Climategate
-
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
- Contact:
Climategate
What are you guys opinions on the matter? At first my reaction was "so what it's only one college" but apparently this was a major research center or something where a bunch of organization's got their information from. I'm still a little shakey on the issue though so what do ya'll think?

-
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
- Contact:
One thing I will say, regardless of whether or not climate changes effects have been exagerated, is that pollution is a fact. Regardless of whether or not we're all going to be dead 100 years from now because of climate changes, what we've done and continue to do to the Earth is ridiculous. Not 50 years ago you could go to any number of rivers within 25 miles of where I am at the right time of year and see the thing chalk full of Salmon so thick that you could literally just grab them from right out of the water. That I'm denied that right is a crime.

It's just stupid people out of context quote mining without understanding what the emails are actually about. There's nothing damning in the emails at all, and anybody who claims there is has lost all their credibility, if they had any to begin with. If you want to post up specific examples I'd be happy to explain what the email is actually about.
Basically climate change deniers either have no morals or integrity, or are really stupid, don't have research skills and jump to conclusions about things they can't understand. However it is funny that their complaining about being called "idiots" by the climate scientists in these emails. Personally I think "idiot" is too generous an insult.
Basically climate change deniers either have no morals or integrity, or are really stupid, don't have research skills and jump to conclusions about things they can't understand. However it is funny that their complaining about being called "idiots" by the climate scientists in these emails. Personally I think "idiot" is too generous an insult.
- PoisonTaffy
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1003
- Joined: 23 Jun 2007 15:42
- Location: Israel, center
- Contact:
I just read Bad Astronomy's post on the issue:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... tronomy%29
To sum his position:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... tronomy%29
To sum his position:
These denialist claims [....] don’t get to the core of the issue, and that’s the overwhelming amount of data supporting global warming. You need to ask: do these emails and other hacked files change the actual science, the actual conclusions drawn by those scientists? As far as I can see, the answer is no.
"Childhood is short, immaturity is forever"
Roy Klein
Roy Klein
- PoisonTaffy
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1003
- Joined: 23 Jun 2007 15:42
- Location: Israel, center
- Contact:
Global Warming is just one of a million reasons to care about the environment and pollute less.
No matter how badly documented and artificial the corrections applied in the computer model are, the code is not the cause of the hole in the ozone layer, nor has the code cause the missing arctic sea ice.
Some people will think these selected subsets of stolen emails mean climate change is a hoax, and we should remove our mountain tops, poison our streams, and pollute the atmosphere like the good old days.
No matter how badly documented and artificial the corrections applied in the computer model are, the code is not the cause of the hole in the ozone layer, nor has the code cause the missing arctic sea ice.
Some people will think these selected subsets of stolen emails mean climate change is a hoax, and we should remove our mountain tops, poison our streams, and pollute the atmosphere like the good old days.
-
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 02 Sep 2005 19:45
- Location: Palatine/Chicago Burbs
To Brainbrindge- The opposite has happened around Chicago. Rivers that used to be polluted beyond comprehension (Chicago river documented to have had 5 feet deep of decomposing blood on the river floor back when stockyards were in effect) are now somewhat healthy waters with lots of carp and a few bass. The des plaines river here used to be really nasty and now it has good pike populations growing up. So things arent getting worse everywhere.
The male bass all over the country are laying eggs though. Thats from all the female hormones left in urine from female birth control pills. I think they are in all the food we eat and water we drink too.
The male bass all over the country are laying eggs though. Thats from all the female hormones left in urine from female birth control pills. I think they are in all the food we eat and water we drink too.
-
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
- Contact:
-
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 02 Sep 2005 19:45
- Location: Palatine/Chicago Burbs
-
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 02 Sep 2005 19:45
- Location: Palatine/Chicago Burbs
Well I haven't looked it up and probably won't. I'm sure it's happening, there are plenty of documented similar cases, however I find it very hard to believe that it's caused by contraceptive pills. Given just how many pollutants there are that either contain estrogen or mimic estrogen, I can't see how anybody could possibly make such a precise statement about the source of the pollution. There are also plenty of other endocrine disruptors that could potentially cause these kinds of effects. Sounds very much like some kind of sensationalist media beat up then something any scientist could actually determine.
- HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Here's one of those emails:
From: Phil Jones <p>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann>
Subject: Re: For your eyes only
Date: Thu Feb 3 13:11:46 2005
Mike,
It would be good to produce future series with and without the long
instrumental series and maybe the documentary ones as well. The long
measurements can then be used to validate the low-freq aspects at least
back to 1750, maybe earlier with the documentary. There are some key
warm decades (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg
reconstruction completely misses and gives the impression that all
years are cold between 1500 and 1750.
Away Feb 6-10 and 12-20 and 22-25 (last in Chicago - on the panel to
consider the vertical temp work of CCSP).
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 15:26 02/02/2005, you wrote:
Thanks Phil,
Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're going to be very careful in the future
what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory
so that Tim could access the data.
Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going
to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights
issues, so it isn't clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S.
I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor
comments). It looks very good at present--will be interesting to see how they deal w/
the contrarian criticisms--there will be many. I'm hoping they'll stand firm (I believe
they will--I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that)...
Will keep you updated on stuff...
talk to you later,
mike
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling
them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant
here,
but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere
to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if
you are.
Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,
Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it
getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the
right
emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be
the
main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It
seems
the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's
series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,
so will keep you informed.
Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert
by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:41 02/02/2005, you wrote:
Phil--thought I should let you know that its official now that I'll be moving to Penn
State next Fall.
I'll be in the Meteorology Dept. & Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and plan
to head up a center for "Earth System History" within the institute. Will keep you
updated,
Mike
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
------------------
Why would Phil "delete the file rather than send it."? Is he afraid of FOI acts?
Why does he need to "hide behind" the data protection act he mentions?
Why did he write that Tom Wigley (and his model code) can "hide behind" his retirement from UEA?
From: Phil Jones <p>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann>
Subject: Re: For your eyes only
Date: Thu Feb 3 13:11:46 2005
Mike,
It would be good to produce future series with and without the long
instrumental series and maybe the documentary ones as well. The long
measurements can then be used to validate the low-freq aspects at least
back to 1750, maybe earlier with the documentary. There are some key
warm decades (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg
reconstruction completely misses and gives the impression that all
years are cold between 1500 and 1750.
Away Feb 6-10 and 12-20 and 22-25 (last in Chicago - on the panel to
consider the vertical temp work of CCSP).
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 15:26 02/02/2005, you wrote:
Thanks Phil,
Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're going to be very careful in the future
what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory
so that Tim could access the data.
Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going
to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights
issues, so it isn't clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S.
I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor
comments). It looks very good at present--will be interesting to see how they deal w/
the contrarian criticisms--there will be many. I'm hoping they'll stand firm (I believe
they will--I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that)...
Will keep you updated on stuff...
talk to you later,
mike
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling
them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant
here,
but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere
to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if
you are.
Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,
Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it
getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the
right
emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be
the
main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It
seems
the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's
series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,
so will keep you informed.
Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert
by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:41 02/02/2005, you wrote:
Phil--thought I should let you know that its official now that I'll be moving to Penn
State next Fall.
I'll be in the Meteorology Dept. & Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and plan
to head up a center for "Earth System History" within the institute. Will keep you
updated,
Mike
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
------------------
Why would Phil "delete the file rather than send it."? Is he afraid of FOI acts?
Why does he need to "hide behind" the data protection act he mentions?
Why did he write that Tom Wigley (and his model code) can "hide behind" his retirement from UEA?
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
- Avenging Disco Godfather
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
- Location: Chicago, IL
I'm just gonna take a moment to savor the return of HDS. Mmmmmmmmmmm.
So the model wasn't perfect & these guys groaned & said "oh god we'll be explaining this to morons forever. Hopefully we can avoid that."
Either that or a conspiracy by a cabal of satan worshippers.
Maybe because these scientists got tired of playing games with people committed to a strategy of infinite denial, a strategy frequently based upon selective presentation of facts outside of a larger context of evidence?HighDemonslayer wrote: Why would Phil "delete the file rather than send it."? Is he afraid of FOI acts?
Why does he need to "hide behind" the data protection act he mentions?
Why did he write that Tom Wigley (and his model code) can "hide behind" his retirement from UEA?
So the model wasn't perfect & these guys groaned & said "oh god we'll be explaining this to morons forever. Hopefully we can avoid that."
Either that or a conspiracy by a cabal of satan worshippers.
Classic logical fallacy.
Here's a better question. Why would the actions of one scientist have any bearing on a theory that is based on physics knowledge that is 150 years old and can be tested by high school students?
This is a demonstration that climate change deniers are either dishonest or stupid, and they can't address the actual science because they know so little about it, so they're attacking the scientists instead. It's a meaningless ad hominem attack.
Why would Phil delete the data? There are hundreds of reasons that have nothing to do with the data being dodgy. It's pointless speculation to put forward any particular reason without evidence. His organisation has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in creating this data, if we were talking about a chemistry or genetics instead of climate change, I'm sure we could think of some good reasons. That's just one possibility of many though.
Here's a better question. Why would the actions of one scientist have any bearing on a theory that is based on physics knowledge that is 150 years old and can be tested by high school students?
This is a demonstration that climate change deniers are either dishonest or stupid, and they can't address the actual science because they know so little about it, so they're attacking the scientists instead. It's a meaningless ad hominem attack.
Why would Phil delete the data? There are hundreds of reasons that have nothing to do with the data being dodgy. It's pointless speculation to put forward any particular reason without evidence. His organisation has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in creating this data, if we were talking about a chemistry or genetics instead of climate change, I'm sure we could think of some good reasons. That's just one possibility of many though.
I see nothing damning in those emails.
What is damning is the state of education in this country, and the disconnect between what the media feeds people as science, and what science actually is.
That just sounded like a routine discussion involved in getting published, competing models, and addressing concerns raised by groups investigating alternative models.
What is damning is the state of education in this country, and the disconnect between what the media feeds people as science, and what science actually is.
That just sounded like a routine discussion involved in getting published, competing models, and addressing concerns raised by groups investigating alternative models.
-
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 02 Sep 2005 19:45
- Location: Palatine/Chicago Burbs
I wish people would question their religion with the same distrust they show to peer reviewed science.
As for science being presented as fact, that is only the case when you do not follow the actual science, do not read the actual literature, and wait to be spoon fed the CONCLUSIONS of the scientist as interpreted by a for profit mass media outlet. They dumb it down and sex it up for a reason.
As for science being presented as fact, that is only the case when you do not follow the actual science, do not read the actual literature, and wait to be spoon fed the CONCLUSIONS of the scientist as interpreted by a for profit mass media outlet. They dumb it down and sex it up for a reason.
"Fact" and "theory" are also hard to understand in reference to science. "Theory" in particular typically means a large body of knowledge explaining a particular set of observations. In the same context that you'd talk about "music theory" or "stepping set theory." I suspect Jon is using it in the less scientific sense, basically meaning "hypothesis." However in science a hypothesis is an attempted explanation for a particular observation. The observation could be called a "fact" and the hypothesis is an attempt to explain why that is a fact.
Scientists tend not to "prove" things and hypothesis' tend not be able to be "proved" true, only "proved" false. However with any hypothesis that is presented as a "fact," (and we're really starting to mix up our meanings of these words), typically that's because there is an enormous amount of evidence supporting it. Of course there are exceptions. For example when Darwin first proposed his evolution hypothesis all he had was mountains of evidence supporting it, but now we've directly observed evolution occurring so it would have to be viewed as an observed fact, rather than a hypothesis. Of course I'm using these words in a particularly confusing sense in this, because evolution is not one hypothesis but a huge collection of hypothesises, most of which have been tested rigorously for over 150 years, and many of which have turned into observed facts.
Scientists tend not to "prove" things and hypothesis' tend not be able to be "proved" true, only "proved" false. However with any hypothesis that is presented as a "fact," (and we're really starting to mix up our meanings of these words), typically that's because there is an enormous amount of evidence supporting it. Of course there are exceptions. For example when Darwin first proposed his evolution hypothesis all he had was mountains of evidence supporting it, but now we've directly observed evolution occurring so it would have to be viewed as an observed fact, rather than a hypothesis. Of course I'm using these words in a particularly confusing sense in this, because evolution is not one hypothesis but a huge collection of hypothesises, most of which have been tested rigorously for over 150 years, and many of which have turned into observed facts.