Climategate: Gore falsifies the record | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
Here's your AGW prize winner trying to marginalize the leak. Mr Zero in science degrees telling us it's all piffle.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
If I claimed that Barack Obama was actually an alien lizard it wouldn't make any sense for me to insist that others disprove my theory, instead, the expectation is that I provide evidence in support of my theory.
But I'm sure you already knew that, whip-dawg...
You mean like the fact that the main authors of the AGW hoax have been CAUGHT falsifying data and discussing how to cover their tracks, including the illegal destruction of incriminating e-mails and their raw data?
No, I don't need to prove a damn thing, the hoaxers have been exposed, that's all that's needed. I think I'm going to throw an old-growth log on the fire this evening to celebrate.
I don't personally care what warmers believe. I consider them to be much like other religious groups, believing in something based on fear. It's their business and it's their trip. My problem is that they claim to base their stance on science, and the science has been show to be, at the very least, questionable, with dishonest ideological behaviors exhibited by many of the scientists, as evidenced by the recent email scandal. All that aside, it still doesn't bother me except that the global climate issue is being used to control human behaviors and activity at a cost of trillions of dollars, and will result in legally enforceable worldwide government policy, based on something that may not be true, and certainly was not held up to strict scientific scrutiny.
If political and legal policy were not hinging on probable or possible lies and deceitful science, I wouldn't personally give a damn about it.
And to answer the question you posed to me:
Now, my issue with warmers holding scientists to strict standards: I have not todate seen anyone either in the scientific community or in the private community (general population) who historically supports AGW theory come out and say "Hey, what's up? What in the hell are you guys doing? You're supposed to be honest and objective scientists, and you're lying and covering up data. WTF?" What I do see is every possible attempt to defend shoddy science in order to hold on to ideology. That is disingenuousness of the highest order.
For your reading pleasure:
In light of its singular role, and in light of the enormous trust placed by governments around the world in the IPCC, we should expect they took some pains to ensure the graph’s validity. IPCC leaders have boasted at length about their rigorous multi-stage review process,3 they have urged world leaders to place the greatest trust in their Report, and they have summarily dismissed criticism on the grounds that their Assessment contains the “consensus” view of all qualified climate scientists around the world.
We must evaluate the rigour of the IPCC quality control process, not by the elaborateness of the stated procedures, but by the contents of its Reports. As I will show, the hockey stick paper was deeply flawed and it contradicted other credible evidence then appearing in the scientific literature. The flaws could have been discovered during the review process under even the most elementary fact-checking. Yet the review process not only allowed this paper through, but made it front-and-centre in the final Report. The question then is not whether the IPCC review process is flawed: we can no longer conclude otherwise. The question is how to bias-proof future Reports in order to put policy onto a new foundation that will better serve the public interest.
The hockey stick debate is thus about two things. At a technical level it is about flaws in methodology and erroneous results in a scientific paper. But at the political level the debate is about whether the IPCC betrayed the trust of governments around the world. If the hockey stick incident was truly inadvertent, we can expect the IPCC would, in good faith, be fully supportive of new mechanisms to bias-proof its future reporting-writing process.
Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]
The 2001 IPCC report produced findings that have guided investment decisions, which vastly exceed the sums involved in even the largest financial scandals of recent years. Since the IPCC leaned heavily on a novel approach called a “multiproxy climate study” and in particular the “hockey stick graph” of Mann et al., this is where I’ve focused my attention. An audit trail in this case is easily defined: the data in the form used by the authors and the computer scripts used to generate the results. In principle, these can be easily buttoned up and publicly archived. I think that most civilians would assume (as I did prior to starting my studies in this area) that such packages would be standard as part of a peer review process.
In fact, this is not the case. None of the major multiproxy studies have anything remotely like a complete due diligence packages and most have none at all. The author of one of the most quoted studies [Crowley and Lowery, 2000] told me that he has “mis-placed” his data.
In the case of the Mann et al [1998,1999] study, used for the IPCC’s “hockey stick” graph, Mann was initially unable to remember where the data was located, then provided inaccurate data, then provided a new version of the data which was inconsistent with previously published material, etc. The National Post has recently reported on my experience as this unfolded.
In addition to the lack of due diligence packages, authors typically refuse to make their source code and data available for verification, even with a specific request. Even after inaccuracies in a major study had been proven, when we sought source code, the original journal (Nature) and the original funding agency (the U.S. National Science Foundation) refused to intervene. In the opinion of the latter, the code is Mann’s personal commercial property. Mann recently told the Wall Street Journal that “Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people employ”. My first request for source code was a very simple request and could in now way be construed as “intimidation”.
The Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]
In recent discussion of the Weblog 2007 Awards, several commenters at other blogs have argued that our criticisms of the Mannian parlor tricks have been “thoroughly refuted and discarded by climatologists, published in a credible journal”; that “other professionals in the field who also have “looked in great detail at the problem at hand” and have come to the conclusion that rather than McIntyre’s findings being “valid and relevant”, they instead have found them to be “without statistical and climatological merit”; that CA “fluffed on the whole hockey stick thing”. See for example here
Omitted in these references are the fact that the people described as “climatologists published in a credible journal” or “professionals in the field” are none other than Wahl and Ammann, serial coauthors with Michael Mann, students of Mann, who are not independent of the controversy. Indeed, they largely use (without citation or attribution or even acknowledgment to Michael Mann) arguments originally published at realclimate (and already responded to in MM 2005b(EE). Aside from their lack of independence, neither Ammann nor Wahl qualify as statistical authorities. Ammann did his undergraduate work in geology; Wahl in divinity. While this does not exclude them from having potential insight in the matter, it is evidence that one should not necessarily expect a sure grasp of mathematical and statistical issues and that their conclusions cannot be relied upon uncritically, even if Stephen Schneider accepted their article.
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph
temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails - Taking Liberties - CBS News
were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data ("have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots"), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.
Last week's leaked e-mails range from innocuous to embarrassing and, critics believe, scandalous. They show that some of the field's most prominent scientists
One e-mail message, apparently from CRU director Phil Jones, references the U.K.'s Freedom of Information Act when asking another researcher to delete correspondence that might be disclosed in response to public records law: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise." Another, also apparently from Jones: global warming skeptics "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." (Jones was a contributing author to the chapter of the U.N.'s IPCC report titled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.")
In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named "Harry" -- possibly the CRU's Ian "Harry" Harris -- was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added:
I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.
I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!
One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!
Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.