Climategate

[웃 910]

Article 1

Glenn Harlan Reynolds: Climategate denial foundering on army of Davids

By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Sunday Reflections Contributor

November 29, 2009

Last week a hacker -- or, perhaps more likely, an inside "whistleblower" -- leaked huge amounts of data from the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia in Britain. The leaks demonstrated that many "insider" scientists were conspiring to block publication of dissenting views in peer-reviewed journals, while suggesting that there was data-fudging, and deliberate evasion of Freedom Of Information requests, perhaps even including deliberate destruction of data.

Worse still, the computer models themselves appear to be jerry-rigged and deeply flawed. As Declan McCullagh reported on the CBS News website, independent programmers were appalled:

"As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.

"One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: 'I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources.'

"Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: 'Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!' and 'APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.' Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: 'Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!'"

None of this inspires confidence. As Megan McArdle noted on the Atlantic Monthly's website: "The IPCC report, which is the most widely relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs of global warming. If those costs are unreliable, then any cost-benefit analysis is totally worthless. Obviously, this also casts their reluctance to conform with FOI requests in a slightly different light."

Yes, they're acting as if they've got something to hide. But the establishment's response has been to ignore the problem and hope it goes away.

Climate Czar Carol Browner responded: "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."

The problem is that the "2,500 scientists" she refers to were relying on data and models that, it now appears, may have been fake. Garbage in, garbage out. Plenty of scientists believed in Piltdown Man, too, for a while.

Big media are downplaying the problem too -- while Declan McCullagh has done great reporting on CBS's website, the network's broadcast coverage has been quite different. Likewise, the New York Times and Washington Post, while covering the matter, have downplayed its significance.

It seems clear that the Obama administration, and the folks in traditional media, think this is a story better ignored.

It won't work. While Big Media folks ignore the story, the alternate media are all over it.

From blogs, to talk radio, to Facebook and Twitter -- and, of course, the Obama administration's bete noire, Fox News -- this story is sweeping the nation and the world (it has already provoked resignations in Australia). With the data made available online, individuals and groups continue to search through the records and find new nuggets of information.

Polls have shown growing public skepticism, both in the U.S. and abroad, even before the Climategate revelations. That is now likely to grow.

For politicians, hitching their wagon to the carbon-control star was already an iffy proposition given widespread economic problems and public skepticism. In light of the Climategate revelations, many of them are likely to view it as something closer to suicide.

My prediction: The Copenhagen global warming conference will feature a lot of pretty words and promises, and no admission that things have changed. But we'll see little or no actual movement, as politicians around the world realize that there's no percentage in pushing these programs on an increasingly wary public.

Examiner contributor Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a University of Tennessee College of Law professor who blogs at InstaPundit.com and hosts "InstaVision" on PJTV.com.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 2

November 29, 2009

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU's director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data."

The CRU is the world's leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. "The CRU is basically saying, 'Trust us'. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science," he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life's work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is "unequivocally" linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Confucian

[Ban Hammer 13,398]

now for the attacks on the op, the source, and the writer.

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

If this could be summarized in one sentence it would be... ???

[Ban Hammer 13,398]

If this could be summarized in one sentence it would be... ???

--you lie!

[ready4ONE 5,400]

now for the attacks on the op, the source, and the writer.

It would be convenient if true, unfortunately the scientific community, big oil and others who should be in the denial camp, believe otherwise. So toast the 'revelations' of the emails all you like, and perhaps human impact is not the decisive factor, the climate is indeed changing, and not for the better.

[Dan J 277]

The data from CRU is not the only data source for climate data. Here is a list of many different data sources on climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Of course some people rather just grasp at straws and call it a holy grail.

[alienlovechild 75]

The data from CRU is not the only data source for climate data. Here is a list of many different data sources on climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Of course some people rather just grasp at straws and call it a holy grail.

Not best source as the website pretends politics and economics have nothing to do with climate change issues. The fixed data from the emails speaks for the movement which should be slamming the political intrusion into the science of climate change.

"RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team."

But then comes this section. . .

"Responses to common contrarian arguments:"

Take a guess the about uniform spin on the articles. You'll get the same stuff from 20 years ago with the only difference being the the shriller tone of disaster for the future.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

[HAL 9000 96]

now for the attacks on the op, the source, and the writer.

Not really... its like the same article, over, and over, and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

eventually when you guys get your heads out of the sand and realize that scientists are just fine, you'll move on to look for something else to wash, rinse, and repeat when nothing sticks.

[Dan J 277]

The data from CRU is not the only data source for climate data. Here is a list of many different data sources on climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Of course some people rather just grasp at straws and call it a holy grail.

Not best source as the website pretends politics and economics have nothing to do with climate change issues. The fixed data from the emails speaks for the movement which should be slamming the political intrusion into the science of climate change.

"RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team."

But then comes this section. . .

"Responses to common contrarian arguments:"

Take a guess the about uniform spin on the articles. You'll get the same stuff from 20 years ago with the only difference being the the shriller tone of disaster for the future.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

I'm not commenting on the source. All it is is a list of climate data sources both raw and processed. You can go ahead and do your own analysis.

[HAL 9000 96]

The data from CRU is not the only data source for climate data. Here is a list of many different data sources on climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Of course some people rather just grasp at straws and call it a holy grail.

Not best source as the website pretends politics and economics have nothing to do with climate change issues. The fixed data from the emails speaks for the movement which should be slamming the political intrusion into the science of climate change.

"RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except 'group' posts which are collective efforts from the whole team."

But then comes this section. . .

"Responses to common contrarian arguments:"

Take a guess the about uniform spin on the articles. You'll get the same stuff from 20 years ago with the only difference being the the shriller tone of disaster for the future.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

I'm not commenting on the source. All it is is a list of climate data sources both raw and processed. You can go ahead and do your own analysis.

I think a better conclusion for ALC would have been to note that the site pushes for political action based on the science; not the other way around as the naysayers seem to be doing.

But definitely... there really is a lot of repeatism going on now. Its like they don't realize a few things about the progression of scientific knowledge here. I still have hopes for our species though.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

now for the attacks on the op, the source, and the writer.

Anything to avoid the truth.

[Ban Hammer 13,398]

now for the attacks on the op, the source, and the writer.

Not really... its like the same article, over, and over, and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

eventually when you guys get your heads out of the sand and realize that scientists are just fine, you'll move on to look for something else to wash, rinse, and repeat when nothing sticks.

like i said

[HAL 9000 96]

The data from CRU is not the only data source for climate data. Here is a list of many different data sources on climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Of course some people rather just grasp at straws and call it a holy grail.

Not best source as the website pretends politics and economics have nothing to do with climate change issues. The fixed data from the emails speaks for the movement which should be slamming the political intrusion into the science of climate change.

"RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except 'group' posts which are collective efforts from the whole team."

But then comes this section. . .

"Responses to common contrarian arguments:"

Take a guess the about uniform spin on the articles. You'll get the same stuff from 20 years ago with the only difference being the the shriller tone of disaster for the future.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

I'm not commenting on the source. All it is is a list of climate data sources both raw and processed. You can go ahead and do your own analysis.

I think a better conclusion for ALC would have been to note that the site pushes for political action based on the science; not the other way around as the naysayers seem to be doing.

But definitely... there really is a lot of repeatism going on now. Its like they don't realize a few things about the progression of scientific knowledge here. I still have hopes for our species though.

I forgot... retarded one-liners too.

now for the attacks on the op, the source, and the writer.

Not really... its like the same article, over, and over, and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

eventually when you guys get your heads out of the sand and realize that scientists are just fine, you'll move on to look for something else to wash, rinse, and repeat when nothing sticks.

like i said

We can register you in a VJ science class if you wish.

[Ban Hammer 13,398]

now for the attacks on the op, the source, and the writer.

Not really... its like the same article, over, and over, and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

eventually when you guys get your heads out of the sand and realize that scientists are just fine, you'll move on to look for something else to wash, rinse, and repeat when nothing sticks.

like i said

We can register you in a VJ science class if you wish.

if i have any questions i can always ask my high school oceanography teacher

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Maybe Hal could enlighten us on the detrimental effects of shuttle launches on the environment.