AGW Revealed as a Hoax?

[ElvisL1ves]

@BrainGlutton

Including that.

And that.

What little I’ve seen of those e-mails suggest legitimate scientists looking for ways to keep the bullshitters from getting the same attention and credibility. It has to be frustrating to the point of enragement at times.

[Fuzzy_Dunlop]

@Triskadecamus

The “trick” so prominently displayed, by the way, is one of several methods used to eliminate proxy evidence results that are known to produce false data. The reason that proxy method fails at that particular point in history is not known. It is known that the results given by following that particular proxy (Tree rings) goes wrong in 1960. So, various statistical methods are used to replace the data in that critical period with actual recorded data, and the results of that change are then examined to create models for future changes. Is that a questionable method? Well, I think so. But it was no where near the conspiracy to defraud the world public that has been suggested. Proxy models are not that great. I happen to favor the instrument record, wherever it can be referenced. But that record is very short, and very local to the northern hemisphere. But the instrument record agrees quite closely with the projections of the past, although according to them, Global Climate Change is more rapid than was predicted in the First IPCC reports.

The thing is, it’s long since become a major issue that’s at least on the average person’s mind, even if they’re not bothering to develop a rigorous understanding of the science. Unlike normal science, climate change science needs to worry about PR and this is really bad PR for them. It’s fine to post on a blog or a message board explaining what is meant by a trick, but my local paper published an article today that was fairly even handed and the people who wrote those e-mails came off awfully. And that’s all the further most people are going to look into it.

And really, if you try to think about it as a lay person not heavily invested either way, that particular line about the trick makes the guy come off extremely suspiciously. It’s hard to explain that to people who are getting their information from local papers and television news in a convincing way. “You know that guy who wrote the douchey e-mail about using the trick to hide a decline in temperatures? He’s not really a douche, he was just using a statistical ‘trick’ to eliminate evidence he knew was false.” Well, the only thing I know about the guy is that he wrote that douchey e-mail, so I’m not inclined to take it on fiat that the evidence he was eliminating was known to be false. I’m sure if I had time I could research the issue and understand it, but most people hearing about this aren’t going to and that’s why it’s a really big PR problem.

[ralph124c]

I think the lesson is that AGW has taken on the trappings of an evangelical religion. Th proponents will go to great lengths to vilify anyone who presents any data which contradicts the propaganda line. As I see it, world leaders are faced with a problem, as measures intended to reduce greenhouse gas production (e.g. the Kyoto Treaty) will have marginal benefits (at best). Moreover, developing countries (Brazil, India, China) have made it clear that they will not cut back their economic growth, to reduce the production of these gases.
If the USA (or the EC) unilaterally adopt greenhouse gas production, they risk destroying their own economies, while transferring jobs to tyhe counries that ignore the restrictions.
There are a lot of similar situations-the greed for gold (by Western investors) is destroying fish stocks in Africa and Asia(mercury pollution of rivers and lakes)-why don’t we address this isue?

[GIGObuster]

@ralph124c

I think the lesson is that AGW has taken on the trappings of an evangelical religion. Th proponents will go to great lengths to vilify anyone who presents any data which contradicts the propaganda line. As I see it, world leaders are faced with a problem, as measures intended to reduce greenhouse gas production (e.g. the Kyoto Treaty) will have marginal benefits (at best). Moreover, developing countries (Brazil, India, China) have made it clear that they will not cut back their economic growth, to reduce the production of these gases.
If the USA (or the EC) unilaterally adopt greenhouse gas production, they risk destroying their own economies, while transferring jobs to tyhe counries that ignore the restrictions.
There are a lot of similar situations-the greed for gold (by Western investors) is destroying fish stocks in Africa and Asia(mercury pollution of rivers and lakes)-why don’t we address this isue?

You are confusing the science of AGW with “what we should do about it”

What we do about it does not change the science.

Being critical of what we should do should not lead to deny the science.

http://www.lomborg.com/faq/?PHPSESSID=10ced3bfa2821cdbd8ae44903088948c

Q: Does Lomborg deny man-made global warming exists?

A: No. In Cool It he writes: “global warming is real and man-made. It will have a serious impact on humans and the environment toward the end of this century” (p8).

Lomborg is notorious over here because many skeptics at the SDMB mistakenly pointed at him as a denier of the science.

[Squink]

@ralph124c

Th proponents will go to great lengths to vilify anyone who presents any data which contradicts the propaganda line.

The entire scientific purpose of data is to have the crap beaten out of it.
That is how science advances, over the bodies of data that could not stand up to severe scrutiny.
If the naysayers want to whine about how their data is getting beat up, let them go home, crawl into a closet and blubber inconsolably there. That is the proper place for such things. Wailing publicly and begging for sympathy, mercy if you will, is very unscientific.

[Sinaijon]

@panache45

I think the truth is that there’s an awful lot of fabrication and willful ignorance on both sides of this issue. And a great deal of it smacks more of knee-jerk religion than rational thought.

Wise words.

[Sinaijon]

@Squink

The entire scientific purpose of data is to have the crap beaten out of it. That is how science advances, over the bodies of data that could not stand up to severe scrutiny.

How do you square that with the proponents who wouldn’t make their data available to scrutiny?

[Sailboat]

@ralph124c

I think the lesson is that AGW has taken on the trappings of an evangelical religion.

No, what this means is that people with religious thinking have learned to try to tar their opponents by claiming that they also are motivated by magical beliefs.

AGW has been established scientifically. Hell, the principles involved are well understood and have been for a long time. The fact that some scientists were petty and frustrated (by a sustained, decades-long campaign to lie about their work) doesn’t mean AGW isn’t happening any more than the fact that Isaac Newton had some strange religious beliefs invalidates gravity.

[GIGObuster]

@Sinaijon

How do you square that with the proponents who wouldn’t make their data available to scrutiny?

Because the deniers make too many demands and there is a history of them ignoring data that was released before.

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/08/mcintyre_versus_jones_climate_1.html

Many of our readers will no doubt be aware of the long-standing dispute between Steve McIntyre and members of the climate science community whose data McIntyre is keen to get hold of.

For those of you less familiar with the story, here’s some background. McIntyre, who runs the Climate Audit blog, is best known for questioning the validity of the statistical analyses used to create the ‘hockey stick’ graph. The ‘hockey stick’ is the graph that illustrates the past 1000 years of climate based on palaeo proxy data and was published by Penn state climatologist Michael Mann and co-authors in Nature back in 1998.

More recently, McIntyre has turned his attention to criticizing the quality of global temperature data held by institutes such as NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Several organizations worldwide collect and report global average temperature data for each month. Of these, a temperature data set held jointly by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia and the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre in Exeter, known as HadCRU , extends back the farthest, beginning in 1850.

Since 2002, McIntyre has repeatedly asked Phil Jones, director of CRU, for access to the HadCRU data. Although the data are made available in a processed gridded format that shows the global temperature trend, the raw station data are currently restricted to academics. While Jones has made data available to some academics, he has refused to supply McIntyre with the data. Between 24 July and 29 July of this year, CRU received 58 freedom of information act requests from McIntyre and people affiliated with Climate Audit. In the past month, the UK Met Office, which receives a cleaned-up version of the raw data from CRU, has received ten requests of its own.

I’ve reported the full story for this week’s Nature, but here’s a breakdown, plus some details that didn’t make the cut.

Why does McIntyre want the data?
Given McIntyre’s track record in critiquing data that comprise a significant part of the evidence for global warming, one might wonder whether he is in fact interested in having a go at reproducing the global temperature record. But McIntyre insists hat he’s not interested in challenging the science of climate change, or in nit-picking; rather he is simply asking that the “data be made available”.

Why won’t Jones give McIntyre the data?
Jones says that he tried to help when he first received data requests from McIntyre back in 2002, but says that he soon became inundated with requests that he could not fulfill, or that he did not have the time to respond to. He says that, in some cases, he simply couldn’t hand over entire data sets because of long-standing confidentiality agreements with other nations that restrict their use.

Although Jones agrees that the data should be made publicly available, he says that “it needs to be done in a systematic way”. He is now working to make the data publicly available online and will post a statement on the CRU website tomorrow to that effect, with any existing confidentiality agreements. “We’re trying to make them all available. We’re consulting with all the meteorological services – about 150 members of WMO – and will ask them if they are happy to release the data”, says Jones. But getting the all-clear from other nations could take several months and there may be objections. “Some countries don’t even have their own data available as they haven’t digitized it. We have done a lot of that ourselves”, he says.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_had_the_data_all_alon.php

One of McIntyre’s repeated complaints about Briffa was that he refused to release his data. For example, in his post Fresh Data on Briffa’s Yamal #1:

A few days ago, I became aware that the long-sought Yamal measurement data url had materialized at Briffa’s website - after many years of effort on my part and nearly 10 years after its original use in Briffa (2000).

I am very grateful to the editors of Phil Trans B (Roy Soc) - at long last, a journal editor stood up to CRU, requiring Briffa to archive supporting data.

This got turned into statements like this one, from Tom Fuller:

The data, which the scientists had refused to release for a decade, came to light when the Royal Society of London demanded they archive their findings before publishing their latest paper.

But now McIntyre has admitted that he had the data all along. The data wasn’t Briffa’s and back in 2006, Briffa referred McIntyre to the original source:

Steve these data were produced by Swedish and Russian colleagues - will pass on your message to them] cheers, Keith

When a reader asked him why he didn’t just get the data from the original sources, McIntyre dropped a bombshell:

In response to your point that I wasn’t “diligent enough” in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I’d had since 2004.

He had it all along and despite writing thousands and thousands of words about Yamal somehow somehow failed to mention this until now. Truly I am in awe of McIntyre’s ability to make mountains out of molehills.

[Lightnin]

@ralph124c

I think the lesson is that AGW has taken on the trappings of an evangelical religion.

It seems to me that the lesson to be learned here is that painting your opponents as belonging to some sort of evangelical religion has, itself, become an evangelical religion.

Obama voter? You’re voting for the Messiah!

AGW? It’s a religion!

Athiest? It’s just another religion!

[tagos]

@Sinaijon

How do you square that with the proponents who wouldn’t make their data available to scrutiny?

Scrutiny by scientists - not a bunch of malignant ya-hoos

[Sinaijon]

@GIGObuster

Because the deniers make too many demands and there is a history of them ignoring data that was released before.

So?

First, there isn’t such a thing as ‘too many demands’ for your data/processes. Science isn’t secret. If it is, it isn’t science. Releasing data isn’t difficult. You post it on the Internet somewhere, and you are done.

Second, skeptics have no obligation to do anything with the data. But you do have an obligation to release it.

[Sinaijon]

@tagos

Scrutiny by scientists - not a bunch of malignant ya-hoos

I agree. That’s why they should release the data, so that real scientists can see it, not just a bunch of malignant ya-hoos. The ya-hoos have had their turn at it, lets see what real science can do now.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@tagos

Scrutiny by scientists - not a bunch of malignant ya-hoos

Heh, actually, the leak has lead to what they were doing being scrutinized by experts: the source code to their modeling programs is currently being raked over by hundreds of programmers.

Anyway, Sam Stone proposed a good idea in the Pit thread: why not make it mandatory to release all datasets and program code under a creative commons license?

[villa]

Nate Silver’s take on this…

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html

[Knorf]

University of East Anglia?

[Squink]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

Anyway, Sam Stone proposed a good idea in the Pit thread: why not make it mandatory to release all datasets and program code under a creative commons license?

Let’s just get rid of ALL intellectual property rights while we’re at it, release the recipe for coca cola so I can make it at home for pennies a glass.

[Sinaijon]

@Squink

Let’s just get rid of ALL intellectual property rights while we’re at it, release the recipe for coca cola so I can make it at home for pennies a glass.

If Coke got research money from the Gov, then yeah.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@Squink

Let’s just get rid of ALL intellectual property rights while we’re at it, release the recipe for coca cola so I can make it at home for pennies a glass.

Are you being purposefully dense? Does Coca Cola get extensive research grants from the taxpayer? Is Coca Cola’s research activity the basis for a concerted effort for massive social change in virtually every industrialized country?

[elucidator]

It appears to a casual observer (and I’m about as casual an observer as can be found), that this shit is a bit dated. Ten years or so? If AGW is a “hoax”, its one hell of a hoax, since the consensus of scientific opinion has shifted more in its favor than against in the intervening space of time. Is all of that research a “hoax” as well? I suppose a lot depends on who’s ox is Gored…

But suppose we find out tomorrow that some of the earliest skeptics of Piltdown Man’s authenticity played fast and loose with their data. Would Piltdown Man then be considered an authentic find? No, of course not, its a hoax, it was then and remains one now. The earliest research was clumsy and crude in comparison to what we have available, if we started from scratch on Piltdown, it would be found out as a hoax much more speedily than it was before, it is most assuredly bogus.

If the “hockey stick” hoopla proves that the original data was questionable, what effect does that have on the independent research that went on after? Zero, zilch, zippo, nada damn thing. Those results might have encouraged the reluctant to pursue the question, or might have increased the possibility of funding for what was, at that time, not a very popular topic.

But the research that went on afterwards is still research, data is not affected by our ethical judgements, it simply is what it is.