[Merged] AGW Team email and files hacked and on interrnet?

mhaze · 20th November 2009, 09:15 AM

Quoting The Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails

The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

For some reason, the files leaked are described as "Leaked FOIA files". (File name: FOI2009.zip)

Not sure whether that means they were files previously requested or in process of being released under FOIA or what.

But are they real files or fake?

One of many discussions, this one by Motl:

http://motls.blogspot.com/

Ziggurat · 20th November 2009, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

But are they real files or fake?

I'm seeing reports that they are real.

Poptech · 20th November 2009, 09:48 AM

As someone mentioned to me these emails have apparently been obtained illegally and I do not know if the JREF is OK with that material being reproduced here (we have allowed similar "whistle blower" stuff to be posted here before). So until such time as I get a response from the JREF please do not reproduce any of the material here.

Posted By:Darat

Darat · 22nd November 2009, 05:26 AM

To all participants, I have re-started this thread and I am not placing it on [Moderated Status]. However if you post in this thread and breach your Membership Agreement you will be suspended without any further warning.

Posted By:Darat

Abdul Alhazred · 22nd November 2009, 05:57 AM

http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2...=497579#497579

BobK · 22nd November 2009, 06:20 AM

Darat hasn't unlocked the other thread yet so I'll put this here.

Bishop Hill provides a short synopsis with links to some of the more interesting emails.

Darat · 22nd November 2009, 06:59 AM

Oops - sorry for creating this thread as a closed thread - when you copy an opening post the new thread inherits the open/closed status of the original.

Posted By:Darat

gtc · 22nd November 2009, 06:59 AM

Here is an interesting blog article about the emails (reposted from earlier thread).

BenBurch · 22nd November 2009, 07:35 AM

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...-bytes-of.html

Sums up the issue and, shows the character of those pushing it, and lays it to rest.

Poptech · 22nd November 2009, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Sums up the issue and, shows the character of those pushing it, and lays it to rest.

Ben, why did you link to an economically illiterate site? Too funny.

mhaze · 22nd November 2009, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by gtc

Here is an interesting blog article about the emails (reposted from earlier thread).

I think a rather interesting aspect of this entire matter - which your article makes me reflect on - is the interest of the world community. The people.

As follows:

1. AGW true believers claim that a near totalitarian control must be placed on the carbon emissions of everyone or else the world heats up, blah blah blah.

2. AGW true believers and a certain group of politicians work together to implement this plan.

3. The CRU is hacked and emails released which show the propping up of weak scientific ideas, attempts to stifle dissent, and so forth.

4. Now #1 and #2 must be re evaluated. Not a small matter.

5. The release of the emails serve the public interest. Any other conclusion is ridiculous.

mhaze · 22nd November 2009, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by BobK

Darat hasn't unlocked the other thread yet so I'll put this here.

Bishop Hill provides a short synopsis with links to some of the more interesting emails.

That does appear to be the shaping up of a sane and comprehensive look at the emails.

I agree (as noted in the other, currently closed thread) with the comment made in Biship Hill that Trenberth comes across as the lone, true scientist.

volatile · 22nd November 2009, 08:18 AM

http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-...ment-thinking/

:-D

"If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newton’s private correspondence were compiled and published.

When you read some of these letters, you realise just why Newton and his collaborators might have preferred to keep them confidential. This scandal could well be the biggest in Renaissance science. These alleged letters – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists behind really hard math lessons – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in covering up the truth, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."

PixyMisa · 22nd November 2009, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...-bytes-of.html

Sums up the issue and, shows the character of those pushing it, and lays it to rest.

Agreed on that point; I see no evidence for scientific fraud.

But the blatant disregard for FOIA requests is rather more disturbing. I don't know the exact details of the law or the requests themselves, but you don't play games like that when your research is guiding public policy.

mhaze · 22nd November 2009, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Agreed on that point; I see no evidence for scientific fraud.

But the blatant disregard for FOIA requests is rather more disturbing. I don't know the exact details of the law or the requests themselves, but you don't play games like that when your research is guiding public policy.

Excepting of course, for the previous, ongoing investigation into scientific fraud on the part of Phil Jones and Wang, which is openly discussed in these emails, and which is related to Jones's curious paranoia about FOI requests?

Now why did you leave that out?

volatile · 22nd November 2009, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Now why did you leave that out?

I know! I know! Pick me! Is it because AGW is a giant hoax?!

jsfisher · 22nd November 2009, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...-bytes-of.html

Sums up the issue and, shows the character of those pushing it, and lays it to rest.

I don't think I would have used a straw man fallacy to construct the definitive analysis on the subject, but I'm not a journalist, so what do I know.

PixyMisa · 22nd November 2009, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Excepting of course, for the previous, ongoing investigation into scientific fraud on the part of Phil Jones and Wang, which is openly discussed in these emails, and which is related to Jones's curious paranoia about FOI requests?

Now why did you leave that out?

Because I don't know enough about it.

I'm not sure what's going on with this investigation you mention, but the FOI issues are sufficient in themselves to warrant a public inquiry.

mhaze · 22nd November 2009, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Because I don't know enough about it.

I'm not sure what's going on with this investigation you mention, but the FOI issues are sufficient in themselves to warrant a public inquiry.

Makes sense. Here is the background story on Jones/Wang vs. Keenan.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/0...ny-university/

Briefly - looks like Wang made up some data, then Jones covered for him, then Albany tried to cover it up, then Keenan filed criminal complaint. But now in these emails what is public is....

"Jones's side of the story"

But yes, I agree with your central point, FOI is not to be gamed for the advantage or supposed self interest of a government paid researcher.

cornsail · 22nd November 2009, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Excepting of course, for the previous, ongoing investigation into scientific fraud on the part of Phil Jones and Wang, which is openly discussed in these emails,

Jones and Wang certainly didn't think it was fraud, judging by the emails.

MattusMaximus · 22nd November 2009, 10:03 AM

As I stated before in the earlier thread:

Quote:

I second the call for production of evidence of scientific fraud. If there is indeed any evidence of said fraud which has been exposed by these emails (and I have seen none yet), then by all means the scientists in question should have their proverbial heads handed to them. But whether or not this is the case is something which needs to be determined by a thorough investigation, not by spamming the Internet with a bunch of emails and cherry-picking quotes out of context.

Sure, some people in the media are having a field day with this fiasco, but the reasoned and slow process of investigation and fact-finding (on either climate science or when looking at fraud allegations) is not something to be done in this manner. That is why we have courts and a peer-review system.

So, until such a time as a thorough & complete investigation has been conducted, I shall hold off on my judgment - and I think many others would be wise to do likewise. Too bad some others here insist upon circumventing the whole investigation & presentation of actual evidence stage before leaping to their conclusions

And

Quote:

My real beef here is with GW-deniers leaping all over these threads implying that what little info we've seen presented (cherry-picked and out-of-context as it is) shows clear evidence of a worldwide, multi-decade scientific conspiracy to promote an AGW "hoax". And the fact that they're jumping the gun like this without the benefit of any kind of real investigation speaks volumes about both their methods & motives

Is there any evidence of scientific fraud in these emails? Possibly, though I've seen nothing yet to indicate such is the case.

Does this, as the GW-deniers imply, mean that all of the evidence which has accumulated for decades in favor of the AGW consensus is now null & void? No.

It would be like saying that the scientific fraud conducted by the Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk on his stem cell research means that all such research performed over the years is now defunct. Of course, at the time of the revelation of his fraud, there were also those who attempted to use it as an excuse to disparage all of stem cell research because they had an ideological beef with it. In this, I see many parallels to the current situation, except that there is, as yet, no clear evidence of any fraud.

Awaiting more data and further investigation. Ranting message board posts are not constructive.

mhaze · 22nd November 2009, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by cornsail

Jones and Wang certainly didn't think it was fraud, judging by the emails.

But Tom Wigley indicated that he did think it looked bad. (in the emails).

Wang never produced the basic documents.

macdoc · 22nd November 2009, 10:44 AM

Since Gavin and co-workers are part of the purloined letters there is some good discussion here

http://www.realclimate.org/

Click on Comments.

a very succinct response to one comment caught my eye

Quote:

[Response: The debate on whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas is over. The debate on whether CO2 is increasing because of human activity is over. The debate on whether the globe is warming is over. The debate on whether this and other human impacts can be seen in the climate system already is over.
These are not the issue upon which scientists are expending their energies. We are trying to work out exactly how the different impacts intersect, how we can better understand specific processes in the system, how to constrain uncertainties in projections of the future. I'd be happy to say this to any politician or Hollywood celebrity. - gavin]

would we could get past the first four here

BenBurch · 22nd November 2009, 11:36 AM

No, Macdoc, didn't you hear? The MINUTE somebody told Greenland about these emails, the glaciers stopped melting!

(My point being that you cannot invalidate all the proxy data EVEN if you impeach ONE of the SEVERAL temperature data sets. And this does not impeach the data set.)

macdoc · 22nd November 2009, 11:52 AM

Funny said glaciers seem impervious to denier appeals..
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6659.html

Captain.Sassy · 22nd November 2009, 12:21 PM

Well, I haven't been around that long so maybe it's not my place to opine on such matters, but it seems to me than more than just the posts that quoted the hacked emails have been excised from the thread; for example, lomiller's post citing the RealClimate.org post has been removed.

ETA: I was hoping that there would be a very public investigation into these emails. It's not that I think they show any kind of scientific malfeasance (though they do seem to confirm McIntyre's suspicions about obstructionism from the CRUTemp guys); it's rather that I believed the best way to deal with this in terms of the optics would be to have a very open examination of what actually happened. Cause really, these emails will look really damning to the average layperson (let's be honest).

Unfortunately, even if there is a public investigation that finds no wrongdoing, the deniers will likely just spin this into further proof of conspiracy, i.e. 'the emails came out, we all saw the climate scientists were frauds, now an investigation by other scientists clears them: conspiraSEE?!'

BobK · 22nd November 2009, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

That does appear to be the shaping up of a sane and comprehensive look at the emails.

I agree (as noted in the other, currently closed thread) with the comment made in Biship Hill that Trenberth comes across as the lone, true scientist.

Trendberth is just another one of the crew. Maybe not quite as in the tank, but it's close. I think he was just a tad quicker at realizing their deck of fortune telling cards might be running out and was trying to put a little distance between himself and the rest of the crew.

He was a lead author of the IPCC AR4 and the reason Chris Landsea resigned from participating in making of that travesty.

Landsea explains his resignation.

Here's Trenberth debating Bill Gray a couple months ago.

Maybe some of the AGW followers will realize that when they really don't know that much about a subject, or who to trust, they're usually better off putting most of their trust in the people that seem knowledgeable but want the least from them. But, if given the opportunity, always verify.

Those that still insist CO2 is bad can do their part by dedicating themselves to cutting their respiration rate in half. They'll save 0.5 kg of CO2 per day and can feel good about themselves while doing it. Just don't make me pay for their dedication.

Perfume V · 22nd November 2009, 12:39 PM

Melanie Phillips chimes in with her usual sensible, reasoned and unhysterical analysis:

Quote:

If true, a revealed systematic fraud of this magnitude will surely not only bury AGW once and for all but, as Philip Stott anxiously observes, this ultimately inevitable outcome may well bring all of science into disrepute as a result.

Thanks a lot, University of East Anglia! Thanks to some guy saying he'd like to punch some other guy on teh interwebs, the entirety of science has just been destroyed. Now major magazines and newspapers will feel free to employ creationists, healthcare woos and conspiracy theorists and treat them as if they've got something meaningful to say. Oh, wait.

Seriously: I don't really have a dog in this fight. I lean towards man being a cause of climate change, but I don't really understand the science enough to offer a firm opinion. What I can say, though, is the more I see of the anti-AGW opinion, the less I think of them.

Here we've got a situation where it looks like scientists have been fudging data. This is, of course, bad practice, but it's also the sort of thing that peer review was invented for. There was no grand conspiracy revealed, and this doesn't necessarily disprove AGW any more than Piltdown Man disproved evolution. Yet to the anti crowd, the possibility of some scientists being unprofessional is the solid proof that will destroy the entire discipline of climatology forever. Or - if you're Melanie Phillips - that diagnosis is far too generous and the whole of science will be obliterated.

For people who commonly accuse their opponents of scaremongering, there's a whole lot of wild conclusions being drawn from some mighty thin evidence here.

Wangler · 22nd November 2009, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

No, Macdoc, didn't you hear? The MINUTE somebody told Greenland about these emails, the glaciers stopped melting!

(My point being that you cannot invalidate all the proxy data EVEN if you impeach ONE of the SEVERAL temperature data sets. And this does not impeach the data set.)

While the stolen e-mails don't overturn the reams of good climate science out there, they certainly reflect poorly on some of the people working in the field.

From fudging citations to embellish a recommendation, to suggesting a redefinition of peer-review to obtain a particular goal, it's more about the actions of certain would-be scientists, as opposed to the science they supposedly served.

CoolSceptic · 22nd November 2009, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Perfume V

What I can say, though, is the more I see of the anti-AGW opinion, the less I think of them.

If you think sceptical views on AGW starts and ends with Melanie Philips, then I'm not surprised. Can I recommend you read the views of sceptical *scientists* rather than *journalists*, especially journalists who are well known to be a little challenged in the grey cell department?

Originally Posted by Perfume V

Here we've got a situation where it looks like scientists have been fudging data. This is, of course, bad practice, but it's also the sort of thing that peer review was invented for.

And just to correct another misconception: peer-review is not designed to stop fudging data (or any other kind of data manipulation or fraud), and it is not surprising that two of the most recent scandals (Hwang Woo-Suk and Jan Hendrik Schön) both successfully published in high impact factor peer-review journals; they were only found out when their own institutions investigated them, in both cases folllowing a problem discovered long after peer review was complete.

As for the e-mails: on reflection, I don't think there is likely to be any scientific misconduct actions based on the contents of these e-mails. However, there is certainly an issue regarding the FOIA requests. Under UK law, it is illegal to conceal, alter or destroy data which is subject to an FOIA request. This is certainly discussed in the e-mails, is a criminal matter and will no doubt receive further investigation.

The rest of it just shows how pervasive cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and media manipulation is in climate science. This comes as no surprise to me; the evidence for it was widespread long before these e-mails were leaked. The pro side will defend it to the hilt. The anti side will claim fraud. Neither side do much for the reputation of science.

balrog666 · 22nd November 2009, 02:32 PM

Nothing to see here!

Originally Posted by Elmo Zoneball

He's not complaining that compliance with the FOI is burdensome; but rather flat out does not want to share the weather station data that they use at CRU.

IOW, proclamations that FOI compliance is "onerous & burdensome" are a red herring, as in the extant case, the scientist is simply unwilling to share weather station data, and expresses an intent to illegally delete it rather than respond if he were to receive a FOI request for it.

One can only wonder what is so special about this weather station data file that causes this scientist to not want to share it, and to even contemplate committing a crime if a FOI request for it came to him.

This, on top of the previous documented instance of actual coordination to delete e-mails responsive to a pending FOI request, paints an extraordinary picture of a scientist that is profoundly disturbing. Why is he so adamant about not sharing temperature data? What is he hiding?

Oh, yeah, no scientific misconduct there!

Reality Check · 22nd November 2009, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Wangler

While the stolen e-mails don't overturn the reams of good climate science out there, they certainly reflect poorly on some of the people working in the field.

From fudging citations to embellish a recommendation, to suggesting a redefinition of peer-review to obtain a particular goal, it's more about the actions of certain would-be scientists, as opposed to the science they supposedly served.

It depends on what you mean by "reflect poorly".
IMO the emails reflect what happens in all private stiuations - people let their hair down and act differently than they would in public.

I have not seen the "fudging citations to embellish a recommendation" email and so cannot commenton it specificaly.
In general: If someone made up fake citations in order to embellish a recommendation then that is an unethical action by that person. I would expect some action to be taken by the institution that they are working for.

The "suggesting a redefinition of peer-review to obtain a particular goal" is obviously a joke between the two people. No one could seriously think that a couple of people could the peer-review process.

I agree with your last comment. This storm in a teacup is more about the fact that scientists are people rather than the science.

Perfume V · 22nd November 2009, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by CoolSceptic

If you think sceptical views on AGW starts and ends with Melanie Philips, then I'm not surprised. Can I recommend you read the views of sceptical *scientists* rather than *journalists*, especially journalists who are well known to be a little challenged in the grey cell department?

Holy strawman, Batman! Can you point me to the bit where I said Melanie Phillips was the only AGW skeptic I've ever read before being patronising?

Badger · 22nd November 2009, 04:54 PM

All this fuss over e-mails, when the real gold is in the other files.

BenBurch · 22nd November 2009, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Wangler

While the stolen e-mails don't overturn the reams of good climate science out there, they certainly reflect poorly on some of the people working in the field.

From fudging citations to embellish a recommendation, to suggesting a redefinition of peer-review to obtain a particular goal, it's more about the actions of certain would-be scientists, as opposed to the science they supposedly served.

Concur.

BenBurch · 22nd November 2009, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Badger

All this fuss over e-mails, when the real gold is in the other files.

Which, AFAIK, nobody who is competent has done any analysis of at all.

DogB · 22nd November 2009, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Which, AFAIK, nobody who is competent has done any analysis of at all.

I know a few people who are working on it. There's a lot a data.

mhaze · 22nd November 2009, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by balrog666

Oh, yeah, no scientific misconduct there!

Just to put this in the appropriate context.

Great Britian, for 150 years, accumulates a database of temperature data.
In the last two decades, this becomes of something more than a minor sideshow in science.
Phil Jones is and has been for some time in charge of this data.
FOI requests for the raw data have been made.
Phil Jones has publicly stated that he or some unspecified persons have lost the raw data.
Only from the raw data, by adding adjustments, can the current alleged temperatures be validated.
Phil Jones in these emails, says that he would destroy the data before releasing it under FOI.

But this is a data set that belongs to the country, and to it's people. Not to some pinhead that works for that government. Not for someone to decide to destroy it at will.

Hmmm.....

gtc · 22nd November 2009, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Which, AFAIK, nobody who is competent has done any analysis of at all.

Have you switched sides in the debate? You seem to be suggesting that the people who collected the data in the first place are incompetent.

jon · 22nd November 2009, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Perfume V

Melanie Phillips chimes in with her usual sensible, reasoned and unhysterical analysis:

Thanks a lot, University of East Anglia! Thanks to some guy saying he'd like to punch some other guy on teh interwebs, the entirety of science has just been destroyed. Now major magazines and newspapers will feel free to employ creationists, healthcare woos and conspiracy theorists and treat them as if they've got something meaningful to say. Oh, wait.

Just be thankful, though, that we have journalists to protect us - such a famously sober, decorous and ethical bunch that they would never do anything so terrible as snark in an e-mail. Oh, wait.

20th November 2009, 09:15 AM	#1
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,237	AGW Team email and files hacked and on interrnet? Quoting The Examiner: http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). For some reason, the files leaked are described as "Leaked FOIA files". (File name: FOI2009.zip) Not sure whether that means they were files previously requested or in process of being released under FOIA or what. But are they real files or fake? One of many discussions, this one by Motl: http://motls.blogspot.com/
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

22nd November 2009, 05:57 AM	#5
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 4,554	Wanna talk about the global warming hacker? http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2...=497579#497579
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

22nd November 2009, 06:20 AM	#6
BobK Muse Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: State of confusion Posts: 867	Darat hasn't unlocked the other thread yet so I'll put this here. Bishop Hill provides a short synopsis with links to some of the more interesting emails.
	__________________ A mind is like a parachute. It works best when open.

22nd November 2009, 06:59 AM	#8
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,109	Here is an interesting blog article about the emails (reposted from earlier thread).
	__________________

22nd November 2009, 07:35 AM	#9
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,786	http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...-bytes-of.html Sums up the issue and, shows the character of those pushing it, and lays it to rest.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

20th November 2009, 09:21 AM	#2
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 13,873	Originally Posted by mhaze But are they real files or fake? I'm seeing reports that they are real.
	__________________ "There is certainly not one government in Europe but is now watching the war in this country, with the ardent prayer that the united States may be effectually split, crippled, and dismember'd by it... We are all too prone to wander from ourselves, to affect Europe, and watch her frowns and smiles. We need this hot lesson of general hatred, and henceforth must never forget it. Never again will we trust the moral sense nor abstract friendliness of a single government of the world." - Walt Whitman, 1864

22nd November 2009, 07:39 AM	#10
Poptech Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: NJ Posts: 1,053	Originally Posted by BenBurch Sums up the issue and, shows the character of those pushing it, and lays it to rest. Ben, why did you link to an economically illiterate site? Too funny.
	__________________ 500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT) The Truth about RealClimate.org

22nd November 2009, 08:00 AM	#11
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,237	Originally Posted by gtc Here is an interesting blog article about the emails (reposted from earlier thread). I think a rather interesting aspect of this entire matter - which your article makes me reflect on - is the interest of the world community. The people. As follows: 1. AGW true believers claim that a near totalitarian control must be placed on the carbon emissions of everyone or else the world heats up, blah blah blah. 2. AGW true believers and a certain group of politicians work together to implement this plan. 3. The CRU is hacked and emails released which show the propping up of weak scientific ideas, attempts to stifle dissent, and so forth. 4. Now #1 and #2 must be re evaluated. Not a small matter. 5. The release of the emails serve the public interest. Any other conclusion is ridiculous.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

22nd November 2009, 08:09 AM	#12
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,237	Originally Posted by BobK Darat hasn't unlocked the other thread yet so I'll put this here. Bishop Hill provides a short synopsis with links to some of the more interesting emails. That does appear to be the shaping up of a sane and comprehensive look at the emails. I agree (as noted in the other, currently closed thread) with the comment made in Biship Hill that Trenberth comes across as the lone, true scientist.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

22nd November 2009, 08:18 AM	#13
volatile Scholar and a Gentleman Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The Uncanny Valley Posts: 6,322	http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-...ment-thinking/ :-D "If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newton’s private correspondence were compiled and published. When you read some of these letters, you realise just why Newton and his collaborators might have preferred to keep them confidential. This scandal could well be the biggest in Renaissance science. These alleged letters – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists behind really hard math lessons – suggest: Conspiracy, collusion in covering up the truth, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."
	__________________ - ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.

22nd November 2009, 08:39 AM	#14
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 8,087	Originally Posted by BenBurch http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...-bytes-of.html Sums up the issue and, shows the character of those pushing it, and lays it to rest. Agreed on that point; I see no evidence for scientific fraud. But the blatant disregard for FOIA requests is rather more disturbing. I don't know the exact details of the law or the requests themselves, but you don't play games like that when your research is guiding public policy.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

22nd November 2009, 08:43 AM	#15
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,237	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Agreed on that point; I see no evidence for scientific fraud. But the blatant disregard for FOIA requests is rather more disturbing. I don't know the exact details of the law or the requests themselves, but you don't play games like that when your research is guiding public policy. Excepting of course, for the previous, ongoing investigation into scientific fraud on the part of Phil Jones and Wang, which is openly discussed in these emails, and which is related to Jones's curious paranoia about FOI requests? Now why did you leave that out?
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms Last edited by mhaze; 22nd November 2009 at 08:46 AM.

22nd November 2009, 08:49 AM	#16
volatile Scholar and a Gentleman Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The Uncanny Valley Posts: 6,322	Originally Posted by mhaze Now why did you leave that out? I know! I know! Pick me! Is it because AGW is a giant hoax?!
	__________________ - ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.

22nd November 2009, 08:53 AM	#17
jsfisher ETcorngods survivor Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 6,998	Originally Posted by BenBurch http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...-bytes-of.html Sums up the issue and, shows the character of those pushing it, and lays it to rest. I don't think I would have used a straw man fallacy to construct the definitive analysis on the subject, but I'm not a journalist, so what do I know.
	__________________ As long as Comparison is sunk in the urine of one's mind, new glasses will not help. --Doronshadmi. *A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.* By the way, the Nominate button is to your ~~right~~ left, sort of..

22nd November 2009, 08:57 AM	#18
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 8,087	Originally Posted by mhaze Excepting of course, for the previous, ongoing investigation into scientific fraud on the part of Phil Jones and Wang, which is openly discussed in these emails, and which is related to Jones's curious paranoia about FOI requests? Now why did you leave that out? Because I don't know enough about it. I'm not sure what's going on with this investigation you mention, but the FOI issues are sufficient in themselves to warrant a public inquiry.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

22nd November 2009, 09:04 AM	#19
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,237	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Because I don't know enough about it. I'm not sure what's going on with this investigation you mention, but the FOI issues are sufficient in themselves to warrant a public inquiry. Makes sense. Here is the background story on Jones/Wang vs. Keenan. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/0...ny-university/ Briefly - looks like Wang made up some data, then Jones covered for him, then Albany tried to cover it up, then Keenan filed criminal complaint. But now in these emails what is public is.... "Jones's side of the story" But yes, I agree with your central point, FOI is not to be gamed for the advantage or supposed self interest of a government paid researcher.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms Last edited by mhaze; 22nd November 2009 at 09:05 AM.

22nd November 2009, 09:32 AM	#20
cornsail Muse Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: ohio Posts: 615	Originally Posted by mhaze Excepting of course, for the previous, ongoing investigation into scientific fraud on the part of Phil Jones and Wang, which is openly discussed in these emails, Jones and Wang certainly didn't think it was fraud, judging by the emails.

22nd November 2009, 10:03 AM	#21
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	As I stated before in the earlier thread: Quote: I second the call for production of evidence of scientific fraud. If there is indeed any evidence of said fraud which has been exposed by these emails (and I have seen none yet), then by all means the scientists in question should have their proverbial heads handed to them. But whether or not this is the case is something which needs to be determined by a thorough investigation, not by spamming the Internet with a bunch of emails and cherry-picking quotes out of context. Sure, some people in the media are having a field day with this fiasco, but the reasoned and slow process of investigation and fact-finding (on either climate science or when looking at fraud allegations) is not something to be done in this manner. That is why we have courts and a peer-review system. So, until such a time as a thorough & complete investigation has been conducted, I shall hold off on my judgment - and I think many others would be wise to do likewise. Too bad some others here insist upon circumventing the whole investigation & presentation of actual evidence stage before leaping to their conclusions And Quote: My real beef here is with GW-deniers leaping all over these threads implying that what little info we've seen presented (cherry-picked and out-of-context as it is) shows clear evidence of a worldwide, multi-decade scientific conspiracy to promote an AGW "hoax". And the fact that they're jumping the gun like this without the benefit of any kind of real investigation speaks volumes about both their methods & motives Is there any evidence of scientific fraud in these emails? Possibly, though I've seen nothing yet to indicate such is the case. Does this, as the GW-deniers imply, mean that all of the evidence which has accumulated for decades in favor of the AGW consensus is now null & void? No. It would be like saying that the scientific fraud conducted by the Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk on his stem cell research means that all such research performed over the years is now defunct. Of course, at the time of the revelation of his fraud, there were also those who attempted to use it as an excuse to disparage all of stem cell research because they had an ideological beef with it. In this, I see many parallels to the current situation, except that there is, as yet, no clear evidence of any fraud. Awaiting more data and further investigation. Ranting message board posts are not constructive.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti

22nd November 2009, 10:35 AM	#22
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,237	Originally Posted by cornsail Jones and Wang certainly didn't think it was fraud, judging by the emails. But Tom Wigley indicated that he did think it looked bad. (in the emails). Wang never produced the basic documents.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

22nd November 2009, 10:44 AM	#23
macdoc Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Planet earth on slow boil Posts: 2,616	Since Gavin and co-workers are part of the purloined letters there is some good discussion here http://www.realclimate.org/ Click on Comments. a very succinct response to one comment caught my eye Quote: [Response: The debate on whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas is over. The debate on whether CO2 is increasing because of human activity is over. The debate on whether the globe is warming is over. The debate on whether this and other human impacts can be seen in the climate system already is over. These are not the issue upon which scientists are expending their energies. We are trying to work out exactly how the different impacts intersect, how we can better understand specific processes in the system, how to constrain uncertainties in projections of the future. I'd be happy to say this to any politician or Hollywood celebrity. - gavin] would we could get past the first four here
	__________________ _{Nature Reports Climate Change Copenhagen Climate Change Synthesis Report 2009 http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/} _{Anyone wishing a list of mainstream climate science sources to get up speed feel free to PM. Others have found the links useful.}

22nd November 2009, 11:36 AM	#24
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,786	No, Macdoc, didn't you hear? The MINUTE somebody told Greenland about these emails, the glaciers stopped melting! (My point being that you cannot invalidate all the proxy data EVEN if you impeach ONE of the SEVERAL temperature data sets. And this does not impeach the data set.)
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

22nd November 2009, 11:52 AM	#25
macdoc Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Planet earth on slow boil Posts: 2,616	Funny said glaciers seem impervious to denier appeals.. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6659.html
	__________________ _{Nature Reports Climate Change Copenhagen Climate Change Synthesis Report 2009 http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/} _{Anyone wishing a list of mainstream climate science sources to get up speed feel free to PM. Others have found the links useful.}

22nd November 2009, 12:21 PM	#26
Captain.Sassy Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 450	Well, I haven't been around that long so maybe it's not my place to opine on such matters, but it seems to me than more than just the posts that quoted the hacked emails have been excised from the thread; for example, lomiller's post citing the RealClimate.org post has been removed. ETA: I was hoping that there would be a very public investigation into these emails. It's not that I think they show any kind of scientific malfeasance (though they do seem to confirm McIntyre's suspicions about obstructionism from the CRUTemp guys); it's rather that I believed the best way to deal with this in terms of the optics would be to have a very open examination of what actually happened. Cause really, these emails will look really damning to the average layperson (let's be honest). Unfortunately, even if there is a public investigation that finds no wrongdoing, the deniers will likely just spin this into further proof of conspiracy, i.e. 'the emails came out, we all saw the climate scientists were frauds, now an investigation by other scientists clears them: conspiraSEE?!'
	__________________ "Hide the decline" is to global warming deniers what "pull it" was to the 9-11 truth movement. Last edited by Captain.Sassy; 22nd November 2009 at 12:32 PM.

22nd November 2009, 12:34 PM	#27
BobK Muse Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: State of confusion Posts: 867	Originally Posted by mhaze That does appear to be the shaping up of a sane and comprehensive look at the emails. I agree (as noted in the other, currently closed thread) with the comment made in Biship Hill that Trenberth comes across as the lone, true scientist. Trendberth is just another one of the crew. Maybe not quite as in the tank, but it's close. I think he was just a tad quicker at realizing their deck of fortune telling cards might be running out and was trying to put a little distance between himself and the rest of the crew. He was a lead author of the IPCC AR4 and the reason Chris Landsea resigned from participating in making of that travesty. Landsea explains his resignation. Here's Trenberth debating Bill Gray a couple months ago. Maybe some of the AGW followers will realize that when they really don't know that much about a subject, or who to trust, they're usually better off putting most of their trust in the people that seem knowledgeable but want the least from them. But, if given the opportunity, always verify. Those that still insist CO2 is bad can do their part by dedicating themselves to cutting their respiration rate in half. They'll save 0.5 kg of CO2 per day and can feel good about themselves while doing it. Just don't make me pay for their dedication.
	__________________ A mind is like a parachute. It works best when open.

22nd November 2009, 12:39 PM	#28
Perfume V Scholar Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Middlesbrough, UK Posts: 103	Melanie Phillips chimes in with her usual sensible, reasoned and unhysterical analysis: Quote: If true, a revealed systematic fraud of this magnitude will surely not only bury AGW once and for all but, as Philip Stott anxiously observes, this ultimately inevitable outcome may well bring all of science into disrepute as a result. Thanks a lot, University of East Anglia! Thanks to some guy saying he'd like to punch some other guy on teh interwebs, the entirety of science has just been destroyed. Now major magazines and newspapers will feel free to employ creationists, healthcare woos and conspiracy theorists and treat them as if they've got something meaningful to say. Oh, wait. Seriously: I don't really have a dog in this fight. I lean towards man being a cause of climate change, but I don't really understand the science enough to offer a firm opinion. What I can say, though, is the more I see of the anti-AGW opinion, the less I think of them. Here we've got a situation where it looks like scientists have been fudging data. This is, of course, bad practice, but it's also the sort of thing that peer review was invented for. There was no grand conspiracy revealed, and this doesn't necessarily disprove AGW any more than Piltdown Man disproved evolution. Yet to the anti crowd, the possibility of some scientists being unprofessional is the solid proof that will destroy the entire discipline of climatology forever. Or - if you're Melanie Phillips - that diagnosis is far too generous and the whole of science will be obliterated. For people who commonly accuse their opponents of scaremongering, there's a whole lot of wild conclusions being drawn from some mighty thin evidence here.

22nd November 2009, 12:49 PM	#29
Wangler Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: WA State Posts: 1,734	Originally Posted by BenBurch No, Macdoc, didn't you hear? The MINUTE somebody told Greenland about these emails, the glaciers stopped melting! (My point being that you cannot invalidate all the proxy data EVEN if you impeach ONE of the SEVERAL temperature data sets. And this does not impeach the data set.) While the stolen e-mails don't overturn the reams of good climate science out there, they certainly reflect poorly on some of the people working in the field. From fudging citations to embellish a recommendation, to suggesting a redefinition of peer-review to obtain a particular goal, it's more about the actions of certain would-be scientists, as opposed to the science they supposedly served.

22nd November 2009, 02:27 PM	#30
CoolSceptic Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 285	Originally Posted by Perfume V What I can say, though, is the more I see of the anti-AGW opinion, the less I think of them. If you think sceptical views on AGW starts and ends with Melanie Philips, then I'm not surprised. Can I recommend you read the views of sceptical scientists rather than journalists, especially journalists who are well known to be a little challenged in the grey cell department? Originally Posted by Perfume V Here we've got a situation where it looks like scientists have been fudging data. This is, of course, bad practice, but it's also the sort of thing that peer review was invented for. And just to correct another misconception: peer-review is not designed to stop fudging data (or any other kind of data manipulation or fraud), and it is not surprising that two of the most recent scandals (Hwang Woo-Suk and Jan Hendrik Schön) both successfully published in high impact factor peer-review journals; they were only found out when their own institutions investigated them, in both cases folllowing a problem discovered long after peer review was complete. As for the e-mails: on reflection, I don't think there is likely to be any scientific misconduct actions based on the contents of these e-mails. However, there is certainly an issue regarding the FOIA requests. Under UK law, it is illegal to conceal, alter or destroy data which is subject to an FOIA request. This is certainly discussed in the e-mails, is a criminal matter and will no doubt receive further investigation. The rest of it just shows how pervasive cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and media manipulation is in climate science. This comes as no surprise to me; the evidence for it was widespread long before these e-mails were leaked. The pro side will defend it to the hilt. The anti side will claim fraud. Neither side do much for the reputation of science.

22nd November 2009, 02:32 PM	#31
balrog666 Eigenmode: Cynic Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,688	Nothing to see here! Originally Posted by Elmo Zoneball He's not complaining that compliance with the FOI is burdensome; but rather flat out does not want to share the weather station data that they use at CRU. IOW, proclamations that FOI compliance is "onerous & burdensome" are a red herring, as in the extant case, the scientist is simply unwilling to share weather station data, and expresses an intent to illegally delete it rather than respond if he were to receive a FOI request for it. One can only wonder what is so special about this weather station data file that causes this scientist to not want to share it, and to even contemplate committing a crime if a FOI request for it came to him. This, on top of the previous documented instance of actual coordination to delete e-mails responsive to a pending FOI request, paints an extraordinary picture of a scientist that is profoundly disturbing. Why is he so adamant about not sharing temperature data? What is he hiding? Oh, yeah, no scientific misconduct there!
	__________________ Ted Kennedy is dead. Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment. Last edited by Darat; 23rd November 2009 at 12:38 AM.

22nd November 2009, 04:33 PM	#32
Reality Check Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,365	Originally Posted by Wangler While the stolen e-mails don't overturn the reams of good climate science out there, they certainly reflect poorly on some of the people working in the field. From fudging citations to embellish a recommendation, to suggesting a redefinition of peer-review to obtain a particular goal, it's more about the actions of certain would-be scientists, as opposed to the science they supposedly served. It depends on what you mean by "reflect poorly". IMO the emails reflect what happens in all private stiuations - people let their hair down and act differently than they would in public. I have not seen the "fudging citations to embellish a recommendation" email and so cannot commenton it specificaly. In general: If someone made up fake citations in order to embellish a recommendation then that is an unethical action by that person. I would expect some action to be taken by the institution that they are working for. The "suggesting a redefinition of peer-review to obtain a particular goal" is obviously a joke between the two people. No one could seriously think that a couple of people could the peer-review process. I agree with your last comment. This storm in a teacup is more about the fact that scientists are people rather than the science.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

22nd November 2009, 04:37 PM	#33
Perfume V Scholar Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Middlesbrough, UK Posts: 103	Originally Posted by CoolSceptic If you think sceptical views on AGW starts and ends with Melanie Philips, then I'm not surprised. Can I recommend you read the views of sceptical scientists rather than journalists, especially journalists who are well known to be a little challenged in the grey cell department? Holy strawman, Batman! Can you point me to the bit where I said Melanie Phillips was the only AGW skeptic I've ever read before being patronising?
	__________________ "I don't blame anyone else for my boozing. I blame my mouth and the French for that." ~ Bruce Robinson

22nd November 2009, 04:54 PM	#34
Badger Member of the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: In the country Posts: 3,430	All this fuss over e-mails, when the real gold is in the other files.
	__________________ www.skepticalcommunity.com "You're a soundbite waiting to happen." (Steve Antle) "You are O.D'ing on drama flakes. Please stop." (kookbreaker) "You had me at bamboo worms." - (GeekGoddess) "I power-barfed for so long that I'm pretty sure I lost a few inches in height and maybe even went back in time a little. " (negativ)

22nd November 2009, 05:18 PM	#35
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,786	Originally Posted by Wangler While the stolen e-mails don't overturn the reams of good climate science out there, they certainly reflect poorly on some of the people working in the field. From fudging citations to embellish a recommendation, to suggesting a redefinition of peer-review to obtain a particular goal, it's more about the actions of certain would-be scientists, as opposed to the science they supposedly served. Concur.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

22nd November 2009, 05:25 PM	#36
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,786	Originally Posted by Badger All this fuss over e-mails, when the real gold is in the other files. Which, AFAIK, nobody who is competent has done any analysis of at all.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

22nd November 2009, 05:31 PM	#37
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,264	Originally Posted by BenBurch Which, AFAIK, nobody who is competent has done any analysis of at all. I know a few people who are working on it. There's a lot a data.
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,264	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

22nd November 2009, 05:44 PM	#38
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,237	Originally Posted by balrog666 Oh, yeah, no scientific misconduct there! Just to put this in the appropriate context. Great Britian, for 150 years, accumulates a database of temperature data. In the last two decades, this becomes of something more than a minor sideshow in science. Phil Jones is and has been for some time in charge of this data. FOI requests for the raw data have been made. Phil Jones has publicly stated that he or some unspecified persons have lost the raw data. Only from the raw data, by adding adjustments, can the current alleged temperatures be validated. Phil Jones in these emails, says that he would destroy the data before releasing it under FOI. But this is a data set that belongs to the country, and to it's people. Not to some pinhead that works for that government. Not for someone to decide to destroy it at will. Hmmm.....
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms