.e. they get funding before they do the work, not after. The last bit is the bit that can potentially lead to some pro-AGW bias (sceptics having to work harder to get funding than those who follow the scientific consensus). But it doesn't support the idea that scientists push through things to get funding because if they're doing the work, and it's funded, they will have the funding in the first place.

There are quite a number of peer-reviewed papers out there that question the extent of the human contribution to global warming, and while the policymakers may sometimes be guilty of glossing over them in order to make the issue seem more settled than it really is, the papers do exist and the people who do the work do get funded.

I see your point TWS. I must admit to sometimes wondering how researchers going down a different line to AGW get on with getting funded and how seriously their work is regarded upon completion, not having a background in meteorology I can only speculate as to how their projects are taken. I would think (again speculation) that the reputation/ego issue is more common, i know I would not be happy after years and years arguing a case only for someone to come along and say its wrong!

[laserguy]

Hacked? Leaked? I don't know,but they've been rumbled for sure. The recriminations are going to be marvellous. Where's me popcorn?

[Devonian]

Devonian how long did you meet the honarable gentleman for??

I've also met Paul Hudson Micheal Fish etc doesn't mean I know them at all does it.

Indeed, you met them and you can't judge them, yet people expect to judge someone from e mails????

[shoreham]

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.

Surely that raises the whole debate about whether intellectual property rights and pure science are really compatible.

If the research is robust it should stand on its own merits under open peer review so any weaknesses or faults can be spotted and weeded out. It is the whole argument behind open source software development. The more people who can carry out the verification then the less risk that vested interests of whatever ilk can hijack the debate.

[The PIT]

Indeed, you met them and you can't judge them, yet people expect to judge someone from e mails????

Skillfully dodging the question so I ask again how long did you meet him for??

[Thundery wintry showers]

Surely that raises the whole debate about whether intellectual property rights and pure science are really compatible.

It does indeed. As with most things I think it's a case of "everything in moderation"- I think there are areas where a bit of IP protection doesn't hurt anyone, but if it's taken too far (as it increasingly is nowadays, IMHO) then it starts seriously interfering with science. There is a fierce debate going on about this issue within the ranks of academia at the moment. Plagiarism is another related issue- if we make work freely available it is still important to make sure that those who originally carried out the work get cited properly if others use the work (for instance, if we take my personal weather records as an example, while I'm OK with people copying/using them I wouldn't be happy if others started passing them off as their own).

If the research is robust it should stand on its own merits under open peer review so any weaknesses or faults can be spotted and weeded out. It is the whole argument behind open source software development. The more people who can carry out the verification then the less risk that vested interests of whatever ilk can hijack the debate.

Yes, and this would address the "cliques" issue with peer review that I mentioned earlier. One area which I think should close "peer review" to some extent, though, is that the peer reviewers should continue to have to have some good scientific credentials- if we get any old Tom, Dick or Harry peer-reviewing stuff then the results may not be very pretty.

[The PIT]

Yes, and this would address the "cliques" issue with peer review that I mentioned earlier. One area which I think should close "peer review" to some extent, though, is that the peer reviewers should continue to have to have some good scientific credentials- if we get any old Tom, Dick or Harry peer-reviewing stuff then the results may not be very pretty.

Certainly would make a mess of peer reviewing. The question is how would you ensure a selection of neutral peer reviewers.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Unfortunately, that's the main problem we have under the current system... I think widening the scope of potential peer reviewers would reduce its extent but I don't think there is any easy solution- the wider we "cast the net", the less likely it is that the reviewers will form cliques, but the more risk there is of us including reviewers who may not be entirely suited to the subject.

For instance it's not enough having good scientific credentials in itself- put it this way, no climate scientist is going to want his or her work peer-reviewed by someone with excellent qualifications in biology but with precious little background in climate science.

The peer review system is flawed but unfortunately I can't think of any superior alternatives. (For that matter I'm yet to come across any review system that isn't flawed, yet it is usually better than having none at all).

[The PIT]

Unfortunately, that's the main problem we have under the current system... I think widening the scope of potential peer reviewers would reduce its extent but I don't think there is any easy solution- the wider we "cast the net", the less likely it is that the reviewers will form cliques, but the more risk there is of us including reviewers who may not be entirely suited to the subject.

For instance it's not enough having good scientific credentials in itself- put it this way, no climate scientist is going to want his or her work peer-reviewed by someone with excellent qualifications in biology but with precious little background in climate science.

The peer review system is flawed but unfortunately I can't think of any superior alternatives. (For that matter I'm yet to come across any review system that isn't flawed, yet it is usually better than having none at all).

Unless you have a panel of four and a neutral chairman. Two sceptics and Two pro's. However the paper may then never get published if it's anything like these forums as this discussion would go round and round in circles.

[Paul]

Unless you have a panel of four and a neutral chairman. Two sceptics and Two pro's. However the paper may then never get published if it's anything like these forums as this discussion would go round and round in circles.

Surely when it comes to science everyone should be a sceptic? Isn't that the point - you test a theory to attempt to prove it and until that point you remain sceptical of it?

I'm talking generally here btw across all sciences and not using the word 'sceptic' in the way it's sometimes bandied about in these threads!!

[Methuselah]

You're right, Paul. Science is all about sceptical enquiry...Refusal to accept x even to be a possibility is not scepticism.

[The PIT]

Surely when it comes to science everyone should be a sceptic? Isn't that the point - you test a theory to attempt to prove it and until that point you remain sceptical of it?

I'm talking generally here btw across all sciences and not using the word 'sceptic' in the way it's sometimes bandied about in these threads!!

Well it's clear that in this case some of peer reviewers were chosen as they knew "what to say".

You're right, Paul. Science is all about sceptical enquiry...Refusal to accept x even to be a possibility is not scepticism.

You mean "should be about". Sadly humans aren't ideal in this aspect and can allow there judgements to be clouded at times.