|
Post by socold on Nov 21, 2009 4:51:08 GMT
[Reposting, as Socold has missed or ignored:]Sorry Socold, there's no way that refusing to release data, changing his story constantly, strategizing with his co-conspirators, etc. saved Phil Jones time. I am not sure which FOI request you are refering to, could you be more specific? Bear in mind that various people (not just McIntyre) sent in separate FOI requests, sometimes for different things. Some requested personal email correspondences. It ticked them off enough. Briffa lets loose in 12320647555 "I have been of the opinion right from the start of these FOI requests, that our private , inter-collegial discussion is just that - PRIVATE . Your communication with individual colleagues was on the same basis as that for any other person and it discredits the IPCC process not one iota not to reveal the details. On the contrary, submitting to these "demands" undermines the wider scientific expectation of personal confidentiality . It is for this reason , and not because we have or have not got anything to hide, that I believe none of us should submit to these "requests". As one of the emails explains: "you disclose the maximum reasonable amount of information so competent scientists can do replication work, but short of publishing undocumented personalized codes etc" That's how science works and that's what scientists do. Skeptics on the otherhand are demanding "undocumented personalized codes" + documentation...(the next ask) Read? www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/phil-jones-and-ben-santer-comment-on-cei/This all seems a little bit "jobsworth" for me to be honest. Skeptics are basically demanding data that you don't need. As in you have all the data available to produce an instrumental temperature record or a paleo reconstruction. Noone is hiding necessary data. This work can be done to see if it reproduces the results of other scientists. You don't need their source code or their handholding to do this. This is how science works - this is how scientists test other scientists ideas and how knowledge progresses. So why are skeptics demanding data they don't need in order to reproduce results? Well I think the ends shows the motive. The ends is load of gossip of scandal which the skeptics love to read about. It's like a bunch of schoolchildren really. So I think that's the motive. anyway for now i sleep, goodnite
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 21, 2009 4:57:46 GMT
SoCold: IF any part of the studies or actions were funded in part or in whole with US tax dollars....the personal e-mails, code, etc are to be freely given.
IF you don't want to abide by OUR law and OUR dollars......don't accept the money. IT is that plain and simple.
Over here, we still have the rule of law.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 21, 2009 4:58:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Nov 21, 2009 5:13:48 GMT
Yeah looks like it - and that while on the public payroll!
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Nov 21, 2009 5:37:49 GMT
Have started to put more resources online (as well as more links to the leaked data) if they are of any assistance to people - especially in Australia Draft letters to politicians Politician email addresses Links to ETS petition Links and DIY complaints to press Links to skeptics handbooks 1 & 2 And links to some good cartoons for a good laugh. twawki.wordpress.com/Lets see if we can make a difference and stop the lunacy of this climate communism!
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Nov 21, 2009 6:27:12 GMT
I awoke unable to sleep this morning about 3am. I logged on, and checked climatedebatedaily.com and discovered the news of the century. By even that time, the russian FTP site had erased the FOI2008.zip file, but after much hunting I found it on another server. Then I had to go to the field, and the office after that.
In between, as absolutely amazing as it seems, even the source of the leak didn't deny it! and int he now 9 pages of this thread, it seems that even socold went from denial, to well, denial.
We are about to witness a reckoning. If you even wanted to witness denial, socold, alone it would seem here, has vignetted the psyche to a T.
This is a moment where one must truly hold ones breath, the shock and awe of it is so manifest. So far, only a few not Mannstream outlets have deigned to pick up on it. We sit here availabel to bear witness to whether or not something far larger and far reaching will evolve. It will be a testament to the very state of our evolution as sentient beings if this abominable mess is ever exposed as it surely should be. Not Enron, Tyco, Global Crossings or Madoff combined equal the ethical or fiscal portent of this.
One can only hope that the masterminds of this revelation are as sage as the exposers of Acorn, letting the dust settle, the true denial begin, before releasing even more damning evidence.
Let the uber-shirillness begin!!!!
Some days you're the dog, and some days you're the hydrant.......
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 21, 2009 6:44:45 GMT
SoCold: IF any part of the studies or actions were funded in part or in whole with US tax dollars....the personal e-mails, code, etc are to be freely given. IF you don't want to abide by OUR law and OUR dollars......don't accept the money. IT is that plain and simple. Over here, we still have the rule of law. I don't want to provide any US politicians with ideas but ... here in Sunny Queensland, Australia - a few years ago - our State Government passed legislation allowing ministers of the Crown to lie to parliament with impunity. www.jplangbroek.com/labor-green-lights-lying-in-parliament/"“Up until three years ago, Ministers could be prosecuted under criminal law if they lied to a Parliamentary committee. “But in an attempt to protect former Health Minister Gordon Nuttall, who was caught out lying to an Estimates Committee, the Labor Government changed the laws." Labor here is roughly equivalent to Democrat in the US.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 21, 2009 6:51:47 GMT
Lord Monckton has listed a question for the House of Lords about the CRU hacking.
|
|
|
Post by enough on Nov 21, 2009 8:53:41 GMT
I finally got on Climate Audit. This really is the best place to see the full context of the Mann/Jones interaction.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Nov 21, 2009 9:48:42 GMT
MAGELLAN One that may be of interest to you. Go to the following link at WUWT wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/Then scroll down past the first graph. There is a sentence which starts Back in December 2004...... Do you see a familiar name? I know you've mentioned him a few times.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Nov 21, 2009 10:33:21 GMT
Bear in mind that various people (not just McIntyre) sent in separate FOI requests, sometimes for different things. Some requested personal email correspondences. It ticked them off enough. Briffa lets loose in 12320647555 "I have been of the opinion right from the start of these FOI requests, that our private , inter-collegial discussion is just that - PRIVATE . Your communication with individual colleagues was on the same basis as that for any other person and it discredits the IPCC process not one iota not to reveal the details. On the contrary, submitting to these "demands" undermines the wider scientific expectation of personal confidentiality . It is for this reason , and not because we have or have not got anything to hide, that I believe none of us should submit to these "requests". As one of the emails explains: "you disclose the maximum reasonable amount of information so competent scientists can do replication work, but short of publishing undocumented personalized codes etc" That's how science works and that's what scientists do. Skeptics on the otherhand are demanding "undocumented personalized codes" + documentation...(the next ask) I've been doing a lot of research on this recently, and what I found is that the "undocumented personalized codes" are key to the issue. It appears that they manipulate the raw data and some people (McIntryre in particular) wanted to know HOW they manipulated the data to determine for themselves if that manipulation was correct. This is not 'you can graph the raw data as well as I can and you don't need my programs to do so'. This is 'you've modified the data and I want to see how you modified it because you haven't said how, or made any justification as to the validity of that justification'. No analysis as to the validity of the data manipulation can be made without knowing the details. It is quite possible that the data manipulation is valid (eg. to allow for instrumentation changes, or to allow for the urban heat island (UHI) effect), but good science requires that such manipulation be up front, not hidden in unpublished software. THAT is what appears to a key issue for those FOI requests that they didn't want to respond to. At least from research on the background as to what's gone on.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Nov 21, 2009 10:55:15 GMT
Okay, after a good look at the emails that have been posted publicly (I have NOT downloaded a copy to review myself), I see the following: 1. There is no obvious 'fraud' or 'conspiracy' regarding the scientific data. The scientists involved are guilty of believing their own opinions are more likely to be correct than someone elses (eg. that they have the correct figures for UHI adjustments and other opinions are wrong), but that's not illegal. Even the email talking about SST adjustments could be legitimately explained as dealing with how much the instrutmention changes result in a need to adjust data to ensure they are comparing apples to apples. 2. There appears to be a definite intent to avoid meeting FOI legal requirements. That's a big one because 'I find it inconvenient and annoying' is not a legitimate excuse to refuse to meet legal requirements. I personally find it inconvenient and annoying to have to do a tax return each year, but it's a legal requirement and my personal opinion doesn't count. Being able to meet FOI requests is a requirement as being part of a government organisation. It is NOT optional. 3. The manipulation of the peer review process that is implied by the posted emails is reprehensible, but not illegal (I think). It's more a case of "I'm right, they're wrong, and publishing their opinions in reputable journals reduces the stature of those journals." Not good science, but very human. 4. I have looked at what science is affected by this controversy. Paleoclimatology definitely appears to take a hit. HADCrut data for the mean global temperature has also taken a hit in it's credibility. But the other measures of mean global temperature and other science, such as on the impact of CO2, is still valid. What has been missing is a critical contrary opinion in the journals (due to the peer review abuse mentioned above) and hopefully that will be corrected. Most of the science, though, still stands. Only my opinions
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Nov 21, 2009 13:21:58 GMT
Graeme, If the data that supports the theory that CO2 ppm increases in the range we are experiencing are triggering a climate catastrophe do not support that theory, and required the promoters of that theory to massage the data, suppress the dissent, stonewall the dissemination of the information, then the claim that the theory is sound is garbage. None of us here, I will wager, are criminal defense attorneys. Worrying about the legal status of the promoters is not really an issue here. The issue is that a complex theory about how GHGs operate on climate is in fact not at all reliable. The issue is that those who are promoting it knew it, and sought to control the discussion so as to hide the unreliable nature of what they were claiming.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 21, 2009 13:29:25 GMT
I've been doing a lot of research on this recently, and what I found is that the "undocumented personalized codes" are key to the issue. It appears that they manipulate the raw data and some people (McIntryre in particular) wanted to know HOW they manipulated the data to determine for themselves if that manipulation was correct. Of course they manipulated the raw data. Roy Spencer and John Christy at UAH manipulate the raw data to produce UAH satellite record. What you do in science to reproduce work is to do your own manipulation of the raw data to see if you find the same result. Ie the RSS satellite record can be seen as one example of reproducing UAH results (and vice versa) Noone graphs the raw data and noone demands the intermediate steps. It isn't needed to reproduce someone's results. RSS doesn't demand to see UAH's source code and vice-versa. All you need is the key parts of the methodology used, which is given in the papers. The rest is up to your own implementation. This is how science works, it's simply a false picture skeptics are painting that science operates by giving out all working out and source code used to implement a method. The emails show that the scientists had nothing to hide. They explicitly say this, why would they do that in private emails if it wasn't the case? They also give the reason why they resisted FOI requests - they thought they were pointless harrassment. If you read my explaination above you will see why the data wasn't required to reproduce the results, this is why the scientists couldn't make head or tail of requests for data. As Santer angrily put in several emails, McIntyre had the raw data to reproduce his results, it was always available. He could have even got it off Douglass. But McIntyre unfortunately instead demanded all the intermediate code, which Santer put down to McIntyre being lazy and couldn't be bothered to derive the results from the raw data himself. The scientists are clearly incensed at the skeptic smear campaign involving silly little requests. Trying to paint it as anything else is futile now that these emails have been released. I repeat you have no justification to claim the emails show they were trying to hide something. The emails paint a different story entirely.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 21, 2009 13:58:19 GMT
The work is reproducible and it is critiqued. There isn't just one proxy reconstruction. There isn't just one instrumental temperature record. CA could have produced an instrumental record based on raw temperature data. CA could have produced a proxy reconstruction. Both would have been ways of reproducing the work of others that tried to do the same thing. But CA didn't do that, CA instead demanded to be . That just isn't how science is done. I am sorry if you think science is done like that, but it isn't. Studies don't set out to replicate the work of another study. They set out to reproduce it, perhaps by copying the same method, but certainly not by using the same source code and intermediate data. The best way of reproducing something is to do it in a different way. That way you can be sure the result does not depend on the method. Are you still reading this? I sometimes think you glaze over after the first paragraph and just copy paste some more nonsense. Will you even engage with anything I am saying above, which certainly is a strong argument against your assumptions? Or will you change the subject again? In one respect Socold you are right. Thats the way science has been done. But as science becomes more and more justification for laws to limit the freedom of others that model may no longer be appropriate. Uncovering shoddy practices is important to society. If laws are going to be passed based upon predictions of science, that science should be rigorously reviewed for proper practices. You would like differing results to be subjected to a popularity contest as to which is right rather than a microscopic examination of practices. This is especially important when undertrained scientists dominate a field. This typically happens when a field suddenly becomes popular for whatever reason. Old guys that never learned modern statistics are more like guys with divining sticks. There is nothing wrong with that, as these guys have a lot to contribute from their experience; but their predictive abilities are very limited due to their reduced mathematical analytical abilities. Businessmen like Steve McIntyre completely and thoroughly understands that and in fact made his business on that to produce superior results for his clients. Very clearly the public interest is in knowing that when its the case when it is related to an important public policy matter. As to your comments on intellectual property rights are concerned. If you take a job with a corporation and they pay you to develop something that something belongs to the corporation. You express some vague investment of hardwork. Yet this hardwork belongs to the people who paid for that person's time. I agree that is not how it is working today. But it probably got that way without a wide public debate on the issue. I think it is good to open the debate on this and find out what the public thinks. You may be surprised at the results.
|
|