2 of 17
2
Leaked E-mails Reveal How Heated Global Warming Debate Is
Posted: 27 November 2009 10:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20
Bryan - 27 November 2009 06:34 PM

Quite true; context is everything.  But “trick” was not the worst thing in the e-mails.  Probably worst was the promise to keep skeptical science out of journals, with a quotation along the lines of even if I have to redefine peer review

I mentioned “trick” because it is the worst statement that I
saw mentioned, in an honest attempt to give the issue some due.
Changing a peer-reviewed journal is not a bad thing, lets say
that a journal dealing with evolution where changed to deal with
the anti-evolution religious-extremist people, being protective
against their public attacks and distortions, what could be wrong
with that?  And what if the anti-evolution people started earning
their biology degrees simply to subvert the journals themselves,
then it would be even more important to change the peer-reviewed
journal in response.

Similarly, when people attack Climate Change not because they
have found new data refuting the old, but only because they don’t
like the existing data, then why not change a journal in response?
Change can be a positive thing.  The implication that the change is
subverting the true data is unsupported.  If it were the truth I’d
be interested.  But I have seen no credible journalism, scientific
studies nor witnessing mentioned in this thread nor elsewhere
<edited portion>supporting your ideas Byran</edited portion>, so
far.  Just rumor mongering for the innocently susceptible naïevé.

Bryan - 27 November 2009 06:34 PM

The e-mails also indicate serious flaws with the codes used to model climate change, and call into question the use of tree ring data.

The emails were supposedly leaked to the I-net, have you found
them?  I haven’t.  What is your basis for these serious flaws?
From the weak, and most criticizing sources I saw, I so no-one
writing that there were any serious flaws in the data nor the
collection of it.

Bryan - 27 November 2009 06:34 PM

It is hard to tell how deep this story runs.

Byran, that’s speculative.  I see no reason to be speculative.
The basis for all of this is as limp as a noodle, so far.  Like the
hollow rumors against Pres. Clinton that never amounted to even a
single Article of Impeachment against him (the only two articles
sent to trial were for obstruction of justice and perjury, both
of which he was acquitted for during the trial), or the (eleven
was it?) charges against Michael Jackson (he was acquitted of all
of them), when will people learn that baseless rumors amount to
nothing when scrutinized.  Show me the basis, or show me silence.

[ Edited: 27 November 2009 10:38 PM by jump_in_the_pit ]
 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2009 11:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

I just read the CBS web site, I had over-looked it before.
They are credible and seem to think that there is something real
to this story.  I had spent time looking for the worst rumors that
I could find, to try and refute them, but missed the CBS site.
Emails are just plain text files and can easily be faked.  I guess
this is more than rumor, because CBS gives it wings.  But, I am
very suspicious, CBS was targeted for that fake document about
G. W. Bush’s service, remember.  They are the ire of some of the
GOP people.

I’m still reading CBS.

 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2009 12:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
jump_in_the_pit - 27 November 2009 11:19 PM

I just read the CBS web site, I had over-looked it before.
They are credible and seem to think that there is something real
to this story.  I had spent time looking for the worst rumors that
I could find, to try and refute them, but missed the CBS site.
Emails are just plain text files and can easily be faked.  I guess
this is more than rumor, because CBS gives it wings.  But, I am
very suspicious, CBS was targeted for that fake document about
G. W. Bush’s service, remember.  They are the ire of some of the
GOP people.

I’m still reading CBS.

Here’s a source that has published some of the code.  Some of the scientists use coarse language in the codes, so consider yourself warned.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2009 07:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

The creation process is messy, frustrating, and ugly to the
innocently naïevé, like birth the creation process can look
ugly on the surface if you don’t have a deeper understanding
of what is happening.  If you don’t know the results, the mess
just looks ugly.  Do you think that a song would sound smooth
and graceful on the first day of writing?  Do you think that
a non-fiction book would be fully fact-checked and gracefully
written on the first day?

Relax these University of East Anglia emails are not a real issue,
not one regarding the Climate Change data.

In regards to the wattsupwiththat.com web site, speaking as an
engineer, it just looks like they are implementing a new system of
test tools, to me, perfectly benign and just what I’d expect to se.
The source code comments and all look like normal problems and
attempts to find a solution, failed attempt after failed attempt,
looking for a success, it is a proud struggle, they are accomplishing hard
work
.  That is all perfectly normal when people are
creating a new device.

The only part of it that I can criticize is the role that
wattsupwiththat.com is playing, they are cherry-picking everything,
looking for the statements that are showing frustration and
technological implementation problems, while not giving you
the successes.  Every negative word or statement that they have
emboldened seems mundane to me within the contexts that I, as an
engineer, can imagine.  The people feeding you us this information
are not giving the audience the basic context.  They’re doing a
bad thing, stirring up mischief.  This is the rumor-mill.

Any innocently naïevé person might imagine that creating a device
is easy, because they see all these lovely well functioning remote
controls, radios, computers, microwave ovens, etc. in their lives.
But it is not easy to create these things, it does take lots of
work, struggles, and frustration.  It is a proud trait, that the
researchers were working hard.
You might expect that
all the devices that researchers use are fully developed
and off-the-shelf, as are the ones that you buy for yourself.
You’d be misunderstanding, if you did expect that.  The web site
enthusiastically shows the early conversations in the development
cycle, but the ONLY legitimate question that it raises
in me are about the end results
?  In the end when they
finished all the work, solved the problems, and collected good
data, how’d it turn out?

Here are some perfectly benign statements quoted from the web site:

  “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.”

If you were to make some new system of devices that communicate
with one another then OF COURSE you might create some
dummy devices or dummy data for testing purposes!  If neither
device A nor device B exist, and you want to create them brand
new starting with device A, then you very well might create a
dummy B so that you can use it to test A as you build A anew.
Like thousands of client web browsers talking to one web server,
you obviously create thousands of dummy B’s in order to test A’s
full abilities.  The point of creating some sort of dummy is that
it is easier than creating the real B, or thousands of them.
This is standard practice when implementing a new system.
You’d need dummy (or artificial) data because the unfinished
system hasn’t collected any real data, yet.

  “printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been
  ARTIFICIALLY’ printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration.
  THEREFORE, post-1960 values’ “

The authors of these statements are writing in a computer language
called FORTRAN 90 (F90).  “printf,1” commands a computer to display
some characters to the screen so that the user can read them.
It’s just a message for the user.  It warns that some data has been
artificially removed, not for some dark and dastardly reason,
but they explain it is for a proper purpose of calibrating some
device(s), that’s a good thing.  grin

I could go on and on like this for lots of the statements on
wattsupwiththat.com.

The wattsupwiththat.com web site has listed dozens of these
statements, emboldening any language that expresses frustration,
anger, disappointment, or any other negative emotions.
That cherry-picking is really giving a biased emotionally charged
picture.  Think of the news on television and news papers, it is
negative most of the time, that is because people tend to want
to talk about the problems, hoping for solutions.  Delivering the
negative news is perfectly normal!  That web site never mentions
if any of the problems were solved, keep in mind the creation
process ends with a beautiful result (hopefully all went well),
the dark and dirty implementation just makes that creation look
more beautiful when you can see the whole picture was successful! grin

The comments by the software authors look emotionally negatively
charged to me, but technologically completely benign.  It’s just about
people being frustrated during work, that’s all it is nothing more.
They were writing to each other candidly rather than in a guarded
way, that’s all that has happened, indelicate wording.

About disclosure and deletions I see…

“Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures
has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics [sic]
and the public for several years the University of East Anglia
has confirmed.”

“One particular, illegally obtained, email relates to the
preparation of a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of
the Global Climate in 1999. This email referred to a “trick”
of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature
reconstructions that were based on proxy data.”

1009061939.jpg

Does that look like a minor glitch, or a new trend to you?

[ Edited: 28 November 2009 08:14 PM by jump_in_the_pit ]
 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2009 10:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21

So—what stopped you from sharing comments from the code indicating that the confessed problems had been solved?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2009 03:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

Let me try once more, briefly.  When you buy a device, the design
was finished, the product was polished, and you took it home.
If after that it does not not function properly, that is a
failure.  But, when the product has not yet been designed
(i.e. implemented), then when it does not function that is not a
failure
because it just isn’t finished yet.  It is a
work-in-progress.  All electronics go through this stage,
questioning that stage makes no sense, now that you can see that
your electronics are working.

For crystal clarity… If your omelet tastes runny crunchy
dirty with no salty goodness, then has the chef ruined the dish,
or have the raw ingredients not been assembled and cooked yet?
The eggs haven’t been shelled, the veggies need a scrub, cook and
add salt… the omelet is not done yet, and neither are the devices
described on the http://www.wattsupwiththat.com site.  This looks like
a non-issue to me, really, don’t worry about it.

[ Edited: 29 November 2009 04:01 PM by jump_in_the_pit ]
 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2009 04:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
jump_in_the_pit - 29 November 2009 03:46 PM

Let me try once more, briefly.

Couldn’t you have just answered the question I posed?

When you buy a device, the design
was finished, the product was polished, and you took it home.
If after that it does not not function properly, that is a
failure.  But, when the product has not yet been designed
(i.e. implemented), then when it does not function that is not a
failure
because it just isn’t finished yet.  It is a
work-in-progress.  All electronics go through this stage,
questioning that stage makes no sense, now that you can see that
your electronics are working.

For crystal clarity… If your omelet tastes runny crunchy
dirty with no salty goodness, then has the chef ruined the dish,
or have the raw ingredients not been assembled and cooked yet?
The eggs haven’t been shelled, the veggies need a scrub, cook and
add salt… the omelet is not done yet, and neither are the devices
described on the http://www.wattsupwiththat.com site.  This looks like
a non-issue to me, really, don’t worry about it.

You’re writing quite a bit for somebody who isn’t worried about it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2009 07:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03

Temperature of the Debate:
toon_112709_345.jpg

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2009 09:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  339
Joined  2008-02-27

I saw an article today indicating that CRU admits it no longer has the original data upon which all of their charts, graphs, predictions, etc are based.  The data that still have is value added, whatever that means.  See this link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

This is a forum with a lot of science based contributors.  I’m no scientist, but this doesn’t sound very good to me.  I know enough to know that one of the fundamental principals of science is that original data should be preserved so other scientists can test the results.  From what I gather, that is now impossible here. 

One of the major criticisms of the CRU findings is that they would never release the data upon which they based their conclusions.  Now we know why.  This isn’t the first time this crowd has been called out either.  Several years ago, Mann’s hockey stick model one of the central premises presented is Al Gore’s movie on was proven inaccurate. 

The importance of all of this is that CRU findings are a significant portion of the basis of the IPCC report.  In light of the destruction of the original data combined with the clear effort of Jones, Mann, et al to stifle dissent and criticism, how can we possibly fundamentally re-order our economy to the tune of trillions of dollars based on recommendations that are at best suspect?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2009 03:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2008-06-27
fotobits - 24 November 2009 08:08 PM
Parrot of Doom - 24 November 2009 06:32 AM

Where did I say that I had sided with anybody?  Is that the extent of your argument, that you’re either “with us or against us”?

I guess it was you parroting the deniers’ talking points that confused me.

Ah, I see.  Now we descend into insults.  Obviously a worthwhile contribution.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2009 04:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05

It wasn’t an insult it was a pun. Lighten up. But my point stands. Your argument consisted of deniers’ talking points and that led me to believe you side with the deniers.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2009 04:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2008-06-27

“Deniers”

Pathetic.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2009 11:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I’m fascinated by how P.O.D. keeps focusing on the word, “deniers”.  While ‘skeptic’ was suggested as a less abrasive choice, I don’t see a problem with the original word.  If someone claims that, say, P.O.D. had sex with Cleopatra, we could expect people to reject that statement strongly.  They could certainly be called deniers, and without any pejorative intent.  Since you use the generic, “scientists”, would you want to call those who disagree with their published results, “anti-scientists”?

Of course there are extremists in any set of people.  I would expect there are reasonable members and extremists in both the scientists and those who deny the results.  However, we should try to avoid the thinking error of rejecting all the results of the scientific community because of comments and actions by those few extremists.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2009 04:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
Occam - 30 November 2009 11:42 AM

I’m fascinated by how P.O.D. keeps focusing on the word, “deniers”.  While ‘skeptic’ was suggested as a less abrasive choice, I don’t see a problem with the original word.  If someone claims that, say, P.O.D. had sex with Cleopatra, we could expect people to reject that statement strongly.  They could certainly be called deniers, and without any pejorative intent.  Since you use the generic, “scientists”, would you want to call those who disagree with their published results, “anti-scientists”?

Of course there are extremists in any set of people.  I would expect there are reasonable members and extremists in both the scientists and those who deny the results.  However, we should try to avoid the thinking error of rejecting all the results of the scientific community because of comments and actions by those few extremists.

Occam

I think “denier” suggests that the conclusion is wrong while ‘skeptic’ suggests that more data is needed.  Also—are we talking about global warming or specific causes of global warming—or specific solutions—-

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2009 06:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

JRM5001, Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was well done, it was
inside the scientific projections at that time, I saw reviews
from over ten climate scientists saying so at the time.  Where
are the deniers getting that stuff from, sincerely?  Today I see
RealClimate saying “It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some
of the very latest research.” also.  He did a good job, lets
keep the history strait.  I don’t know why the deniers want to
focus on Gore, anyway, when he was merely reporting the science.
“...the CRU…  they would never release the data…”, “Mann’s
hockey stick model… was proven inaccurate.”  big surprise Where? 

JRM5001, in the computer age a copy is a perfect copy.  The
originals matter far less, and reformatting one’s data (e.g. from
text, to a database, or a spread sheet, or Unicode, or a plot in
a mathematics program, etc.) can be advantageous without
changing the numbers a bit.  Lets keep the technology strait.
That TimesOnline article was so slanted against the researchers,
and called the Climate Change deniers skeptics merely because
they deny a popular idea…  tsk tsk tsk TimesOnline of the UK.

Parrot, Climate Change Denier is a simple concise and obvious
description of the group.  Relax, I doubt that Climate Change
Embracors will demonize anything or anyone.  I suggest that everyone
should talk about issues and not users here, so that no-one mocks
other CFI forum users.

[ Edited: 30 November 2009 07:35 PM by jump_in_the_pit ]
 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 17
2