eric
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by eric on Nov 21, 2009 16:44:43 GMT
Steve,
I think all of our focus is on what is the best theory of climate forcing and how does the data fit in with the various theories. But to assess that you have to have confidence in the data and the temperature reconstructions. I think these emails should motivate a much broader swath of the climate science community to stop pushing back against people that cast a critical eye towards climate statistics and instead join in their pursuit of an open and well audited climate record.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 21, 2009 16:45:40 GMT
How the heck can anyone defend the FOI evasion??? In a digital age there is NO EXCUSE! They MUST have the relevant data stored in some sort of semi-organized manner to have used it in the first place or archive it. I think we need to distinguish between the precise FOI requests we are talking about re my post above. In the case of the deleted emails we are talking about an FOI request for IPCC related correspondence (i'll have to look for the specific FOI request to see what it specifically demanded). This didn't concern data, but email correspondence.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 21, 2009 16:47:25 GMT
I have never seen "science" done by hiding data, deleting emails and using every trick up my sleeve to get the "desired" results. This is unadulterated fraudulent behavior driven by money from grants or worse. These people lost there collective way. Bunker mentality coupled with support their lifestyle. With lives and financial futures on the line I have never seen this kind of behavior in my 45 years in technical fields. Maybe it is seen as OK in non technical fields but I doubt even that.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 21, 2009 16:53:33 GMT
I have never seen "science" done by hiding data, deleting emails and using every trick up my sleeve to get the "desired" results. I've never seen so many people willing to misinterpret emails before. Take this one which a skeptic presented to me as evidence of fraud: "Keith, Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I’ll send it to you. I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is. Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I’d be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations. Yeah, I doubt I’ll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I’d like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though. Cheers, Gary Gary Funkhouser" I have bolded the same parts they bolded. Do you not see a possible problem in the skeptic's interpretation of this email?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 21, 2009 17:10:24 GMT
I have never seen "science" done by hiding data, deleting emails and using every trick up my sleeve to get the "desired" results. I've never seen so many people willing to misinterpret emails before. Take this one which a skeptic presented to me as evidence of fraud: "Keith, Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I’ll send it to you. I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is. Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I’d be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations. Yeah, I doubt I’ll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I’d like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though. Cheers, Gary Gary Funkhouser" I have bolded the same parts they bolded. Do you not see a possible problem in the skeptic's interpretation of this email? SoCold: What this e-mail is showing it that he is trying to "milk it" to prove a pre-conceived idea. You don't adjust things......ah shoot. I don't know if you will understand the implications at all. You are in full defensive mode, rather than asking for exacting science. I expected more from you. But, saying that, next time you are in my neck of the woods, let's go out for a beer.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 21, 2009 17:18:06 GMT
When someone is trying to "milk" something out of data one has to be very careful that the one is not looking at the results of the math not the data. What has been shown with the "team" that they have "milked" data and indeed shown only the math. White noise in hockey sticks out. The game is in using impressive math that bewilders the uneducated, leaving must be true. This is deceit in its worst form, educated people whom have lost their moral compass. From my perspective it is OK to have your own religious beliefs but to pass off these beliefs as science while taking grants is immoral. Maybe in today's world its OK behavior, but I hope that it is not.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 21, 2009 17:55:29 GMT
When someone is trying to "milk" something out of data one has to be very careful that the one is not looking at the results of the math not the data. What has been shown with the "team" that they have "milked" data and indeed shown only the math. Is he simply trying to "milk" information out of data though? That would be an honest context. A few weeks ago I had some trouble and ultimately failed in getting consistent performance statistics out of an application. I could have used similar words like "I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that". That wouldn't mean I was trying to get a certain result, only that I was trying to get a result at all. All you've essentially argued in respect of this email is that because you already have a belief that scientists are committing fraud therefore this email is evidence of fraud. This seems to be what the allegations are based on by others too. It's not good enough to constitute actual evidence.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 21, 2009 17:57:46 GMT
SoCold: What this e-mail is showing it that he is trying to "milk it" to prove a pre-conceived idea. There is another possibility that he is trying to get a chronology or something out of the data, but it's too noisy and he can't get anything statistically significant. Ie the data is so bad that no matter what he tries he can't extract anything useful from it. Or something like that. It could also be fraud, but it's not the only possibility and in my opinion it's the least likely of the two.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 21, 2009 18:08:01 GMT
How the heck can anyone defend the FOI evasion??? In a digital age there is NO EXCUSE! They MUST have the relevant data stored in some sort of semi-organized manner to have used it in the first place or archive it. I think we need to distinguish between the precise FOI requests we are talking about re my post above. In the case of the deleted emails we are talking about an FOI request for IPCC related correspondence (i'll have to look for the specific FOI request to see what it specifically demanded). This didn't concern data, but email correspondence. I think it all depends on the content of the emails - we are not talking about planning for auntie Flo's birthday party here. Some of these look like collusion to resist valid peer review and to set up rubber stamp peer review. These are definitely relevant and the response to the FOI request was not "these are private" - it was another email out saying delete the emails which implies that the author of the request to delete was aware that these emails could become public and would be embarrassing at least and probably cause people to question the ethics of the originator and recipients. There is NO excuse whatsoever for not publishing the base data immediately on request, it should have been in the public domain in any case. The manipulations were used to build a case from the data using the 'standing' of HadCRU' - trust us we are a climate research center' to say to the politicians its urgent that you shut down these industries. So again in that case they should have published their algorithms and reasons for using them these are every bit as public domain as the data as the work was funded by the government. It may be unfair - but if someone tries to hide something - the implication is that they have something to hide. That only excites curiosity into what they are trying to hide and why they are trying to hide it. If the AGW case is so totally unanswerably strong then publication of the data and the processing on that data would not be a problem: it isn't unanswerable and so it was a problem to CRU to publish.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 21, 2009 18:08:47 GMT
SoCold: What this e-mail is showing it that he is trying to "milk it" to prove a pre-conceived idea. There is another possibility that he is trying to get a chronology or something out of the data, but it's too noisy and he can't get anything statistically significant. Ie the data is so bad that no matter what he tries he can't extract anything useful from it. Or something like that. It could also be fraud, but it's not the only possibility and in my opinion it's the least likely of the two. I don't believe it is outright fraud...let's be clear on that. Very poor sciencetific methodoly...yes. Trying to abridge the data to fit a preconcieved result? Yes... And this is human nature. That is impossible to get away from. He believes something so his analysis is screwed to that end. That is not fraud. I have stated in numerous posts in the past that I can see shoddy science. I am not a scientist, only a farmer. I will state tho, if I can see it, so can others. IF, however, you don't want to see it....that is your choice. Once again, one MUST think outside of the box. There are manyyyy manyyyyyy things happening in climate that we don't have a clue about why. This co2 crap is overwhelming the need to find causes....as is admitted in at least one e-mail.....that they don't know why the warming stopped. I don't think anyone "knows" why it started to be very frank. There are hypothosis, which have not even graduated to theory. That is the crux of this issue. Also......it is very plain to see that the FOI act has been violated. At least, in the standards set by US Law. There will be repercussions to this fact .
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 21, 2009 18:17:55 GMT
It took Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick considerable effort to show the math behind Mann's hockey stick was flawed. It took effort again to show that Briffa's tree was the dominate tree of the Yamal series. The grafting of the thermometer records onto proxy data was just a trick. Consistent behavior to "prove" a point using fudged science is not OK in my book. I understand failure when doing technical things, but it is the analysis of the failure that counts. I do not ascribe to "milking" data. When doing capsule reentry calculations I did not "milk" the data as burning someone to a crisp would be the result! I do not "milk" or trick the data when processing financial transactions as it is someone else's money. If I was doing climate research I would not "milk" the data. Accuracy counts. Reputability counts.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Nov 21, 2009 18:26:48 GMT
socold, Please. You are embarrassing yourself. Any reasonable person reading these e-mails should substitute 'personal investment money' for 'climate science', and then ask themselves: Do these e-mails reflect what I would find acceptable in a team of people managing my money? If a major mutual fund company was investing money like this, and playing with their reports and manipulating the auditing process like they clearly were to the peer review process, criminal indictments would soon follow.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Nov 21, 2009 18:28:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by william on Nov 21, 2009 18:29:17 GMT
I understand the motivation in creating the hockey stick and its prominent display in Wikipedia in articles such as the Little Ice Age. The CO2 AWG hypothesis is being used as a means to end. If the Medieval Warm period was as warm as the late 20th century then the 20th century warming could be due to a different mechanism than CO2. The problem from an environmental and third world standpoint is limiting CO2 has no benefit based on the science. I.e. The real issue is habitat conservation, population control, and energy efficiency. Increases of CO2 are beneficial to the biosphere. The problem from a climate change standpoint is the planet is about to abruptly cool, as what is currently happening, is the same as what happened when there were cyclic cooling events in the past. Recent weather changes match the observations of the Little Ice age. If the planet cools what will be reaction? Will the CO2 AWG supporters change their mind, look for methods to warm the planet? Public policy needs to be based on real science which is agenda neutral. www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/ray_surge.htmlen.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon-14_with_activity_labels.pngen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Nov 21, 2009 18:34:30 GMT
But the way I see it a lot of skeptics are not realizing that they are demanding a change to the process, it's as if they think the process already works how they think it should work, and that therefore these scientists are failing to follow some scientific process by not releasing intermediate steps and source code. And here I thought that reproducibility was a key aspect of science.
|
|