News Science vs. Politics: Tipping Points in Climate Change Communication

[Galteeth]

This is a fascinating story. Unfortunately, it seems like the media has been misreporting it, as one would expect. This is primarily a story of ethical issues with regards to climate researchers working in an insulated atmosphere.
However, many are calling it the "smoking gun" of global warming fraud, which is not the case. My honest impression after reading the emails was "that's it?" Perhaps I am overly cynical, but I was actually expecting much worse. This is nothing compared to say, the fraud that goes in FDA drug trials.

I do think that some of these people, for example the folks over at the real climate blog, need a lesson in politics. Like it or not, these people are in a political position, and they should not have been so naive as to think that everything they did or said would not be used against them by the political opponents of climate change legislation. Furthermore, they come off as fairly childish in the way they put down those who disagree with them.

The real tragedy of this is that it adds just that much more noise to the discussion, and will further polarize people. This is a complex issue without easy answers, and the more people drift towards extremes (on both sides) the worse the ultimate outcome is likely to be.

 

[Evo]

Are you done deleting the post? Interesting to note that all the posts which reference directly to the data which is very much part of the discussion have been deleted. Also interesting to note that the post I made which clarifies your misrepresentation of the CRU statement has been deleted, as well as the post I made to point out that you had deleted it... Why?

Your posts on the deleted data is misinformation. You are continuing to post about something you don't have an understanding of, or are, at the very least, confused about. I haven't given you infractions yet, I've cut you a lot of slack, but I need to keep this thread about the facts. You proved you don't know which data we are talking about.

 

[turbo]

Sorry, I'm waiting for the answer. Link to the report please.

I'll even give you another ten minutes to come up with it.

You deleted the link that I gave to the raw data, the processed data, and the code. You also won't allow me to post the links without the links to the supposedly "biased" source hosting the links to the climate data. Yet you allow people to link freely to FOX and other highly-biased sources of information.

I will parse the links from the "biased" source, and post as many of them as pass your filter. I'm having a hard time with this because the restriction of raw scientific data for whatever reason you believe is not acceptable, and I'm seeing a strong right-wing bias on this forum I want to keep the discussion even and honest, but there is a strong bias that seems designed to prevent that.

 

[skypunter]

It's very convenient that CRU has incorporated copyrighted data within the full data set, and so cannot release the full data set.
Perhaps they could cut out the copyrighted data and release the balance.
Independent reserachers could then make up data to fill the gap and publish their research using this data as a basis.
Surely that would smoothe things over.

 

[Evo]

You deleted the link that I gave to the raw data, the processed data, and the code. You also won't allow me to post the links without the links to the supposedly "biased" source hosting the links to the climate data. Yet you allow people to link freely to FOX and other highly-biased sources of information.

I will parse the links from the "biased" source, and post as many of them as pass your filter. I'm having a hard time with this because the restriction of raw scientific data for whatever reason you believe is not acceptable, and I'm seeing a strong right-wing bias on this forum I want to keep the discussion even and honest, but there is a strong bias that seems designed to prevent that.

I gave all involved a chance to prove that you know what you are talking about. Greg now has the information I have on which data was requested. I have the source of the requested data, so I know what was requested. You shouldn't post repeatedly if you don't know what the issue is. It is disruptive to people trying to actually discuss the issues.

 

[Sorry!]

It's very convenient that CRU has incorporated copyrighted data within the full data set, and so cannot release the full data set.
Perhaps they could cut out the copyrighted data and release the balance.
Independent reserachers could then make up data to fill the gap and publish their research using this data as a basis.
Surely that would smoothe things over.

Well they've been doing this since 1980, prior to any of these events occurring by far. So I don't think its 'convenient' in the sly sense that they did it on purpose to hide the data.

 

[Choronzon]

Clearly it is not I who has no understanding of the topic. I'm also not spreading misinformation as I have no personal agenda.

Just because you 'one time dated a climate scientist' doesn't make you an expert on the subject. This is something I have studied with great interest for quite sometime I may not type it out as eloquently as sylas but I am definitely not spreading misinformation.

I think you need to take a deep breath and and read over your previous posts, because you are making some pretty far-fetched claims. It's the CRU's onus to provide the data, and once they've admitted to no longer having it I'm going to need more than some guy on a forum somewhere telling me that the data is readily available before I can accept that the CRU wasn't being dishonest or incompetent.

In all honesty, I don't know what report is being discussed here, but I do know that the CRU is admitting that they altered data to use in reports and then discarded the unaltered data. I can understand how these "quality adjustments" can be legitimate—but those adjustments should be transparent—which is impossible without the original, unaltered data. I'm definitely concerned and a bit disappointed that some of you want to defend the CRU's actions—maybe I had an idealistic view of science.

 

[skypunter]

What makes this data so valuable that it has to be copyrighted?

 

[Sorry!]

I think you need to take a deep breath and and read over your previous posts, because you are making some pretty far-fetched claims. It's the CRU's onus to provide the data, and once they've admitted to no longer having it I'm going to need more than some guy on a forum somewhere telling me that the data is readily available before I can accept that the CRU wasn't being dishonest or incompetent.

In all honesty, I don't know what report is being discussed here, but I do know that the CRU is admitting that they altered data to use in reports and then discarded the unaltered data. I can understand how these "quality adjustments" can be legitimate—but those adjustments should be transparent—which is impossible without the original, unaltered data. I'm definitely concerned and a bit disappointed that some of you want to defend the CRU's actions—maybe I had an idealistic view of science.

No I wasn't claiming that the data was still available 'as is' at CRU. I was saying that the data is readily available at various other sources. My point being (this is the politics forum) that the people who are finding something wrong with them merging the data and being unable to release it aren't actually wanting the data, since they have access to it anyways. They are just playing the politics game to a greater extent than even the AGW proponents.

To outline this I posted references to a specific observation station (which posts got deleted) where the data is still available. Actually someone requested temperature information for a particular day, I gave them the mean average for the entire month.

Their methods are transparent (I think atleast as they have multiple reports on them discussing the methods you can go through the posts to read them if you like).

EDIT: As well it is important to note that allegations of them 'deleting information' or 'throwing it away' are just that, allegations. The statement by CRU makes it very clear what they did with data, interpret it how you like, the fact remains that the files are still on the CRU ftp, which I can't seem to access any longer, lol, probably because McIntyre got a hold of some raw data a month ago from the Public FTP files.

 

[DanP]

What makes this data so valuable that it has to be copyrighted?

It doesn't really matter. If I , as in a private organization , collect some data I can choose to release it to public domain or not. I can sell the right to use the data to whoever I want, but I do not relinquish my property over it. The licensee can only use the data, but he can't disclose it to any other 3rd party.

Since it's the product of my work, it's mine to do with it whatever I want. Generally use it to generate profits for my organization.

 

[Choronzon]

No I wasn't claiming that the data was still available 'as is' at CRU. I was saying that the data is readily available at various other sources. My point being (this is the politics forum) that the people who are finding something wrong with them merging the data and being unable to release it aren't actually wanting the data, since they have access to it anyways. They are just playing the politics game to a greater extent than even the AGW proponents.

To outline this I posted references to a specific observation station (which posts got deleted) where the data is still available. Actually someone requested temperature information for a particular day, I gave them the mean average for the entire month.

Their methods are transparent (I think atleast as they have multiple reports on them discussing the methods you can go through the posts to read them if you like).

When the emails were first leaked I did run through RealClimate's posts on the topic to try and get their side of the story, and I did hear their justifications for the alterations, and like I said, I'll admit the plausibility of that particular argument, as long as that method is completely transparent.

I'm tempted to compare it my business's taxes. I have to turn in adjusted tax data to the Government periodically, and that usually is enough. If the government decides to audit me, which is their right, I then have to provide all of the original income information I used to create the adjusted claims. Without that information, my adjusted tax claims instantly become worthless. The same should be said of the report in question.

I'm going to disagree with the argument that AGW skeptics should have to collect their own data and perform studies to disprove AGW. The burden of proof should be on the scientific claim itself. I shouldn't have to disprove every theory that doesn't convince me.

 

[Choronzon]

It doesn't really matter. If I , as in a private organization , collect some data I can choose to release it to public domain or not. I can sell the right to use the data to whoever I want, but I do not relinquish my property over it. The licensee can only use the data, but he can't disclose it to any other 3rd party.

Since it's the product of my work, it's mine to do with it whatever I want. Generally use it to generate profits for my organization.

If the data isn't freely available for scientific review, than it should be completely inadmissible and any claims that require such supporting evidence should be ignored.

 

[sylas]

Yes everybody knows there's a meteorology station there. Where is the temperature data? I.e., May 15, 1965, 10:00 AM, 52 degs C.

Jan Mayer does not record data hourly.

On May 15, 1965, the minimum temperature was -4.0C, and the maximum was +0.4C. No precipitation was recorded on that day.

I obtained this data from the official GHCN repository at NCDC. It took me a while to sort through and get what I wanted, because there are over 1.7 GigaBytes of daily data there, and the format, though in ASCII, is not very human readable.

It is most unlikely that CRU would EVER release this exact original record; that is the responsibility of GHCN. I am hopeful that the CRU will eventually be able to release its entire database of daily climate data from all over the world; although it will almost inevitably be in a different format, for their own database. It would be a nice resource to have, though it will be enormous and rather unwieldy for amateur use.

Anyone want to suggest another station and another day?

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Sorry!]

If the data isn't freely available for scientific review, than it should be completely inadmissible and any claims that require such supporting evidence should be ignored.

Then ignore it? The difference of course between your taxes and this situation is that when the government audits you you are 'free' to give them the data or decline. In this situation they are not permitted to give the data, only to decline it. For now atleast.

 

[mheslep]

You deleted the link that I gave to the raw data, the processed data, and the code. You also won't allow me to post the links without the links to the supposedly "biased" source hosting the links to the climate data. ...

Turbo1, when you have a moment could you please PM me the link you have in mind?

 

[Choronzon]

Then ignore it? The difference of course between your taxes and this situation is that when the government audits you you are 'free' to give them the data or decline. In this situation they are not permitted to give the data, only to decline it. For now atleast.

Yes. Without the data you're left with nothing more than the researcher's word. That's most definitely not good enough for me. Are you saying that it's good enough for you?

 

[Sorry!]

Jan Mayer does not record data hourly.

On May 15, 1965, the minimum temperature was -4.0C, and the maximum was +0.4C. No precipitation was recorded on that day.

I obtained this data from the official GHCN repository at NCDC. It took me a while to sort through and get what I wanted, because there are over 1.7 GigaBytes of daily data there, and the format, though in ASCII, is not very human readable.

It is most unlikely that CRU would EVER release this exact original record; that is the responsibility of GHCN. I am hopeful that the CRU will eventually be able to release its entire database of daily climate data from all over the world; although it will almost inevitably be in a different format, for their own database. It would be a nice resource to have, though it will be enormous and rather unwieldy for amateur use.

Anyone want to suggest another station and another day?

Cheers -- sylas

Woah sylas sifting through the data. I just quickly found the monthly average to show that the data does exist. Nice job on that though

 

[Sorry!]

Yes. Without the data you're left with nothing more than the researcher's word. That's most definitely not good enough for me. Are you saying that it's good enough for you?

Yes, since I can replicate their results given the data and the source codes; which are all freely available.

The thing is Choronzon is that regardless of if the CRU makes the data public certain people will still find problems with various aspects climate research. I do think that the CRU should make its raw database public and in a format which is easily accessible to anyone who is interested however they are not doing that at this time. If you want you can head on over to I believe page 15 for the vast collection of climate research data (if it wasn't deleted) and look at everything that's available there. (Obviously not raw data from CRU) If this isn't good-enough for you merely because CRU isn't making their data available then there's nothing we can do is there?

Of course the CRU is the most highly cited organization on climate research however their results are still being compared to other organizations and accepted... Right?

EDIT: If you're interested there's a new report the link is posted in the Earth sciences forums. I would post it here but I think it may get deleted so why waste time. It explains a lot of the current beliefs and if you go to the main website you can find lots of references and resources.

 

[Choronzon]

Yes, since I can replicate their results given the data and the source codes; which are all freely available.

The thing is Choronzon is that regardless of if the CRU makes the data public certain people will still find problems with various aspects climate research. I do think that the CRU should make its raw database public and in a format which is easily accessible to anyone who is interested however they are not doing that at this time. If you want you can head on over to I believe page 15 for the vast collection of climate research data (if it wasn't deleted) and look at everything that's available there. (Obviously not raw data from CRU) If this isn't good-enough for you merely because CRU isn't making their data available then there's nothing we can do is there?

Of course the CRU is the most highly cited organization on climate research however their results are still being compared to other organizations and accepted... Right?

EDIT: If you're interested there's a new report the link is posted in the Earth sciences forums. I would post it here but I think it may get deleted so why waste time. It explains a lot of the current beliefs and if you go to the main website you can find lots of references and resources.

If the data is not freely available because some of it is "copyrighted", than no you can't. Also, as I said before, I shouldn't have to replicate their results by collecting my own data. They're the ones putting forth the claims—I should be able to look at their data and method and at least determine if I can accept their methodology.

Again, let's not forget—they have to prove their claims. I'm under absolutely no obligation to disprove them.

 

[sylas]

Woah sylas sifting through the data. I just quickly found the monthly average to show that the data does exist. Nice job on that though

I guess I probably know more about this particular data than anyone else at physicsforums at present. I can't be sure, but I would guess so. I don't tend to make any big deal about my own background, since I prefer to let my posts stand on their own merits, rather than have any personal authority. And I am indeed an amateur, with no professional training in climate science at all.

I have been using the monthly data myself for quite some time, for my own personal interest; and have had to work through all the usual difficulties of extracting data, decoding formats, picking out the bits I need, mapping between data from different sources, and so on. I write my own programs, and perform my own calculations.

The daily data is more than I have ever needed previously; but I am currently grabbing a copy to keep with all the other stuff I have lying around, as I can imagine several interesting things to try with it. The download tells me it has 9 hours and 47 minutes to go.

There is a file for Jan Mayer alone, which I used previously; that was only 756 K.

Some time ago (not here) I got into an argument over the quality of data in the USHCN network. Certain individuals believed that the data was hopelessly compromised by all kinds of flaws in the various US weather stations. I recognized that there were problems, but cited all the published accounts of how these problems were addressed. We reached an impasse; which is not new in this area -- as you can see in the thread!

That was when I started doing my own private analysis, just for fun. The skeptics had identified a very small subset of the network that they considered of reasonable quality. (On this matter, the term skeptic is appropriate and honourable.) So I obtained that data for myself; from USHCN and also from GCHN, and did my own calculation of an anomaly for the continental USA, to compare which what had been obtained using the full network. I downloaded all the source code (in fortran), which helped me figure out how to use the data, and then went ahead with my own programs (in C) supplemented with a few spreadsheets, and eventually got to the point of calculating an anomaly. Of course, as I was using only a small set of stations, I was not able to get the fine resolution of gridded data; I adopted a very coarse grid.

Eventually, I obtained and posted the results; and showed that the correlation with the data released by NASA for the continental USA was very high. No special tuning was necessary to get the result; it fell out pretty much straight away once I got my code debugged. That's skepticism at work as well. I was not willing to merely assume that everything was rosy. I saw the published papers that said the inaccuracies in stations had only a comparatively small effect; but calculating it for myself was a good confirmation. There was no audit involved; I used a different dataset (a subset) identified by the skeptics; and I used my own programs exclusively.

Now that I think about it, telling more about that little project might make a good thread in the independent research subforum. This was all about 18 months ago, I think.

Others have done something pretty similar, again using this limited set of USHCN stations that the skeptics had identified as reasonable. NOAA did it, for example, about a year after I did. They didn't bother to publish either. Frankly, there's not actually a lot of scientific interest or value in addressing the concerns of amateur skeptics on matters like this; it is more of a education issue, helping those interested learn more about the basis for the science.

That is my primary objective here also, believe it or not. I'm not actually a great social campaigner, and politics mostly bores me or depresses me. I have come to appreciate the need for action in response to the real threats, but I don't actually focus on that side of it myself much at all. I'm much more interested in the science for its own sake. Always have been.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Sorry!]

If the data is not freely available because some of it is "copyrighted", than no you can't. Also, as I said before, I shouldn't have to replicate their results by collecting my own data. They're the ones putting forth the claims—I should be able to look at their data and method and at least determine if I can accept their methodology.

Again, let's not forget—they have to prove their claims. I'm under absolutely no obligation to disprove them.

They have by comparing to other organizations as well as amongst themselves (I think the consensus that humans cause global warming among climate scientists is above 90% if you want I'll find the poll)

The problem, again, isn't that the data isn't available at the moment but that people in general have a problem with AGW and climate change research in general.

EDIT: Wow sylas never knew you went so far with it. I never was bothered to get the daily data, there is just way too much for me to even know what to do with it. I am thoroughly impressed by your self-programs etc. though.

 

[DanP]

Then ignore it?

You don't ignore the data. This is not what is done here. That data was used in conjunction with certain model to draw some conclusions. Some ppl appear not to agree with those conclusions. Which is certainly legit. They argue that since the data is not publicly available for review (I'm not debating here whatever the data set can be reconstructed or not), the conclusions might be false.

In the end, anyone is free to make his mind about the credibility and ethics of other researchers involved in the same field.

It is a unfortunate situation, but in "real world" science is many times driven by politics and private interests. Money makes this world spin. Research is expensive. The costs must be covered from somewhere, and this means more often than not for-profit organizations and
sometimes government involved.

And besides, science has it's own politics. Where there are humans, there will always be bad blood and affinities. Scientists ain't immune to this.

 

[Sorry!]

You don't ignore the data. This is not what is done here. That data was used in conjunction with certain model to draw some conclusions. Some ppl appear not to agree with those conclusions. Which is certainly legit. They argue that since the data is not publicly available for review (I'm not debating here whatever the data set can be reconstructed or not), the conclusions might be false.

In the end, anyone is free to make his mind about the credibility and ethics of other researchers involved in the same field.

It is a unfortunate situation, but in "real world" science is many times driven by politics and private interests. Money makes this world spin. Research is expensive. The costs must be covered from somewhere, and this means more often than not for-profit organizations and
sometimes government involved.

And besides, science has it's own politics. Where there are humans, there will always be bad blood and affinities. Scientists ain't immune to this.

I was referring to him ignoring the theories altogether and not bothering with any part of them. Not ignoring the lack of data, or to ignore the data and just accept it.

 

[skypunter]

Yes, scientists are human. It is entirely human to want to be on the forefront of one's chosen field. Climate Science has certainly become the branch of science garnering the lion's share of attention over the past several decades.
What of the scientist researching the many mundane local ecological problems which have not been solved? He must give homage to the cause of climate change if he has any hope of garnering attention. With his endorsement, he drives more funding to an international authority rather than to direct efforts at the source of the problem.
Surely naturally changing climate is the backdrop of any ecological system, but the errors of humans on the local level are the ones which need to be corrected in most cases, not our global sins.
An example being the pollution from abandoned coal mines. These are not the fault of the entire mining industry, nor of we who consume electricity. They are the fault of particular irresponsible operators. These problems cry out for local response, not an international governing authority.

 

[Choronzon]

I was referring to him ignoring the theories altogether and not bothering with any part of them. Not ignoring the lack of data, or to ignore the data and just accept it.

If the theory is founded upon data that can't be examined, then yes, I would ignore the theory. If I can't examine the science, then what's left? An appeal to the authority of it's proponents, perhaps?

 

[Evo]

Ok, it's time for everyone to stop and take a breath.

It seems that there is some confusion over what data was requested that CRU refused to furnish by saying that they didn't keep it. The request was for "spcific" data pertaining to a "specific" report. And it is that specific data which CRU says they didn't keep which pertains to "this" thread.

We need to try to keep this thread about the topic. If you wish to start a separate thread about all available data, you are welcome to do that in the Earth sciences forum.

Please, let's try to keep responses on topic here so that we can have a beneficial discussion.

 

[DanP]

They have by comparing to other organizations as well as amongst themselves (I think the consensus that humans cause global warming among climate scientists is above 90% if you want I'll find the poll)

Which is irrelevant. Until Copernicus 99% of the humans (scientists included) believed Earth is the center of the universe.

The fact that a certain percentage of humans believe something and have consensus does not represent in itself a verification of a theory. It might be so, it might be not.

 

[DanP]

It seems that there is some confusion over what data was requested that CRU refused to furnish by saying that they didn't keep it. The request was for "spcific" data pertaining to a "specific" report. And it is that specific data which CRU says they didn't keep which pertains to "this" thread.

Evo, since it seems that you know exactly the report in question and the data set contested, why don't you post it here for the benefit of all to see ? It would help getting things on track.

 

[Sorry!]

Which is irrelevant. Until Copernicus 99% of the humans (scientists included) believed Earth is the center of the universe.

The fact that a certain percentage of humans believe something and have consensus does not represent in itself a verification of a theory. It might be so, it might be not.

Ok you are being annoying and taking my statements out of context and twisting them. I was replying to Choronzon about something very specific. That is the fact that they have proven to each other that this theory is true. I never made any claims what-so-ever that because they believe it makes it true.

 

[DanP]

Ok you are being annoying and taking my statements out of context and twisting them. I was replying to Choronzon about something very specific. That is the fact that they have proven to each other that this theory is true. I never made any claims what-so-ever that because they believe it makes it true.

Perhaps you should formulate your statements a bit more carefully then. Again, use Sylas as a model.