Post by socold on Dec 5, 2011 2:12:29 GMT
wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/04/the-contextual-collection-of-climategate-2-0-quotes/
"Jeff suggested I repost this collection of quotes in the words of climate scientists as discovered in Climategate 2.0 context. He’s done a great job at collecting the relevant context."
But turns out all he's done is list a load of out-of-context quotes and put the email number next to them with the shortest most useless summary imaginable...the first comment makes the obvious point and Anthony doesn't even try to defend the post.
Anyway one of the more popular quotes comes up yet again:
"The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid what’s included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change."
Apparently this is a big deal - even the hacker picked this one out for the Readme (although omitted the second sentence).
"<4755> Overpeck: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's included and what is left out."
The quote doesn't tell us why Overpeck is recommending things be left out of the IPCC report. I guess the ClimateGate 2.0 view of this is that it constitutes proof that Overpeck wants to omit science from the IPCC report that doesn't fit a per-determined political "main message" that probably has something to do with communism and a World Government.
But the only context Jeff provides for the quote is a rather lame "Johnathan Overpeck – Picking what goes into IPCC AR4"
Proper context comes from the actual email:
ukginger.net/FOI2009/FOIA/mail/1103236623.txt
"Regarding 6.5.4 - I hope thingy and Keith will have jump in to help you lead, and I can too. I think the hardest, yet most important part, is to boil the section down to 0.5 pages. In looking over your good outline, sent back on Oct. 17 ... you cover ALOT. The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid what's included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to have solid data - not inconclusive information."
So more context makes it clear the climategate 2.0 view of the email is wrong. This decision to leave stuff out is because there is too much information to fit into just 0.5 pages of space. And deciding what your message is and then writing around that is exactly what you do in that situation.
The hacker obviously bothered to read this email, so they read the proper context. Why did they cherrypick this one particular sentence then?
"<4755> Overpeck: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's included and what is left out."
The inescapable conclusion is that the hacker is acting dishonestly and deliberately extracted a bad sounding sentence from an email they knew was fine. In fact the "bad sound" is actually an apt description of what the Hacker has done. The hacker decided on the main message they wanted to give and used that to guide what sentences to include in the readme from Overpeck's email and what to leave out.
Jeff Id has supposedly read this email too. Yet he still decides to present those two sentences in isolation without any context other than merely "Johnathan Overpeck – Picking what goes into IPCC AR4" as if he didn't read anything else in the email that might be worth mentioning...
In general if the analysis of the emails wasn't so utterly biased and incompetent that bad-sounding quote would not still doing the rounds.
Also maybe you guessed from the URL above, but this email isn't even new. It was released in the first batch of emails back in 2009. Guess it was so important that no-one noticed for 2 years, even the hacker apparently didn't notice. Again stellar work all round, shows that absolutely no attempt was made to look for context in other emails or they'd have noticed the same email existed in the first batch too.
Here's some more from the email that only reinforces all my points above. Overpeck continues by suggesting what the section under discussion might look like. This is the kind of dull dry science stuff that is never reported as part of 'climategate 2.0' even though the emails are full of it.
"My take: ENSO - coral records sensitive to ENSO (e.g., Urban et al. and Cobb et al - attached) suggest ENSO has changed in response to past forcing change (Cobb et al - updated interp by mann et al - see recent email attachment) and recent climate change (Urban et al). Ditto for Indian Ocean - not sure if can connect to dipole - I could ask Julie Cole? NAO - lots of papers and what's the consensus? I'm not sure, but I think it is that we can't say for sure what has happend to the NAO - or AO for sure (Keith might no more - recent Ed Cook paper might be the key? - I'm not an expert here). Same thing for PDO (not an expert, but aren't their recons that don't agree - see cole et al for one- attached). In both these cases, the recons don't always agree. Or do they say the NAO variability has stayed pretty constant?
Tropical Atlantic - Black et al 1999 (attached to prev email) also says 12year mode (no consensus if diapole is the correct name for what Chang first described - see ref in Black attached) has been constant for 800 years.
Annual modes - does paleo have anything definitive to say yet? I'm a coauthor on a soon to be submitted AO recon paper, but I'm not sure reviewers will go for it - nor does it match D'Arrigo's recent AO recon paper (can't find).
So, the trick is for you to lead us (thingy, Keith, me - maybe Julie - ENSO expert) to produce 0.5 pages of HIGHLY focused and relevant stuff. Can you take another crack at your outline and then tell us what you need? Thanks!"
The last paragraph says it all. There's that word "trick" again too. The hacker must have been sad that the rest of the sentence wasn't convenient to the "main message" to quote it.
"Jeff suggested I repost this collection of quotes in the words of climate scientists as discovered in Climategate 2.0 context. He’s done a great job at collecting the relevant context."
But turns out all he's done is list a load of out-of-context quotes and put the email number next to them with the shortest most useless summary imaginable...the first comment makes the obvious point and Anthony doesn't even try to defend the post.
Anyway one of the more popular quotes comes up yet again:
"The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid what’s included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change."
Apparently this is a big deal - even the hacker picked this one out for the Readme (although omitted the second sentence).
"<4755> Overpeck: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's included and what is left out."
The quote doesn't tell us why Overpeck is recommending things be left out of the IPCC report. I guess the ClimateGate 2.0 view of this is that it constitutes proof that Overpeck wants to omit science from the IPCC report that doesn't fit a per-determined political "main message" that probably has something to do with communism and a World Government.
But the only context Jeff provides for the quote is a rather lame "Johnathan Overpeck – Picking what goes into IPCC AR4"
Proper context comes from the actual email:
ukginger.net/FOI2009/FOIA/mail/1103236623.txt
"Regarding 6.5.4 - I hope thingy and Keith will have jump in to help you lead, and I can too. I think the hardest, yet most important part, is to boil the section down to 0.5 pages. In looking over your good outline, sent back on Oct. 17 ... you cover ALOT. The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid what's included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to have solid data - not inconclusive information."
So more context makes it clear the climategate 2.0 view of the email is wrong. This decision to leave stuff out is because there is too much information to fit into just 0.5 pages of space. And deciding what your message is and then writing around that is exactly what you do in that situation.
The hacker obviously bothered to read this email, so they read the proper context. Why did they cherrypick this one particular sentence then?
"<4755> Overpeck: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's included and what is left out."
The inescapable conclusion is that the hacker is acting dishonestly and deliberately extracted a bad sounding sentence from an email they knew was fine. In fact the "bad sound" is actually an apt description of what the Hacker has done. The hacker decided on the main message they wanted to give and used that to guide what sentences to include in the readme from Overpeck's email and what to leave out.
Jeff Id has supposedly read this email too. Yet he still decides to present those two sentences in isolation without any context other than merely "Johnathan Overpeck – Picking what goes into IPCC AR4" as if he didn't read anything else in the email that might be worth mentioning...
In general if the analysis of the emails wasn't so utterly biased and incompetent that bad-sounding quote would not still doing the rounds.
Also maybe you guessed from the URL above, but this email isn't even new. It was released in the first batch of emails back in 2009. Guess it was so important that no-one noticed for 2 years, even the hacker apparently didn't notice. Again stellar work all round, shows that absolutely no attempt was made to look for context in other emails or they'd have noticed the same email existed in the first batch too.
Here's some more from the email that only reinforces all my points above. Overpeck continues by suggesting what the section under discussion might look like. This is the kind of dull dry science stuff that is never reported as part of 'climategate 2.0' even though the emails are full of it.
"My take: ENSO - coral records sensitive to ENSO (e.g., Urban et al. and Cobb et al - attached) suggest ENSO has changed in response to past forcing change (Cobb et al - updated interp by mann et al - see recent email attachment) and recent climate change (Urban et al). Ditto for Indian Ocean - not sure if can connect to dipole - I could ask Julie Cole? NAO - lots of papers and what's the consensus? I'm not sure, but I think it is that we can't say for sure what has happend to the NAO - or AO for sure (Keith might no more - recent Ed Cook paper might be the key? - I'm not an expert here). Same thing for PDO (not an expert, but aren't their recons that don't agree - see cole et al for one- attached). In both these cases, the recons don't always agree. Or do they say the NAO variability has stayed pretty constant?
Tropical Atlantic - Black et al 1999 (attached to prev email) also says 12year mode (no consensus if diapole is the correct name for what Chang first described - see ref in Black attached) has been constant for 800 years.
Annual modes - does paleo have anything definitive to say yet? I'm a coauthor on a soon to be submitted AO recon paper, but I'm not sure reviewers will go for it - nor does it match D'Arrigo's recent AO recon paper (can't find).
So, the trick is for you to lead us (thingy, Keith, me - maybe Julie - ENSO expert) to produce 0.5 pages of HIGHLY focused and relevant stuff. Can you take another crack at your outline and then tell us what you need? Thanks!"
The last paragraph says it all. There's that word "trick" again too. The hacker must have been sad that the rest of the sentence wasn't convenient to the "main message" to quote it.
