where's the climate data?
In a late comment to my September post titled Has the World's Climate Date Really Gone Missing? William Shields asserts:
Well, this all looks very different in light of the released emails from CRU that show deliberate moves to block FoIA requests and then delete relevant data, which is actually a crime.
The problem with this allegation is the same weakness found in the original tabloid-style articles from the Register and the National Review which prompted that post. The Climate Research Unit (CRU) is not, and never has been, the world's sole repository of climate information. Furthermore, CRU is not the source of the raw data in question, and is not under any obligation to store this data.
Fortunately for us all, the helpful climatologists at RealClimate are busy gathering links to the many online sources of climate data. Whether you're looking for raw data, processed data, paleo-data, models, reconstructions, or analysis, they can help you find it.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the climate deniers ignore the data and focus on the stolen emails. Raw data is useful for science, but informal exchanges stripped from their original context make better conspiracy theories.
Labels: climate change, current events
posted by BruceA @ 10:58 PM
23 comments
links to this post
23 Comments:
As a magician seeks to redirection the attention of the audience away from what he is doing, so now those devoted to climate change advocacy seek to direct attention away from what, on the part of anyone else, would be held up as unethical, unprofessional and criminal.
If these people have nothing to hide, then let them make their material public so that people can make up their own minds. For them to simply say, "Trust us," is as unpersuasive as someone saying, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
The problem with this allegation is the same weakness found in the original tabloid-style articles from the Register and the National Review which prompted that post. The Climate Research Unit (CRU) is not, and never has been, the world's sole repository of climate information. Furthermore, CRU is not the source of the raw data in question, and is not under any obligation to store this data.
Even though this statement follows a quotation from Shields, you haven't addressed his point. The CRU deleted scientific data subject to a FOI request. That's illegal. Not to mention dishonest and demonstrative of academic misconduct.
The CRU leak does not destroy the case for AGW. But it does destroy the credibility of CRU by providing evidence of scientific fraud.
It also shows that the 'consensus' on AGW is at least partially forced because the dissenting views were kept out of journals through the deliberate (and even self-aware!) undermining of the peer-review process.
B -
CRU does make their material public. (It's available here.) What they don't make public is data they have obtained from other sources who haven't given them permission to share it. If requesters want this information, they should try obtaining it from the sources.
John -
It's for the British courts to decide whether the CRU deleted any information that was subject to an FOI request. Regulation 12 of the UK's Freedom of Information Act lists the reasons an agency can refuse an FOI request. The fact that the CRU does not have permission to share some of the raw data, along with the sheer volume of information requested, could possibly be adequate justification to not release the raw data. This blog by a law student from Canada outlines some of the factors the courts might need to consider.
John -
The CRU leak does not destroy the case for AGW. But it does destroy the credibility of CRU by providing evidence of scientific fraud.
I don't know if "fraud" is the right word, but you raise a good point about the CRU's credibility. It's going to take some work for them to build up the trust they once had. The resignation of Phil Jones yesterday is a first step, but whoever replaces him will have to demonstrate more openness.
The fact that the CRU does not have permission to share some of the raw data, along with the sheer volume of information requested, could possibly be adequate justification to not release the raw data.
It's not that they decided not to release the data. The emails clearly state that scientists were actively destroying data subject to a FOI request.
The emails clearly state that scientists were actively destroying data subject to a FOI request.
I'm not sure exactly which email you're referring to. The closest I've seen is this one, where Phil Jones asks his colleagues to delete emails relating to specific topic; he apparently sent that after receiving a FOI request.
Deleting emails may be just as much a crime (by legal standards) as deleting climate statistics, but it's not detrimental to the advancement of science as the critics are alleging.
And it's more than a little ironic that this all came to light because someone illegally obtained and published these emails in the first place.
Deleting emails may be just as much a crime (by legal standards) as deleting climate statistics, but it's not detrimental to the advancement of science as the critics are alleging.
Wow. I'm not sure how to respond to that. I think that hiding information from the public does, in fact, impair the credibility of these scientists.
So are you saying that an email is equivalent to a published scientific paper?
No, I think that when it comes to honesty, the medium is irrelevant. If it's wrong to deceive, then it's wrong to deceive regardless of the format.
Don't you agree?
Yes, I agree that deception is wrong; I agree that the format is not relevant to the intent to deceive. But the format is relevant to the type of information conveyed. Information in an email can hardly be as serious as a published scientific paper or a complete set of raw temperature data.
But yes, deception and information hiding is wrong; if Phil Jones had not already resigned, I would be calling for him to do so.
But the format is relevant to the type of information conveyed. Information in an email can hardly be as serious as a published scientific paper or a complete set of raw temperature data.
I don't follow you. Are you saying that if a climate scientist publishes one conclusion in a paper and then sends an email admitting to fraud, then the email should be given little credence because of its format?
What exactly is the significance of this distinction that you are drawing?
If a scientist were sending emails admitting to fraud, that would be one thing. But the pilfered emails don't show anything of the sort.
"hide the decline"?
"artificial" computer coding to manipulate the data?
"redefine peer review" to keep dissenting views from publishing?
Tell me, Bruce, hypothetically speaking, what would the emails have to reveal before you would accept them as evidence for scientific fraud?
They would have to reveal some evidence of fraud. A few random phrases that sound bad when ripped from their original context are not enough.
These aren't just random phrases, but whole emails.
What larger context would be sufficient, Bruce. Hypothetically, of course. I'd like to know how far the goalposts are going to move.
Climate scientists have discussed the emails here, here, here, here, and here, among other places. The consensus is that the emails may be poorly worded, but that they don't constitute anything remotely resembling fraud.
Sorry, but I'm allergic to conspiracy theories. If the entire scientific community are trying to hide something, then I'm a fool for believing them. But I'm not so arrogant as to think I know more than the professionals about their area of expertise.
The attempts to get around FOI requests is a problem, which the next director of CRU needs to address. But there's no evidence of anything wrong with the science.
The consensus is that the emails may be poorly worded, but that they don't constitute anything remotely resembling fraud.
This is an interesting statement. You don't write "I don't see anything remotely constituting fraud", but you appeal to the authority of scientists who say that.
Sorry, but I'm allergic to conspiracy theories. If the entire scientific community are trying to hide something, then I'm a fool for believing them.
This is an interesting argumentative tactic that I've seen in responses to Climategate: if the emails doesn't show a worldwide conspiracy, they necessarily demonstrate nothing.
The links that you provide are fascinating attempts to say that words not mean that they contextually mean, such as "hide the decline" does not mean "hide the decline". Nor, for that matter, do they address the computer coding issues wherein "very artificial" functions were inserted into computations.
Again, I ask you: what would the emails have to reveal to indicate fraud? If you can't answer that specifically, you're presenting a non-falsifiable claim -- which is an attribute of faith, not science.
I would also note that when quoting from a body of emails or a book, like that of John Holdren, you hold that text should never be subjected to a plain text reading. But in the post immediately above this one, you seem certain what two authors mean from their writings.
It is a very selective epistemology.
The links that you provide are fascinating attempts to say that words not mean that they contextually mean, such as "hide the decline" does not mean "hide the decline".
No, they are explaining the decline that is being hidden. The problem relates to temperature calculations based on tree-ring data, which since 1960 give numbers lower than the actual recorded temperature data for these years. Prior to 1960, the temperature calculations from tree-ring data are in sync with the actual temperatures. This is an issue the climatologists have been wrestling with for more than a decade.
But since they haven't solved the problem yet, they are "hiding the decline" of tree-ring temperature calculations relative to actual temperature measurements by overlaying the graph of calculated temperatures with a graph of actual temperatures.
The idea is that the temperature measurements are more authoritative than any proxy calculation could be. The presence of actual temperatures (showing an increase since the 1970s) hides the decline in the proxy temperatures by showing the proxy to be an anomaly.
This is called "Mike's Nature trick" because the overlaying of proxy graphs with recorded temperatures first appeared in an article by Michael Mann in the science journal Nature in April of 1998.
There is nothing nefarious about this.
Again, I ask you: what would the emails have to reveal to indicate fraud?
Again I say, they would have to reveal evidence of fraud. I do not have to prove a negative.
I would also note that when quoting from a body of emails or a book, like that of John Holdren, you hold that text should never be subjected to a plain text reading.
That's not true. I think their meaning must be understood within the context in which it was written.
In fact, in the case of Holdren's book, I highlighted the difference between "should" and "might" in different passages; these words have different meanings and are not interchangeable. The first indicates a policy preference; the second indicates a possibility.
But in the post immediately above this one, you seem certain what two authors mean from their writings.
I'd happily post a retraction if I found a clarification from either of them stating their willingness to set aside differences with religious people in order to achieve a higher goal.
And, FWIW, I've previously looked at the meaning beneath the surface of a statement Dawkins made in a public debate. He said, "A good case could be made for a deistic god," which some religious observers took to mean Dawkins was willing to abandon atheism. Dawkins himself was horrified to hear that his statement might have been taken that way, so I trust that his intention was something different.
According to an independent investigation sponsored by the Associated Press, the more than 1000 stolen emails show no evidence of fraud by climatologists. It's time to put the conspiracy theories to rest.
No, they are explaining the decline that is being hidden. The problem relates to temperature calculations based on tree-ring data, which since 1960 give numbers lower than the actual recorded temperature data for these years. Prior to 1960, the temperature calculations from tree-ring data are in sync with the actual temperatures. This is an issue the climatologists have been wrestling with for more than a decade.
But since they haven't solved the problem yet, they are "hiding the decline" of tree-ring temperature calculations relative to actual temperature measurements by overlaying the graph of calculated temperatures with a graph of actual temperatures.
The idea is that the temperature measurements are more authoritative than any proxy calculation could be. The presence of actual temperatures (showing an increase since the 1970s) hides the decline in the proxy temperatures by showing the proxy to be an anomaly.
This is called "Mike's Nature trick" because the overlaying of proxy graphs with recorded temperatures first appeared in an article by Michael Mann in the science journal Nature in April of 1998.
So they used tree ring data when it provided evidence for their hypothesis, and disregarded it when it ceased to do so.
Isn't that cherry-picking?
Again I say, they would have to reveal evidence of fraud. I do not have to prove a negative.
You certain don't, but if you're saying that your conclusion cannot be disproven under even hypothetical conditions, then you're not engaging in rational argumentation.
That's not true. I think their meaning must be understood within the context in which it was written.
In fact, in the case of Holdren's book, I highlighted the difference between "should" and "might" in different passages; these words have different meanings and are not interchangeable. The first indicates a policy preference; the second indicates a possibility.
I read the pages in question. Given the way in which the passages were phrased, and the context in which they were placed, to argue that Holdren was not suggesting totalitarian measures as worthy of consideration is a textual absurdity.
Just like if there was a book about how to deal with the "Jewish Problem", and one idea was merely deportation of Jews to Madagascar and another was extermination, that would be a problem. Even laying out totalitarian suggestions creates and unacceptable moral space for their consideration.
I'd happily post a retraction if I found a clarification from either of them stating their willingness to set aside differences with religious people in order to achieve a higher goal.
That's beside the point. Twice, when an ideological ally says loathsome things, you've gone to great hermeneutical lengths to suggest that the obvious interpretation could not be correct, but only its opposite. But when an ideological foe says something repellent, you've instantly assumed that a surface-level reading of their intended communication was accurate.
According to an independent investigation sponsored by the Associated Press, the more than 1000 stolen emails show no evidence of fraud by climatologists. It's time to put the conspiracy theories to rest
Am I supposed to consider the AP to be an unbiased source?
Am I supposed to consider the AP to be an unbiased source?
They consulted, as the article states, with "three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field". Everybody has biases, but someone with a centrist bias is more likely to be fair to both sides.
So they used tree ring data when it provided evidence for their hypothesis, and disregarded it when it ceased to do so.
Isn't that cherry-picking?
I'm wondering about that myself. As I understand it, the tree-ring paper was supposed to prove that there was no Medieval Warm Period. But if we can't use tree rings as a proxy for real temperature data today, how can we be certain that it's an accurate proxy for temperatures hundreds of years ago?
On the other hand, tree-ring data from 1850 to 1960 does match actual temperature measurements. So the tree-ring scientists obviously have found a method that can be used as a good proxy for temperature measurements for long time spans.
But how can they demonstrate that the medieval period is one of those time spans?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home