AGW Revealed as a Hoax?

[Lightnin]

@Aji_de_Gallina

Well, it’s not like you actually comment on my links, either… save for crying “denier”

Well what would YOU call people who’ve already decided that AGW is a hoax/global conspiracy, and who ignore all evidence to the contrary?

[GIGObuster]

@Aji_de_Gallina

Well, it’s not like you actually comment on my links, either

Because I found before that your sourses are not reliable, you need to point to specific items, as many times they refer to items that were already explained and researched many times before.

@Aji_de_Gallina

… save for crying “denier”

So far I see you as an skeptic, but if you **never **doubt about your sources…

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Lightnin

Well what would YOU call people who’ve already decided that AGW is a hoax/global conspiracy, and who ignore all evidence to the contrary?

When did I say anything like that?

@GIGObuster

Because I found before that your sourses are not reliable, you need to point to specific items, as many times they refer to items that were already explained and researched many times before.
So far I see you as an skeptic, but if you **never **doubt about your sources…

You mean that NASA charts and HadCRU data are not reliable?
You may disagree on how the data is analysed or commented, but the charts are from “your” guys.
I question my sources, of course I’m sure I’m biased towards the sceptical side.

[Revtim]

I have an idea that could make space flight much easier and much cheaper.

A friend and I will do scientific research into gravity, and falsify some results. I will email my friend about these falsified results, and they will get “leaked” to unbiased major media outlets, like Fox News and Drudge.

This will then DISPROVE the theory of gravity! Imagine how much easier it will be get stuff into outer space without that damn gravity holding us down!

[elucidator]

Well, so long as you do it at the right moment, if I’m going to be flung into outer space, I’d kind of like to hit the moon. If that’s not too much trouble…

[Revtim]

No promises.

[GIGObuster]

@Aji_de_Gallina

You mean that NASA charts and HadCRU data are not reliable?
You may disagree on how the data is analysed or commented, but the charts are from “your” guys.

You don’t think it is odd that they get different conclusions with the same data? And more often than not they **skip **the context and go for nitpicks to continue saying that “we don’t know” (The main conclusion in one of the sites you linked to)

Just FUD.

[jshore]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

Yes, perhaps we can call these rare bodies “funding councils”, or something like that. Perhaps we can even think up catchy names for them, such as EPSRC or NERC.

Well, in the case of Michael Mann and colleagues’ work, the relevant funding agency was the NSF and the NSF weighed in very clearly on the issue of what data, methods, and code was required to be released. The NSF clearly told Steve McIntyre that Mann et al. had made available everything that they were required to:

Dear Mr. McIntyre,

I apologize if my last electronic message was not clear but let me clarify the US NSF’s view in this current message. Dr. Mann and his other US colleagues are under no obligation to provide you with any additional data beyond the extensive data sets they have already made available. He is not required to provide you with computer programs, codes, etc. His research is published in the peer-reviewed literature which has passed muster with the editors of those journals and other scientists who have reviewed his manuscripts.

You are free to your analysis of climate data and he is free to his. The passing of time and evolving new knowledge about Earth’s climate will eventually tell the full story of changing climate. I would expect that you would respect the views of the US NSF on the issue of data access and intellectual property for US investigators as articulated by me to you in my last message under the advisement of the US NSF’s Office of General Counsel.

Respectfully,
David J. Verardo
Director, Paleoclimate Program

Nonetheless, subsequent to this, Mann et al. did release more, including their code…and, in their 2008 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they made pretty much everything available with the publication of their paper. Hence, they have gone beyond funding agency requirements.

I think it is good to encourage scientists to be more open than what is required but I don’t think it is good to DEMAND this or to make false claims about what openness is currently the norm in the scientific community. In physics (or at least the subfields of it that I have been in), it is rare indeed to release one’s computer code. And, in fact, I have published papers while working for a corporate employer where I would not even be allowed by my employer to release the code.

[jshore]

By the way, RealClimate has started a list of publicly-available raw and processed data, codes, and model output available here.

[elucidator]

So. They’re in on it too, then?

[GIGObuster]

jshore!

Where have you been?!! I was beginning to think some contrarians got you.

[kidchameleon]

@Bryan_Ekers

I’m curious what makes the OP happier - that his grandchildren won’t die of skin cancer, or that some filthy liberal scum were proven wrong.

Are you saying that Global Warming will lead to an increase in skin cancer? Or are confusing GW with loss of the ozone layer?

[Alex_Dubinsky]

Quoting a good post from a different thread:

@Voluble

The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University is responsible for gathering data from weather stations around the world. They collect, correlate and “adjust” it, ostensibly to account for different measurement methods. The scientists there also play the largest role in issuing the IPCC reports, including the infamous and ultimately discredited “hockey stick.” Part of the reason you may have difficulty finding an authoritative source for temperature information is that the CRU just admitted that they destroyed all of their raw (unadjusted) data. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Some of the internal correspondence between these “scientists” at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit was just released and it was revealed that there was widespread destruction of information subject to freedom of information requests along with evidence of everything from tax fraud to attempts to stack peer review journals with friendly faces and control the outcome of the debate. They couldn’t even reproduce their own results, using their own adjusted data run through their own computer programs. So in short… we have no way to know one way or the other which years are warmest and it is doubtful such a measure would have an agreed upon meaning anyway. Which measuring stations will you use? Do you use satellite, thermometer or proxy data? Do you use sea temperatures, or atmospheric, or land measurements and how do you combine the different types etc… The hockey stick for instance was the result of cherry picking from amongst a set of proxy data (tree rings). Not only was the data cherry picked from this subset but it was then arbitrarily combined with an entirely different set of measurements to generate the uptick at the end we are so familiar with.

BTW, the notes from the programmer in charge of trying to reproduce what has been published in peer review journals are quite funny. The guy was literally pulling out his hair and eventually had to give up the effort.

Not to overstate the case but when you have putative scientists who refuse to release their data and describe their methods so that their results can be reproduced and on top of that you have widespread destruction of the original readings you aren’t really dealing with science. That is not to take sides in any debate just to state the facts as currently known. If warming is occurring it would be nice to know but it is hard to find a reliable source on which to make any claims at all. This problem is not contained to just the CRU. Similar problems exist with researchers in New Zealand and elsewhere for instance. They apparently adjusted their data upwards as well and have yet to release a full explanation as to why. Then this data was sent to the CRU and adjusted yet again.

Phil Jones, one of the alleged conspirators at the CRU sums up his view when responding to a fellow scientist’s request for data in one of the e-mails thusly;

Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …
Cheers Phil

Such a response is the very essence of the scientific method is it not?

That CRU quote at the end is pretty poignant. Even if the “hide the decline” quote can be explained away, the “I won’t let you have my data” is just as shocking, from the POV of the scientific method.

[BrainGlutton]

‘Permanent’ Arctic ice vanishing:

**‘Permanent’ Arctic ice vanishing

Satellite images misled shocked scientists**

WINNIPEG–One of Canada’s top northern researchers says the permanent Arctic sea ice that is home to the world’s polar bears and usually survives the summer has all but disappeared.

Experts around the world believed the ice was recovering because satellite images showed it expanding. But David Barber says the thick, multi-year frozen sheets crucial to the northern ecosystem have been replaced by thin “rotten” ice that can’t support weight of the bears. “It caught us all by surprise because we were expecting there to be multi-year sea ice. The whole world thought it was multi-year sea ice,” said Barber, who just returned from an expedition to the Beaufort Sea.

“Unfortunately, what we found was that the multi-year (ice) has all but disappeared. What’s left is this remnant, rotten ice.”

<snip>

The findings, soon to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, come as a shock to experts worldwide.

Although northern sea ice hit a record low in 2007, researchers believed it was recovering because of what they were seeing on satellite images.

But the images the experts relied on were misleading because the rotten ice looks sturdy on the surface and has a similar superficial temperature, Barber explained.

“The satellites give us only part of the story. The multi-year ice is disappearing and it’s almost all gone now from the northern hemisphere.”

[Sage_Rat]

@xtisme

Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that this is NOT an ‘obscure university’, at least WRT climate studies. My (perhaps flawed) understanding is that, in fact, this is one of the major centers for much of the data and modeling concerning our current understanding of GW/Climate Change. No?

-XT

It is a major center for it, but still just one of many. I can’t even remember all of the various organizations with tons of data just sitting on the internet in nicely tabulated files to browse through. If you look at almost any temperature reconstruction, climate simulation, or any such thing, there’s always a minimum of a dozen separate groups’ output charted, including error bars.

[GIGObuster]

@Alex_Dubinsky

That CRU quote at the end is pretty poignant. Even if the “hide the decline” quote can be explained away, the “I won’t let you have my data” is just as shocking, from the POV of the scientific method.

Not shocking considering who did the request, AFAIK the original data is curated at the met services where it originated. This researcher is most likely replying to continuous erroneous requests that assume that the data was his to deliver.

So far, in this specific case, I see incompetence regarding human relations. Nothing to do with the subject at hand as there are already very good cites that show that the data was already released or that there are good reasons why some data is not released.

(And I would not mind putting this researcher to the coals for that remark, as I mentioned before, it is almost all contrarians and deniers that continue to look even worse for cherry picking and ignoring the context, it is still a very unethical move to use stolen evidence to make misleading points.)

[GIGObuster]

But, I think we should continue to dismiss the stolen letter evidence until we get more reliable evidence that the frustrated researchers were not just expressing their frustrations with database issues and saying aloud their wishful thinking on what to do with deniers.

Environment

Professor Jones broke his silence after environmental campaigners including George Monbiot called for him to resign over his reference in an email to a “trick” he applied to raw data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures. In another email, he appeared to respond to the death of a climate sceptic with the words “in an odd way this is cheering news!”.

The emails were among 4,000 documents containing exchanges between some of the world’s leading climatologists which were hacked from computer servers at UEA and posted online last week. They were immediately picked up by climate change sceptics as evidence of an international conspiracy to blame global warming on human activity.

Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, has led calls for a full investigation into the leaked files, saying that the good reputation of British science was under threat.

Prof Jones suggested the publication of the information could be a “concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run up to the Copenhagen talks”, overshadowing the vital issue of the enormous challenges humanity faced.

He said that since the leaks, he has received personal threats which have been passed on to Norfolk police, adding it had been “the worst few days of my professional life”.

He insisted he had no intention of resigning, but expressed regret at any any “upset or confusion” caused by the emails which, he said, contained “poorly chosen words in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated”.

He responded to criticism about the UEA’s failure to public raw data on land temperatures, despite a number of Freedom of information requests, saying that the information was drawn from organisations all around the world and CRU had signed agreements with them not to release it.

But he said the unit was in the process of contacting the other organisations to ask if they could release the data. Similar, independent data sets from the US had the raw data published online, he added.

Nonetheless, he said, the science produced by his centre was genuine and had been peer reviewed.