|
Post by Graeme on Nov 22, 2009 5:23:59 GMT
This is why it would be very useful if McIntyre would produce a 1000 year reconstruction using methods and proxies he felt appropriate and publish the results. Even if McIntyre thinks the data is not good enough to make reconstructions he could demonstrate even that by producing two very different records using good methods and proxies. It would not only constitute a good argument but also contribute to knowledge of temperature and uncertainty in it over the past 1000 years. That's essentially what happened, but since he was trying to verify the accuracy of the Mann Hockey Stick graph (in the main example I researched), he had to make what he did as close as possible to what they did, which is difficult without the extra information. One of the problems if his results weren't close to the original paper would be that the obvious response could be "You've not done the same as us and the results aren't comparable" -- a perfectly valid response. eg. If McIntyre has used different proxies, or used a different statistical approach (with different weightings), then they wouldn't be comparing apples with apples, and hence would not counter the original paper and graph. As I understand what McIntyre was doing is NOT validating the theory, but checking that the calculations and data used were correct and appropriate. That is, not proposing his own theory, but analysing and validating the theory of someone else. Given the peer-reviewed paper he eventually published, it appears that that was not done. There were several small, but insignificant errors, but there were some major significant errors as well. I am just following on in the same roleplay fashion below, but just to let you know because it sounds a little snarky, I am just pretending to be a snarky scientist!: I performed my own analysis on the same raw data using <insert a few paragraphs of method explaination> and found 4, 3, 2, 1. So yes as I found a different result I believe yours is wrong, I don't know why, but then neither does anyone else. Your result isn't going to convince anyone while there is such a disagreement. In fact because I've provided more detail of my methods than you, other scientists will be more convinced by my result. Until you come back with a paper that contains more details (or even some details!) on why your method is better than mine I think other scientists will be reluctant to accept your result. Furthermore I know Dr Example, spurred on by this controversy over these different results, is performing his own analysis as we speak. LOL!! Unfortunately, the mainstream media has already picked up on my results and the politicians are already proposing laws based on my paper. You'll have to try to convince them that they're wrong to have publicly supported my paper, and you know what politicians are like when it comes to changing an opinion they've made publicly You don't need to continue this if you don't want to Thank you, though, for playing along.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Nov 22, 2009 5:25:42 GMT
The British press has been on this since yesterday, including the BBC. The NY Times and now the Washington Post have also covered Climategate but with their typical green shaded glasses. Apparently this story has some legs and will obviously be a major topic of discussion among those who follow the debate closely. I expect the mainstream media to continue to provide cover for the alarmists, but the camel's nose is clearly in the tent (far enough at least that the CnT is dead in the U.S. Senate for at least a year.
|
|
|
Post by dwerth on Nov 22, 2009 5:27:47 GMT
I am on the fence with this. I can see that yes, you could most certainly do a statistical analysis of the data provided, and most certainly would to provide a baseline of data to verify the existing corpus of work. However, this is accepting at face value the validity of the data sources.
You could, as an option, exclude certain data sources that you believe might be not viable or credible enough. However, this can lead to accusation from the authors of said data sources that you are deliberately "massaging" the outcome by not using various sources that could possibly enhance their claim.
An annoying quandry that I am undecided about.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 22, 2009 6:17:17 GMT
This is why it would be very useful if McIntyre would produce a 1000 year reconstruction using methods and proxies he felt appropriate and publish the results. Even if McIntyre thinks the data is not good enough to make reconstructions he could demonstrate even that by producing two very different records using good methods and proxies. It would not only constitute a good argument but also contribute to knowledge of temperature and uncertainty in it over the past 1000 years. That's essentially what happened, but since he was trying to verify the accuracy of the Mann Hockey Stick graph (in the main example I researched), he had to make what he did as close as possible to what they did, which is difficult without the extra information. One of the problems if his results weren't close to the original paper would be that the obvious response could be "You've not done the same as us and the results aren't comparable" -- a perfectly valid response. eg. If McIntyre has used different proxies, or used a different statistical approach (with different weightings), then they wouldn't be comparing apples with apples, and hence would not counter the original paper and graph. As I understand what McIntyre was doing is NOT validating the theory, but checking that the calculations and data used were correct and appropriate. That is, not proposing his own theory, but analysing and validating the theory of someone else. Given the peer-reviewed paper he eventually published, it appears that that was not done. There were several small, but insignificant errors, but there were some major significant errors as well. All the problems he's encountered can be put down to science (and scientists) not set up for that kind of thing. I don't think scientists can get funding to precisely replicate someone elses work. The scientists in these leaked emails misinterpret his actions as an attempt to discredit their work in public if he found minor errors, even if they didn't affect the results. So they didn't want to cooperate - and didn't have to because science didn't require precise replications to be made. Inevitably then the FOI workaround appeared. I would argue that's a problem with science communication to politicians. Scientists should have an idea of the confidence of results, ie whether they have been supported by several studies, the problems with them, whether they are too new. That level of confidence should be factored in when communicating the science to politicians.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Nov 22, 2009 6:41:33 GMT
All the problems he's encountered can be put down to science (and scientists) not set up for that kind of thing. I don't think scientists can get funding to precisely replicate someone elses work. The scientists in these leaked emails misinterpret his actions as an attempt to discredit their work in public if he found minor errors, even if they didn't affect the results. So they didn't want to cooperate - and didn't have to because science didn't require precise replications to be made. Inevitably then the FOI workaround appeared. In other words, they were human Seriously, I think you've hit the nail on the head. What McIntrye was doing wasn't something they were used to seeing done. I think McIntyre was right in his approach (making sure that the science was as rigorous as possible by 'auditing' the work), but they didn't see what he was trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by dwerth on Nov 22, 2009 6:48:56 GMT
It is kinda funny to think about the following thing:
If a mathmatician was trying to follow the same rules of data dissemination as climate scientists seem to have been when submitting a proof, then he would be laughed off, and with good reason. I just wish the same level of rigor and transparency was as forthcoming from these scientists.
|
|
|
Post by Purinoli on Nov 22, 2009 10:10:13 GMT
It is kinda funny to think about the following thing: If a mathmatician was trying to follow the same rules of data dissemination as climate scientists seem to have been when submitting a proof, then he would be laughed off, and with good reason. I just wish the same level of rigor and transparency was as forthcoming from these scientists. Imagine situation like this : we all know that nuclear transmutation reaction is the only way how to produce gold from lead. And than someone claims that he or she prepaired gold by chemical reaction from garbage. Proof? Not needed, method is top seecret he he. But Nobel Prize is already on the way, just a matter of time. BTW, does someone know wether it is possible to move ( "transmutate") IPCC/Gore's Nobel Prize from real one to Ig Nobel Prize?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 22, 2009 11:47:49 GMT
Some other quotes: "The initial seed for all these allegations is made on Climate Audit. Here they are quite clever and don't go over the top. They leave it to others like the National Review, the American Thinker to make the ridiculous ones." "McIntyre has no interest in publishing his results in the peer-review literature. IPCC won't be able to assess any of it unless he does." SoCold you really do not understand the issue here. The Hadley Center was built and run using a government customers funds. EVERYTHING in that Center and everything that it produces even the intermediaries are NOT owned by the Center or by Jones or Biffra - EVERYTHING is owned by the government customer. I repeat that: *EVERYTHING* the data collated, the machines it was collated on, the processing algorithms, the soft and hard copy media, the staff daybooks, *EVERYTHING* that is paid for by the government is government owned AND with a US Government customer PUBLIC DOMAIN. That is a drawback of working with a government agency and AT THE BEGINNING should be really thought through and any IP or privacy issues have to be derogated before contract start. CRU didn't lose CRU data they lost GOVERNMENT customer data. CRU were not preventing access to CRU data they were preventing access to GOVERNMENT customer data. CRU was not preventing access to CRU intermediary code they were preventing access to GOVERNMENT customer intermediary code. CRU owns NOTHING - CRU is OWNED by the government customer right down to the ballpoint pens and pencils AND every thought and invention made by any CRU staff while funded by the government customer. When you get an FOI for Government owned information - it is illegal to obfuscate and not respond (both in UK and the USA). It is almost certainly also in breach of the CRU contracts with their government customers which as pointed out earlier will state that everything owned by the government is public domain. Note that you can ONLY receive an FOI if you are legally deemed to be part of the Government as CRU is. If you don't like those conditions you should not accept government agency contracts. I have the feeling that even now the University of East Anglia and CRU have not really understood that they have sold themselves totally to the government customers. Unfortunately, this is really common with academics who have never been in the commercial or business world. They still play puerile academic games and every now and then they get caught. So this is not just a quibble over the semantics of emails - there is a lot of information there that indicates breach of contract. One of the first things that could happen is that the University of East Anglia (not just the CRU) finds it is barred from all government research contracts and all government funding will cease forthwith. I have seen this happen to other universities in similar but less public events - it is not pretty.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Nov 22, 2009 12:49:09 GMT
nautonnier, socold understands completely. He just does not like the conclusion of this. And now, as I predicted, it is becoming clear that is data was not hacked, but leaked. My bet is that that we may soon have even more interesting e-mails so as to learn even more about how the people who are informing the demands of AGW policy really behave.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Nov 22, 2009 12:52:56 GMT
Let’s see whether Alan Jones picks this up on 2GB radio in Sydney tomorrow, he has been scathing about the government on this. Also hopefully there will be some editorial comment in the Australian, We need to write to our politicians en-mass this week to make them aware of what is going on – as they vote on the ETS - links to their email addresses on Steven Fielding’s site (also on mine). If we keep the comments coming on Andrew Bolts blog and also get more people to sign the online petition that Barnaby Joyce has then we can give this greater momentum. Additionally if people can link/and or comment about this site, Bishop Hill, Air Vent, Climate Audit, Andrew Bolt etc and any other relevant site on their tweeter, facebook, myspace etc – it will give greater traction and exposure! Get to work people!
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Nov 22, 2009 13:11:07 GMT
Some other quotes: "The initial seed for all these allegations is made on Climate Audit. Here they are quite clever and don't go over the top. They leave it to others like the National Review, the American Thinker to make the ridiculous ones." "McIntyre has no interest in publishing his results in the peer-review literature. IPCC won't be able to assess any of it unless he does." SoCold you really do not understand the issue here. The Hadley Center was built and run using a government customers funds. EVERYTHING in that Center and everything that it produces even the intermediaries are NOT owned by the Center or by Jones or Biffra - EVERYTHING is owned by the government customer. I repeat that: *EVERYTHING* the data collated, the machines it was collated on, the processing algorithms, the soft and hard copy media, the staff daybooks, *EVERYTHING* that is paid for by the government is government owned AND with a US Government customer PUBLIC DOMAIN. That is a drawback of working with a government agency and AT THE BEGINNING should be really thought through and any IP or privacy issues have to be derogated before contract start. CRU didn't lose CRU data they lost GOVERNMENT customer data. CRU were not preventing access to CRU data they were preventing access to GOVERNMENT customer data. CRU was not preventing access to CRU intermediary code they were preventing access to GOVERNMENT customer intermediary code. CRU owns NOTHING - CRU is OWNED by the government customer right down to the ballpoint pens and pencils AND every thought and invention made by any CRU staff while funded by the government customer. When you get an FOI for Government owned information - it is illegal to obfuscate and not respond (both in UK and the USA). It is almost certainly also in breach of the CRU contracts with their government customers which as pointed out earlier will state that everything owned by the government is public domain. Note that you can ONLY receive an FOI if you are legally deemed to be part of the Government as CRU is. If you don't like those conditions you should not accept government agency contracts. I have the feeling that even now the University of East Anglia and CRU have not really understood that they have sold themselves totally to the government customers. Unfortunately, this is really common with academics who have never been in the commercial or business world. They still play puerile academic games and every now and then they get caught. So this is not just a quibble over the semantics of emails - there is a lot of information there that indicates breach of contract. One of the first things that could happen is that the University of East Anglia (not just the CRU) finds it is barred from all government research contracts and all government funding will cease forthwith. I have seen this happen to other universities in similar but less public events - it is not pretty. Unless, of course, the entire project was conducted under pre-arranged secrecy laws. Such as those relating to weapons system development. This research obviously was not subject to those provisions. The next few weeks/months will either be totally fascinating or it will all disappear in the haze. I expect we will get the first clue this coming week as the stock markets absorb the potential impact of this on a wide variety of "green" investments.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 22, 2009 13:55:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 22, 2009 14:22:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 22, 2009 14:56:19 GMT
Some other quotes: "The initial seed for all these allegations is made on Climate Audit. Here they are quite clever and don't go over the top. They leave it to others like the National Review, the American Thinker to make the ridiculous ones." "McIntyre has no interest in publishing his results in the peer-review literature. IPCC won't be able to assess any of it unless he does." SoCold you really do not understand the issue here. The Hadley Center was built and run using a government customers funds. EVERYTHING in that Center and everything that it produces even the intermediaries are NOT owned by the Center or by Jones or Biffra - EVERYTHING is owned by the government customer. I repeat that: *EVERYTHING* the data collated, the machines it was collated on, the processing algorithms, the soft and hard copy media, the staff daybooks, *EVERYTHING* that is paid for by the government is government owned AND with a US Government customer PUBLIC DOMAIN. That is a drawback of working with a government agency and AT THE BEGINNING should be really thought through and any IP or privacy issues have to be derogated before contract start. CRU didn't lose CRU data they lost GOVERNMENT customer data. CRU were not preventing access to CRU data they were preventing access to GOVERNMENT customer data. CRU was not preventing access to CRU intermediary code they were preventing access to GOVERNMENT customer intermediary code. CRU owns NOTHING - CRU is OWNED by the government customer right down to the ballpoint pens and pencils AND every thought and invention made by any CRU staff while funded by the government customer. When you get an FOI for Government owned information - it is illegal to obfuscate and not respond (both in UK and the USA). It is almost certainly also in breach of the CRU contracts with their government customers which as pointed out earlier will state that everything owned by the government is public domain. Note that you can ONLY receive an FOI if you are legally deemed to be part of the Government as CRU is. If you don't like those conditions you should not accept government agency contracts. I have the feeling that even now the University of East Anglia and CRU have not really understood that they have sold themselves totally to the government customers. Unfortunately, this is really common with academics who have never been in the commercial or business world. They still play puerile academic games and every now and then they get caught. So this is not just a quibble over the semantics of emails - there is a lot of information there that indicates breach of contract. One of the first things that could happen is that the University of East Anglia (not just the CRU) finds it is barred from all government research contracts and all government funding will cease forthwith. I have seen this happen to other universities in similar but less public events - it is not pretty. I hear you, but it doesn't bother me. I know how difficult it is to keep all data over the years by default and I don't expect in any field researchers have retained all their workings and all the data. They'll only keep what they need in the foreseeable future and anything else will simply languish on old disks or disappear when machines are updated. You need to have actual people in place to backup and transfer data, if you don't have that then it can easily go missing. 9 odd years ago I loaded zip disks with a files for backup (not scientific data of course), not forseeing that zip drives would disappear. None of my current machines have zip drives, I can't access that information anymore. In another case I have CDs which I put files on years ago which have curiously degraded and are no longer readable (it's as if the CDs have a lifetime I wasn't expecting) A number of skeptics can understand this, but a minority don't seem to want to. It's getting to the point where it might be worth having to clearly demonstrate the point by doing something like requesting all the UAH satellite record source code and workings for all versions, which I would bet a lot of said data and workings has by now been lost.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 22, 2009 14:59:10 GMT
Funny thing is Socold, I would wager that if you requested that data that it would be forthcoming.
|
|