|
Post by dagrump on Nov 20, 2009 20:33:52 GMT
None of us will hold our collective breath while we wait for that to happen socold.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Nov 20, 2009 20:37:20 GMT
Funny, socold, we're reading the same e-mails and I see evidence of half a dozen people attempting to control the peer-review process for prestige journals -- globally. I also see how seriously they take Steve McIntyre, as they should.
Today was a missed opportunity for you to admit that your heroes have flaws.
There's always tomorrow...
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 20, 2009 20:54:41 GMT
Those appear to be very poor cherrypicks and fly in the face of the bulk of information I am reading. It's the dry boring science talk which is the most revealing, because it shows how they are thinking and how they are working. For example I have seen at least one heated argument which flies in the face of conspiracy theories of collusion. I also see them questioning their methods and records. I see hansen discussing differences between gistemp and hacrut. This flies in the face of the picture skeptics have been trying to paint of lush funding and "team" manipulation of data. Once it becomes entrenched as public I will happily reference some of this information in rebuttal to future claims of conspiracy. Of course i am not done reading through it yet, maybe I will yet find something that will vindicate the skeptics. SoCold: This may be something that is "In the eye of the beholder". You have vigorously defended Briffa, even when evidence to the contrary is posted. I admitted Briffa's tree ring papers were a joke, but only based on the scientific validity of said papers. I have nothing against Briffa, nothing against his idea. But the scientific evidence was totally lacking as was the methodogy of it. IF the science is correct, I will defend it. IF it is wrong, it deserves to be aired openly without prejudice. What is happening is that the journals have become prejudiced. For science as a whole, this is a very bad development....akin to the Flat Earth Society of Plato. Vehemintly burn at the stake any non-believer....call them all kinds of names to discredit them. Human nature tends to have one support what he/she believes. IT is hard to look at things with a critical eye. But I will use a simple analogy. A person is looking for something...search...and can't find it. A neighbor walks up and puts his hand on it. That item was in plain view all the time but one just couldn't see it as it didn't fit into their preconcieved notion of where it should be. Climate is the same thing....we don't have enough good neighbors, but their number may expand as a result of the data being released.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 20, 2009 21:25:22 GMT
Those appear to be very poor cherrypicks and fly in the face of the bulk of information I am reading. It's the dry boring science talk which is the most revealing, because it shows how they are thinking and how they are working. For example I have seen at least one heated argument which flies in the face of conspiracy theories of collusion. I also see them questioning their methods and records. I see hansen discussing differences between gistemp and hacrut. This flies in the face of the picture skeptics have been trying to paint of lush funding and "team" manipulation of data. Once it becomes entrenched as public I will happily reference some of this information in rebuttal to future claims of conspiracy. Of course i am not done reading through it yet, maybe I will yet find something that will vindicate the skeptics. Oh, you've begun parroting the RC line already? Spin this one: 1252154659.txt:
On 9/5/09 8:44 AM, “Darrell Kaufman” wrote:
All: I received my first hate mail this AM, which helped me to realize that I shouldn’t be wasting time reading the blogs.
Regarding the “upside down man”, as Nick’s plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It’s weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature.
This is new territory for me, but not acknowledging an error might come back to bite us. I suggest that we nip it in the bud and write a brief update showing the corrected composite (Nick’s graph) and post it to RealClimate. Do you all agree? Show us where they've acknowledged the error socold. Connelly, Schmidt, Mann......all of them have defended the upside down data. It doesn't bother you the only scientists this group involves itself with is other, what they refer to as legitimate scientists, whose prerequisite is they must follow the Team's plan?
|
|
|
Post by solartrack on Nov 20, 2009 22:09:40 GMT
This is the AGW movement blue dress moment. Do they decry the unprofessional acts and words or do they get down on their knees lips aquiver and make excuses.
As a teacher/engineer/scientist its a bittersweet revelation that we are as all men susceptible to temptations of power, money and competitiveness. The scientific method was built to defeat this weakness.
"darkness only hides lies and fears"
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 20, 2009 22:29:49 GMT
You missed this part magellan: "when flipped, the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions" It seems you are merely looking for gossip and nitpicks, not what the science shows. When he says "when flipped, the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions" there is no reason for him to be lying. You can't invoke conspiracy here because it's a private communication not a public one. And that's where this set of emails is going to shoot you in the foot - the typical conspiraskeptic excuse that scientists are spreading propaganda won't work on these emails because they weren't intended to be public.
(although perhaps the future conspiracy will be that they leaked their own emails to make themselves look better)
These emails are a huge blow to conspiraskeptics as the emails lay out what the scientists are really thinking. It aint "lets fabricate some warming. OMG climate audit has us! We are scared! quick hide the data!" as the conspiraskeptics have claimed all along.
The emails instead show scientists trying to further the knowledge in their fields and analyzing and scrutinizing each others work. Then they are harassed by skeptics with hate mail, pointless and misaimed FOI requests and libelous news articles.
Even the funding arguments by conspiraskeptics are laughable upon reading the emails. We have a couple of Russian scientists begging for a few thousand dollars to take some core samples. Not quite the "millions and gold" world the conspiraskeptics have been painting.
When the public domain nature of this leak becomes entrenched, which will probably be within a few days, I will be happy to post some extracts and we can then "ponder" just how conspiraskeptic claims make sense in their light.
Edited: improved
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 20, 2009 22:56:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 20, 2009 23:00:04 GMT
You missed this part magellan: "when flipped, the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions" It seems you are merely looking for gossip and nitpicks, not what the science shows. The emails are an indictment on skeptics and their harassment campaign against scientists. I'm nearly done reading through the 2008-2009 and so far it's clear that scientists are acting in good faith, are initially bemused at some of the crazy arguments being used against them (scientific and ad hom) and then become drearily tired and sick of the hate mail they get. To the point that they simply don't want to provide anything to the likes of CA or joe "give me all your data!" public. None of the emails support skeptic claims of fraud and conspiracy. They reinforce my previous understanding of the situtation - scientists going about doing their work and being harassed by silly little FOI requests for data that is either already available, or not legally redistributable. I will be posting some extracts from the emails to demonstrate the wrong headed nature of skeptic conspiracies. I read the whole thing, now you must parse words to defend the indefensible. The fact is they did not acknowledge the "error", and since they knew it was an "error" and let it go, even defended the "error" pretending it didn't exist, it has moved to a level of fraud. It was used to support Briffa's garbage as "collaborating" evidence, overlaid bright as the sun and exalted. If I could get into CA (overloaded at the moment), I'd post what you say doesn't matter. Go to Jeff Id's website and argue with him. In the coming days and weeks those in the know at CA/Air Vent/Niche Modeling will be tearing into these emails and the treasure trove of data. No offense socold, but you are a light weight.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Nov 20, 2009 23:05:55 GMT
And now Richard Black's environmental blog's comments on the BBC website have been pulled. It COULD be a glitch because of too much activity but...it does make me wonder
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 20, 2009 23:16:32 GMT
Phil Jones get amnesia: “That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?”
SM: Maybe it helps Dr. Jones’s recollection of the exact context, if he inspects UC’s figure carefully. We here at CA are more than pleased to be able to help such nice persons in these matters. Phil Jones is deeply entrenched it seems with many innocent "errors": scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/05/allegations-of-fraud-at-albany-wang.html
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 20, 2009 23:25:01 GMT
I read the whole thing, now you must parse words to defend the indefensible. The fact is they did not acknowledge the "error", and since they knew it was an "error" and let it go, even defended the "error" pretending it didn't exist, it has moved to a level of fraud. First of all I am unfamiliar with precisely what they said and I don't trust you to have got the context right. Secondly they aren't on that particular email, so it's not guaranteed they knew it was an error. Thirdly, and in my opinion most importantly, errors happen. In this case you accepted the part of the email that "it has little impact on the overall reconstructions", so what's the big deal? Ah so the big deal is over the fact it was an "error"? As if errors can't happen? And now we find the true vantage point of the conspiraskeptics. They don't care if "it has little impact on the overall reconstructions", they just want an error to play with. They are playing a silly little game of gossip and fanfare wherein if they can find a little error they can spin it out of proportion around the internet and into a Telegraph or Register article or perhaps something in the Australian. It seems the scientists in the emails think this is actually the basis of how blogs like CA operate..little errors, big news. And who can deny this is what they really think now? Gone are the days where skeptics could claim scientists are scared of CA and WUWT. In respect to the big third point above, I can see why someone like gavin might not advertise the error even if they knew about it. The error has no scientific merit, correcting it has no scientific merit. The only merit is on a PR front and if you read that email again you will see PR is exactly why the author is suggesting a correction - nothing more. I'll repeat what I've said already. The emails do more damage to the skeptics. The emails expose what scientists really think about blogs like WUWT and CA. Jokes spawning harassment.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Nov 20, 2009 23:36:02 GMT
You know what's sad about this whole thing. Have you ever heard of this new fangled thing called "the internet". They COULD have answered ONE FOIA request by simply putting it on the web...and that would have pretty much answers ALL FUTURE FOIA requests. Instead they refused to comply...because there were a lot of requests.
Apparently you just do not get how science is supposed to work. Its supposed to be COMPLETELY transparent if you publish. If you have a correlation that you can't explain for a small part but the rest looks good you can just point out that you have no idea why something didn't work but the rest of the data seems fairly strong support. What you DON'T do is slap entirely different data on top of it so the uncooperative bits of data aren't noticed...or refuse EVERYONE the right to see your data.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 20, 2009 23:47:32 GMT
If the data from public agencies reports was made available at the time of publishing there would be no controversy. The papers would stand or fall on the data and analysis. To have the data made available and the motivation behind the hiding of the data puts Jones, Mann and Briffa into paid political propagandists posing as scientists. It seems to me this is a generous assessment. from wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/A less generous assessment "Robert M. (14:15:43) : So, What we have here is evidence that the team has engaged in: 1. Conspiracy 2. Government Fraud 3. Computer Fraud 4. Obstruction of Justice 5. Environmental Law Violations (Falsifying lab data pertaining to environmental regulations) (snicker) 6. Suppression of evidence 7. Tampering with evidence 8. Public Corruption 9. Bribery" " crosspatch (14:48:23) : “13.7 million British pounds in grants” So ask yourself … “If data ‘is what it is’, then why is it so important that the graphics show warming?” then repeat “13.7 million pounds in grants”, then ask yourself “If there were no ‘dramatic’ warming, what would be the consequence for them.” then repeat “13.7 million pounds in grants”. It bothers me that gyrations must be done in order to show warming when if the warming is real, and there, the data would not need so much “massaging” in order to tease that warming out of it. It is like “well, if you turn it sideways, squint, tilt the paper a little this way, close one eye … see that! Warming! Now get us some money so we can ’study’ it some more.” "
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 20, 2009 23:50:35 GMT
You know what's sad about this whole thing. Have you ever heard of this new fangled thing called "the internet". They COULD have answered ONE FOIA request by simply putting it on the web...and that would have pretty much answers ALL FUTURE FOIA requests. Instead they refused to comply...because there were a lot of requests. Unfortunately this sort of claim won't stand anymore, we now have the email correspondence to show what happened.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 20, 2009 23:56:20 GMT
Take a look at 1206628118, the whole exchange. I am seeing quite a lot of emails over the past 2 years that answer a number of skeptic allegations, but more importantly they explain why scientists didn't respond - they thought it best to ignore the gossip.
Well sometimes not (1213387146)
|
|