Nov 29 2009, 04:27 PM
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49
I notice there I no threads in this sub-forum specifically about the huge scandal that is sweeping the world while being totally ignored in the mainstream media (with the exception of Fox).
Here's a good read ...
Glenn Harlan Reynolds: Climategate denial foundering on army of Davids
By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds
Sunday Reflections Contributor
November 29, 2009
Last week a hacker -- or, perhaps more likely, an inside "whistleblower" -- leaked huge amounts of data from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in Britain. The leaks demonstrated that many "insider" scientists were conspiring to block publication of dissenting views in peer-reviewed journals, while suggesting that there was data-fudging, and deliberate evasion of Freedom Of Information requests, perhaps even including deliberate destruction of data.
Worse still, the computer models themselves appear to be jerry-rigged and deeply flawed. As Declan McCullagh reported on the CBS News website, independent programmers were appalled:
“As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.
“One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: ‘I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources.’
“Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: ‘Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!’ and ‘APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.’ Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: ‘Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!’”
None of this inspires confidence. As Megan McArdle noted on the Atlantic Monthly's website: "The IPCC report, which is the most widely relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs of global warming. If those costs are unreliable, then any cost-benefit analysis is totally worthless. Obviously, this also casts their reluctance to conform with FOI requests in a slightly different light.”
Yes, they're acting as if they've got something to hide. But the establishment's response has been to ignore the problem and hope it goes away.
Climate Czar Carol Browner responded: "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."
The problem is that the "2,500 scientists" she refers to were relying on data and models that, it now appears, may have been fake. Garbage in, garbage out. Plenty of scientists believed in Piltdown Man, too, for a while.
Big media are downplaying the problem too -- while Declan McCullagh has done great reporting on CBS's website, the network's broadcast coverage has been quite different. Likewise, the New York Times and Washington Post, while covering the matter, have downplayed its significance.
It seems clear that the Obama administration, and the folks in traditional media, think this is a story better ignored.
It won't work. While Big Media folks ignore the story, the alternate media are all over it...
Jan 10 2010, 09:34 PM
Group: Active Forum Pilot
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107
Omega you put way too much faith in forecasts, they're not facts they are in fact forecasts based on computer models. As science goes these sorts of things are used primarily as tools used in the process of forming a hypothesis, the science comes after and is considered to be the actual part that matters by most people. This is where the theory of AGW falls down, we here have said it time and time again, the science as in observation and physical experiment have completely failed to back up the hypothesis seen in the models.
What science there was in support of AGW was being conducted by the hockeystick team from the CRU, a small group of scientists who colluded to destroy data, to ignore freedom of information requestsand basically bullshit everyone into being believers. A little hockey team who reviewed each others papers and were in positions in which they had access to policy makers and actual temperature data. For the uninitiated here is a video where Dr. Tim Ball explains it more clearly than I can possibly type out as it's just an information overload. Anything I do type will just be subject to snark anyway.
Jan 11 2010, 11:37 AM
Group: Valued Member
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274
What science there was in support of AGW was being conducted by the hockeystick team from the CRU, a small group of scientists who colluded to destroy data, to ignore freedom of information requestsand basically bullshit everyone into being believers.
And your source for this is the likes of Tim Ball, he who vacillates about revealing his true academic qualifications and experience.
Don't be such a chump and believe everything that churns out of CATO, CEI, Heartland etc. and their agents.
Do you realize how many different studies using other forms of proxy data backed up the trend in Mann's 'hockey stick'?
No data was destroyed.
Reasonable Freedom of Information requests were not ignored.
Here we have some info:
First from here
The CRU hack - comments page 4
20 November 2009 at 5:07 PMGavin-
When you say that this site is moderated only for noise, why have so many people including myself been censored when they ask a simple questions like….
Where can I find the raw data that the deniers keep claiming is being kept from them under the FOIA? Do they have rights to the data? Are the claims that the temperature data has been lost true?
Will this comment be classified as “noise”?
[Response: Claims that data has been destroyed or lost are untrue. Claims that there is no access to the raw temperature data are untrue. There is nothing in any of the CRU archives that is particularly special or noteworthy and that isn't mostly available to anyone already via NOAA. They got access to some extra data that some National Met. Services normally only sell, or was given with the express proviso that it not be passed on to third parties. CRU is not at fault for honoring those agreements - even if everyone wishes they didn't exist. The harassment of CRU people for doing so has been twisted into the meme you are channeling, that somehow they are hiding something nefarious. They aren't, but it might not be surprising that they become aggrieved when people keep repeating that falsehood. - gavin]
Where’s the data?
one of those making a noise about missing data was Steve McIntyre and it turns out he had the data, that he was pontificating about:
McIntyre had the data all along
Posted on: October 8, 2009 3:22 AM, by Tim Lambert (added emphasis mine)
One of McIntyre's repeated complaints about Briffa was that he refused to release his data. For example, in his post Fresh Data on Briffa's Yamal #1:
A few days ago, I became aware that the long-sought Yamal measurement data url had materialized at Briffa's website - after many years of effort on my part and nearly 10 years after its original use in Briffa (2000).
I am very grateful to the editors of Phil Trans B (Roy Soc) - at long last, a journal editor stood up to CRU, requiring Briffa to archive supporting data.
This got turned into statements like this one, from Tom Fuller:
The data, which the scientists had refused to release for a decade, came to light when the Royal Society of London demanded they archive their findings before publishing their latest paper.
But now McIntyre has admitted that he had the data all along. The data wasn't Briffa's and back in 2006, Briffa referred McIntyre to the original source:
Steve these data were produced by Swedish and Russian colleagues - will pass on your message to them] cheers, Keith
When a reader asked him why he didn't just get the data from the original sources, McIntyre dropped a bombshell:
In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004.
He had it all along and despite writing thousands and thousands of words about Yamal somehow somehow failed to mention this until now. Truly I am in awe of McIntyre's ability to make mountains out of molehills.
The only substantive point that McIntyre made was the sample size was small, but Deep Climate reports that you get the same results with a larger sample:
Now comes new evidence that McIntyre's accusations were completely false. And not only that, one of the Russian researchers who actually control the raw tree-ring data that McIntyre was mistakenly hounding Briffa for, has apparently confirmed that utilization of a newer more complete Yamal data set has no substantial effect on Briffa's Yamal temperature reconstruction.
Lastly I note that Andrew Bolt back from vacation has used Yamal to declare that:
Belief in man-made global warming will soon be laughed out of existence.
For more McIntyreisms:
McIntyre article list
and please note this one:
Mcintyre misunderstood somehow. Yet again.
A recent post by Steve McIntyre was widely interpreted as proving that global warming was a big hoax. McIntyre claims that he was misunderstood. How could this have happened yet again?
I bet you won't see any of that running through the denier echo chamber.
There is evidence that McIntyre bombarded climate scientists repeatedly with slightly amended FOI requests. What was he trying to do - hinder these scientists as another delaying tactic on the action that will eventually have to be taken?
There is a pattern of obfuscation and confusion emerging but do you now see from whence it is coming.
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 21st May 2013 - 03:55 PM|