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

[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.

 

[skypunter]

There is no consensus on how we are to reduce our level of combustion to pre-20th century levels without supressing the development of civilization.
We do have the intellectual, financial and physical resources to reduce the types of emissions which are actually causing illness and harm to living things.
Toward that end our minds should be directed.

 

[Astronuc]

Time out! Closed pending moderation.

Save your thoughts and posts.

 

[Astronuc]

As Russ mentioned:

Please note: this is a thread for discussion of the political implications of the CRU hack only. Please use our Earth sciences forum for discussion of the technical merits of AGW.

We recognize that climate change/global warming/anthropogenic global warming is a contentious subject. Dark energy/dark matter and string theory are also contentious subjects, but the major difference is that government policy and the outcomes of those subjects do not affect our way/quality of life as do governmental and economic policies.

That said, please be respectful of others' opinions, even when vehemently disagreeing with those opinions. Personal attacks and disparaging remarks are unacceptable.

Avoid generalizations about groups of people.

Stick to the facts and the scientific method. Assertions and claims require evidentiary substantiation, e.g., peer-reviewed scientific journals or news articles from hopefully objective news sources (assuming that there is such a thing).

 

[Proton Soup]

CRU gets support from an unexpected source

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...s-back-climategate-scientists/comment-page-1/

 

[sylas]

CRU gets support from an unexpected source

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...s-back-climategate-scientists/comment-page-1/

That's hilarious.

The title is: US Creationists back Climategate scientists; by Damian Thompson, Blogs Editor of the Telegraph Media Group.

Just to comment quickly before anyone else picks it up. This is parody. The "Institute for Scriptural Geology" described in the article is an invention of Damian Thompson, for the purpose of this comedy piece. One of the whole problems with this affair is people jumping in too quickly without checking a bit of background, so I think it's best to label parody and satire plainly. Damian Thompson didn't; but we can.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Andre]

There seems to be some discussion between Jones and Mann:

...Speaking to BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight, Prof Mann said: "I can't put myself in the mind of the person who wrote that email and sent it. I in no way endorse what was in that email."

Prof Mann also said he could not "justify" a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders.

"I can't justify the action, I can only speculate that he was feeling so under attack that he made some poor decisions frankly and I think that's clear."

Prof Mann then argued however that there was "absolutely no evidence" that he too had manipulated data, while he also said "I don't believe that any of my colleagues have done that"...

 

[sylas]

There seems to be some discussion between Jones and Mann:

That is a link to an article in the Telegraph, and it makes no mention of "discussion between Jones and Mann"; it rather solicits and reports comments from Professor Mann on the controversy.

The import of the article is pretty much everyone has said: that the suggestion in one email to delete emails was improper. The article reports Mann saying that he could not endorse this request. However, if people read ALL the emails, you can see Professor Jones himself ALSO later saying that email should not be being deleted except for normal deleting to keep mailboxes manageable.

The article (Climategate: Phil Jones accused of making error of judgment by colleague, Telegraph, UK, 3 Dec 2009) hardly indicates any significant "accusation" as such, but rather quote Professor Mann as Andre has provided above. The article concludes:

While climate change sceptics argue the emails are proof scientists have been hiding evidence of temperature decline, Prof Mann said he believed the incident "false controversy" manufactured by sceptics "to distract the public and to distract policy-makers to try to thwart efforts next week in Copenhagen".

"The emails are genuine and have been misrepresented, cherry-picked, mined for single words and phrases that can be completely twisted to imply the opposite of what was actually being said, manufactured controversy and the timing of it is not coincidental as far as I'm concerned," he added.[/color]​

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Sorry!]

That is a link to an article in the Telegraph, and it makes no mention of "discussion between Jones and Mann"; it rather solicits and reports comments from Professor Mann on the controversy.

The import of the article is pretty much everyone has said: that the suggestion in one email to delete emails was improper. The article reports Mann saying that he could not endorse this request. However, if people read ALL the emails, you can see Professor Jones himself ALSO later saying that email should not be being deleted except for normal deleting to keep mailboxes manageable.

The article (Climategate: Phil Jones accused of making error of judgment by colleague, Telegraph, UK, 3 Dec 2009) hardly indicates any significant "accusation" as such, but rather quote Professor Mann as Andre has provided above. The article concludes:

While climate change sceptics argue the emails are proof scientists have been hiding evidence of temperature decline, Prof Mann said he believed the incident "false controversy" manufactured by sceptics "to distract the public and to distract policy-makers to try to thwart efforts next week in Copenhagen".

"The emails are genuine and have been misrepresented, cherry-picked, mined for single words and phrases that can be completely twisted to imply the opposite of what was actually being said, manufactured controversy and the timing of it is not coincidental as far as I'm concerned," he added.[/color]​

Cheers -- sylas

I think it is important for everyone to understand that no one thinks that Jones suggestion of deleting the e-mails was proper in anyway. Even he himself says this and acknowledges that no one should be deleting their e-mails. Several scientists have already commented on that situation and they all said that they couldn't see any reason to delete the e-mails and they didn't.

I think that Jones stepping down at least for the investigation was appropriate though. I realize I was kind of harsh before saying he should step down completely but some of the things being suggested by him were just absurd and someone in his position I feel should keep that in check.

The single most important thing from this article I believe is:

Prof Mann then argued however that there was "absolutely no evidence" that he too had manipulated data, while he also said "I don't believe that any of my colleagues have done that".

 

[sylas]

Stick to the facts and the scientific method. Assertions and claims require evidentiary substantiation, e.g., peer-reviewed scientific journals or news articles from hopefully objective news sources (assuming that there is such a thing).

An important editorial comment is available now at Nature magazine. They clearly have a strong point of view; as will anyone who is already familiar with the subject. Regardless of how much people are inclined to trust the editors of Nature, it is still an important and influential voice on the affair.

The editorial can be found at: Climatologists under pressure, editorial, Nature vol 462, page 545 (3 December 2009), doi:10.1038/462545a; Published online 2 December 2009.

The introduction, in bold in the original, is as follows:

Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.[/color]​

Concluding paragraph:

In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that undermine scientific values. Yet it is precisely in such circumstances that researchers should strive to act and communicate professionally, and make their data and methods available to others, lest they provide their worst critics with ammunition. After all, the pressures the UEA e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science.[/color]​

The editorial is freely available at the link above, unlike most of articles within the journal.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[D H]

[Quoting from Telegraph article]Prof Mann said ... "The emails are genuine and have been misrepresented, cherry-picked, mined for single words and phrases that can be completely twisted to imply the opposite of what was actually being said, manufactured controversy and the timing of it is not coincidental as far as I'm concerned," he added.

That is one way to look at it.

There are opposing views, of course.

An important editorial comment is available now at Nature magazine. They clearly have a strong point of view; as will anyone who is already familiar with the subject. Regardless of how much people are inclined to trust the editors of Nature, it is still an important and influential voice on the affair.

Nature, and in particular its editorial staff, are deeply entrenched in the engineering of this false consensus. All one needs to do is look at the lead-in for that editorial:

The introduction, in bold in the original, is as follows:

Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy ...[/color]​

A nice, unbiased introduction. We do not yet know if this was the act of a hacker or the act of a whistleblower. The inquiries are just starting; we do not yet know whether there was something nefarious at work here. This editorial was stolen right out of the pages of a politician who was caught red-handed: "I am not a crook."

That didn't work then, and I have my doubts that that playbook will work now.

 

[sylas]

That is one way to look at it.

There are opposing views, of course.

Of course. Much of this debate is a case of scientific community being on one side and a political community on the other. Part of that is going to depend on how you identify each community, of course. There will be all sorts of opinions and viewpoints published by all kinds of groups in the coming days. Science magazine will surely have an editorial as well, soon.

The formal statements on climate science itself from before this hacked emails affair from various unaligned national bodies representing different fields of science show a high degree of consistency (regardless of what reasons you might propose for this consistency). There are so far few formal statements after the affair, but there have been some.

The sentence you have chosen to highlight seems pretty obvious. It states: Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy ...[/color].

Whether it is a whistleblower or a hacker, that sentence still remains true. The emails were stolen, whether from inside or outside, and the worst thing in the emails are suggestions of some improper responses to the issues arising from amateur criticism and attack on the scientists. We all agree on that: see the report above quoting Professor Mann on this matter. But scientific conspiracy? There's no sign of that. The whistleblower theory seems incredible, given that it is only emails that were released -- and files attached to emails. We don't really know how it was stolen; but some details of that will come out eventually. Given the police investigation underway, they may be cautious about revealing too much at this point; but some unofficial comment has indicated that it appears to be a hack on a backup email server.

Cheers -- sylas

Added in edit. I'm a dunce. I should have checked before posting. Science magazine has already published a comment, by one of the regular writers. See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/326/5958/1329, by Eli Kintisch, in Science 4 December 2009: Vol. 326. no. 5958, p. 1329 DOI: 10.1126/science.326.5958.1329. This will require a subscription to see the full thing, but the first paragraph is:

The theft and unauthorized release last month of 1000 private e-mail messages from the servers of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom has provided a glimpse into the fractious world of climate science. The public airing of frank conversations among powerful scientists about sensitive topics such as possible holes in their data and the use of contrarian papers in major reports comes at a pivotal time for climate science, just days before a meeting of world leaders in Copenhagen. The messages—whether hacked or released by a disgruntled insider—have raised thorny questions about the proper behavior of researchers who feel under siege for their science. How willing should they be to share their raw data with their staunchest critics?[/color]​

 

[skypunter]

An important editorial comment is available now at Nature magazine.
Cheers -- sylas

I can see why Nature would want to put their spin on things, given the coining of the new catchphrase "Nature trick".

 

[sylas]

I can see why Nature would want to put their spin on things, given the coining of the new catchphrase "Nature trick".

The article I cited mentions this explicitly. From the Nature editorial on Climatologists under pressure, Nature vol 462, page 545, 3 Dec 2009:

The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.[/color]​

If this is "spin", it is the same spin being repeated independently by all the working scientists I have seen who explicitly explain how this word is normally used in science. I don't think this is "spin", so much as basic comprehension of very common phrasing used by scientists, engineers, programmers, all kinds of technical people.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Evo]

The article I cited mentions this explicitly. From the Nature editorial on Climatologists under pressure, Nature vol 462, page 545, 3 Dec 2009:

The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.[/color]​

If this is "spin", it is the same spin being repeated independently by all the working scientists I have seen who explicitly explain how this word is normally used in science. I don't think this is "spin", so much as basic comprehension of very common phrasing used by scientists, engineers, programmers, all kinds of technical people.

Cheers -- sylas

It all goes back to the issue of cronyism. Nothing new there sylas, we'd expect no less of people trying to protect themselves. The fact is, they've been exposed.

 

[skypunter]

How about the words "technique", "method", "filter" or "formula"?
They just seem more professional.

 

[sylas]

Two responses:

It all goes back to the issue of cronyism. Nothing new there sylas, we'd expect no less of people trying to protect themselves. The fact is, they've been exposed.

Is this a comment in relation specifically to what skypunter and I were discussing here? I want us to keep really clear on the focus here.

Skypunter and I were explicitly discussing the word "trick". As nature points out, this is often used as slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique. That is by far the most common use of the word, and the same thing has been pointed out by many others. It would seem quite extraordinary to think the writers of the email themselves meant anything else.

Furthermore, the email that uses this word says nothing explicit about it, except to refer to something that was done in a 1998 Nature article. Unless you have new information that has actually exposed anyone doing anything at all improper or requiring any protection in relation to the "Nature trick", then I suggest this unsourced remark is not helpful and merely presumes what is under discussion. That's how this thread got into trouble before.

And for skypunter:

How about the words "technique", "method", "filter" or "formula"?
They just seem more professional.

I agree completely. I am sure that any formal public professional comment would use such language rather than the less formal language used commonly between scientists discussing their work informally in private emails, which is what you are looking at here.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[skypunter]

The messages—whether hacked or released by a disgruntled insider—have raised thorny questions about the proper behavior of researchers who feel under siege for their science. How willing should they be to share their raw data with their staunchest critics?[/color][/indent]

I guess Nature has verified for us how the researchers "feel".
Why would anyone so certain feel that they are under seige?

 

[skypunter]

Not sure if I broke the rules causing the thread to lock.
I'm relatively new here so feel free to correct me if I stray.

 

[Evo]

Is this a comment in relation specifically to what skypunter and I were discussing here? I want us to keep really clear on the focus here.

No, this is explicitly in response to the Nature article.

 

[turbo]

I can see why Nature would want to put their spin on things, given the coining of the new catchphrase "Nature trick".

You might want to go back a few decades to MIT and other unis to see where the words "hack" and "kludge" originated. Insiders use shorthand words to describe (usually with some level of respect, if not awe) a clever game-changer that their peers have discovered. Through popular misapprehension and distortion, the words can come to have pejorative connotations. Hackers these days are seen as nefarious characters (when often they are only script-kiddies exploiting known weaknesses, and they don't deserve the name) and "kludge" is often used as a description of a ham-handed patch (think duct-tape and sheet-rock screws) when it was in its original sense, it was often a utilitarian simplification that cut through a lot of crap to get desired results.

I have not seen the word "trick" used in such context, but it would not be surprising at all. Just today, one of my collaborators emailed me with a plot that strongly suggests the the magnitude of redshift differentials in interacting galaxies in our catalog increases with the number of arms in the host spiral galaxy. He is a great one for mining our databases and looking for correlations, and he's a whiz at Excel, so it's not surprising that he tumbled onto this over 3 years into our research. Correlation does not imply causation, but in this case, the stats are pretty strong. Is his find a trick, hack, kludge? No, just like in the case of Thomas Edison trying about every filament material available at the time, Ari brute-forced the question and found a solution.

 

[Evo]

Not sure if I broke the rules causing the thread to lock.
I'm relatively new here so feel free to correct me if I stray.

No, it wasn't you.

 

[sylas]

I guess Nature has verified for us how the researchers "feel".
Why would anyone so certain feel that they are under seige?

That is described in the Nature editorial, and it is clear in the stolen emails as well. These scientists are under an unrelenting attack. This is the biggest scandal in my own opinion; and there have been a number of credible books on the subject in recent years. From the article:

If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.[/color]​

Nature has previously reported on this matter. See Climate data spat intensifies, in Nature 460, p787 (13 Aug, 2009), doi:10.1038/460787a. First paragraph:

A leading UK climatologist is being inundated by freedom-of-information-act requests to make raw climate data publicly available, leading to a renewed row over data access.[/color]​

We've discussed this data before in the thread, and that discussion got a bit confused. I can take up the matter again, if anyone would like to ask. The vast majority of the raw data is available already, and hence no FOI request is required to get it. I demonstrated this by giving the temperatures at Jan Mayen for 15 May, 1965, as some contributors proposed as a test case. A small part of the raw data is not available due to legal non-disclosure requirements. I will be happy to discuss this further if we can all continue to do so calmly.

Also in the most recent issue is Battle lines drawn over e-mail leak, in Nature , Vol 462, page 551 (Dec 2009), doi:10.1038/462551a, which includes also comment from a number of climate scientists.

This is, of course, only what Nature has reported and what those individual scientists have said; and I take it as given that some people don't trust it. Can criticism please be substantive or sourced, rather than merely declarations of distrust? Nature is a particularly relevant and important source for physicsforums, as one of the major science journals in the world today.

There are other views, and they may be presented in the thread as well, particularly if from a major news or science organization. The source is best explicitly named in the text of your post, so we know what is being linked before clicking on it.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[D H]

The sentence you have chosen to highlight seems pretty obvious. It states: Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy ...[/color].

Whether it is a whistleblower or a hacker, that sentence still remains true. The emails were stolen, whether from inside or outside, ...

No, that sentence does not remain true. The word "stolen" connotes a crime. The sentence is false if there was no crime.

The British Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998 says that employees qualify as whistleblowers if they

meet one of three preconditions for such disclosures:

1. reasonable fear of reprisal for the disclosure to the employer or to a prescribed person;
2. reasonable belief of the concealment or destruction of evidence relating to the misconduct; or
3. previous disclosure of the misconduct to the employer or to a prescribed person.

[/color]​

If the whistleblower meets one of these preconditions,

The protection of whistleblowers alone undermines the legal and policy justifications for restrictions on the release of information by public employees. Such protection accepts and legitimatises such disclosures and implicitly rejects the arguments for restrictions which rest upon the premise that a public sector whistleblower commits a politically hostile act, both ethically and legally indefensible. On the contrary, the protection of whistleblowers is seen as so important that the Act deprives public employers of the ability contractually to limit disclosures protected by the Act.[/color]​

(Source: http://epress.anu.edu.au/public_sector/mobile_devices/ch06s02.html.)

In short, if this was an internal leak and the person who did it is covered by this act, there was no crime. The material were not "stolen".

... and the worst thing in the emails are suggestions of some improper responses to the issues arising from amateur criticism and attack on the scientists. We all agree on that: see the report above quoting Professor Mann on this matter.

*You* all agree on that. Please don't speak for me.

The whistleblower theory seems incredible, given that it is only emails that were released -- and files attached to emails.

Where then are the emails reminding a spouse to pick up the kids, pick up the laundry or go to the dentist, the ever-so-important discussions of where to go for lunch on Friday, ManU sucks/is the best, ... The hack theory is what seems incredible. A whistleblower or a stupid inadvertent release are much more credible -- and much more in line with security breaches in general. The vast majority are inside jobs.

We don't really know how it was stolen ...

We don't even know that it was stolen.

 

[sylas]

... and the worst thing in the emails are suggestions of some improper responses to the issues arising from amateur criticism and attack on the scientists. We all agree on that: see the report above quoting Professor Mann on this matter.

*You* all agree on that. Please don't speak for me.

I did not mean to imply there was agreement on what was the worst thing in the emails; only agreement that the suggestions of deleting emails was improper. I apologize for misleading wording, and am happy to clarify.

My understanding is everyone of whom I am aware agrees that the suggestion by Professor Jones of deleting emails was improper.

Even Professor Jones himself agrees with this, and you can even find in the emails where he explictly revises his own earlier suggestion, long before the hack.

My personal opinion is that this is the most serious transgression apparent in the emails; I recognize you do not share that view.

As for "stolen", I appreciate that you personally think an inside whistleblower is more plausible. I don't, and I am afraid you will see the words "stolen" and "thief" continuing to be used in many descriptions of this affair from sources that would normally be considered above reproach, on any other topic. We will most likely know more about how the leak took place, but as it is presently subject to a police investigation, that will take a bit of time; unless the "whistleblower" speaks up.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[skypunter]

Maybe the information escaped on it's own.
(working on next year's humor award)

 

[Sorry!]

Maybe the information escaped on it's own.
(working on next year's humor award)

You're not going to win it like that... (LOL Also working on the award! joking :tongue)

Anyway skypunter, you I'm just curious as to your position on the whole situation is currently. Merely about the information released and the "scandal" that has come out of it... nothing to do with data or AGW. Strictly about the scientists and their conduct involved. (Including use of words, behaviour, etc. etc.)

@Evo, do you honestly think that the climate scientist are just trying to cover up up all this information that has "exposed" them? I feel the need to ask you for a source to back-up your counterclaims to their reasoning for a majority of things which is given in that Nature article. (I may have misunderstood your post however who knows.)

 

[D H]

Maybe the information escaped on it's own.
(working on next year's humor award)

Actually, that is pretty close to one of the conjectured mechanisms. There are two obvious mechanisms: (1) a hacker, and (2) a whistleblower.

There is at least one other mechanism:
(3) The CRU was being "attacked" with Freedom of Information requests. A packet was prepared in response in case these "attacks" could not rebuffed. Some one inadvertently put that packet on a CRU anonymous FTP server so that various members of the team could evaluate it. From there, it is easy to get out. No hacking, and the data are already nicely packaged.

Far fetched? No. This is exactly how other shielded data accidentally slipped out of their hands.

One thing is certain from browsing through these emails: These researchers were bad, really, really bad when it came to computer security issues. There are a number of sites on the net where one can do keyword searches of the leaked emails. If you find one of those sites, search for "password". The results are quite amazing. These researchers exchanged accounts and passwords through unsecured and unencrypted email.

 

[sylas]

(3) The CRU was being "attacked" with Freedom of Information requests. A packet was prepared in response in case these "attacks" could not rebuffed. Some one inadvertently put that packet on a CRU anonymous FTP server so that various members of the team could evaluate it. From there, it is easy to get out. No hacking, and the data are already nicely packaged.

None of the FOI requests wanted emails of this nature. It's not something that you could even get by FOI. Seriously; check the guidelines. There was an FOI request for correspondence pertaining to review of IPCC WG1, I think; and possibly other similar requests. FOI won't let you just get a large chunk of general email spanning 13 years.

One thing is certain from browsing through these emails: These researchers were bad, really, really bad when it came to computer security issues. There are a number of sites on the net where one can do keyword searches of the leaked emails. If you find one of those sites, search for "password". The results are quite amazing. These researchers exchanged accounts and passwords through unsecured and unencrypted email.

Actually, it is not nearly as bad as it sounds.

The passwords were not to personal computer accounts, but for limited use access to some particular item of information.

Specifically, the following passwords were sent.

• The IPCC sent a password to Steve McIntyre, so that he could access ipcc reviewer information, in 2005.
• Passwords were sent on a number of occasions from a journal to let authors and co-authors access camera ready copies of their paper.
• A password was sent from the IPCC to a couple of hundred emails addresses for use of reviewers.
• A password was sent for ftp access to a particular dataset.

All these are cases were it is normal practice to share a password to a number of different people for access to material that is not exactly public, but neither is it a serious problem if compromised. The same thing has happened for me when I have submitted papers for a journal.

In all cases, bar one, the emails were not from the scientists, but from the IPCC or journals.

I have the emails myself, precisely because I have felt the need to check claims like this for myself. I held off obtaining these private emails at first, as I felt there were ethical concerns with reading them without proper permission; but given the flood of claims being made I changed my mind.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[D H]

FOI won't let you just get a large chunk of general email spanning 13 years.

This wasn't general email spanning 13 years. Think of it this way: It was only a 1000 or so messages, involving multiple recipients. Some people get 1000 email messages a week. I get messages about picking up food on the way home and where to go for Friday lunch, email from professional organizations, bureaucratic BS email, email about company sports teams. I get an email message every time I dork with our software CM system, every time I check in a file, or anyone on the team I lead updates the trunk.

Where is all that? This is not general email spanning 13 years. It is a very focused collection of email messages.

Edit
Communications are exactly the kinds of things one can get with an FOI request.

 

[sylas]

Communications are exactly the kinds of things one can get with an FOI request.

Emails are covered under the FOI legislation, of course; but you can't just request a block of emails like this. The people making FOI requests have not been shy about what they are wanting, and none of the requests correspond to what you see in this collection. An FOI request has to be specific on what information is required. Normally you should indicate the required information, and then include in your request that you want emails relating to that as well. It must be focused; and this 160 Mb collection is not focused at all. They cover a huge range of topics.

The relevant guidelines are here: Freedom of information; in the guidance section of the UK ministry of justice. Within these guidelines, the http://www.justice.gov.uk/information/make-freedom-information-request.htm guideline states:

Be specific. [...]Make sure that you provide us with a narrow, tightly focused request and give, where appropriate, a relevant time-frame, for example, 1999 to 2000 or January to April 1985.​

Also, from the "The Campaign for Freedom of Information" in London, their guideline states (page 7)

"You could also ask for information which the authority holds about a particular topic. If so, try and ensure that the topic is relatively narrowly defined. Don’t ask for “everything you hold about” a subject, unless that is likely to involve a relatively small amount of material."​

Also relevant are the guidelines I showed previously, which indicate that an FOI request is for "information" rather than "documents". Emails can certainly be included in a request, but the request does have to indicate what information is required: not just say they want all emails, or all emails relating to climate research, or something that broad.

This odd speculation has been made in various articles or blogs, but it is very far fetched given the FOI guidelines and given the scope of the hacked files. I am not a lawyer, of course. But quite obviously neither are any of the people suggesting this possibility.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Al68]

Stick to the facts and the scientific method. Assertions and claims require evidentiary substantiation, e.g., peer-reviewed scientific journals or news articles from hopefully objective news sources (assuming that there is such a thing).

I think that's a bad assumption, all sources are biased, even if they contain true factual data.

Since some posts in this thread were deleted for containing links to "biased" sources, and since there are no other kind of sources:

Which is it, are links to (biased) sources allowed or not?

What criteria should be used for sources, other than "hopefully" (but obviously not) objective?

 

[Coldcall]

I think considering that Jones, Mann and other attempted/succeeded to manipulate the peer review process means we should stop using "peer review" as a defence for the so-called "consensus".

The peer review process itself is in question, at least in relation to climatic studies.

In fact I am starting to doubt there really is a consensus other than that one contrived by the IPCC, which after all, is a global political organisation. The fact that they clearly blocked sceptical colleagues from getting anywhere near the final report, makes the claim of a "consensus" highly questionable.

 

[f95toli]

I have not seen the word "trick" used in such context, but it would not be surprising at all.

It is pretty common, at the least where I work (in London). When I talk to or send e-mails to colleagues we quite often use the word "trick" , a typical sentence would be "One trick you could try in order to improve the SNR is to use a lock-in amplifier". It just means "clever technique" or method.

I might be wrong (I work in England, but I am obviously not English), but I think it is rare for the word "trick" to mean "cheating" or anything like that in British-English (it usually just means something clever), whereas it seems(?) to nearly always carry negative overtones in AE.

 

[Andre]

Speculating without exact context does not make not much sense but rest assured that somewhere else this case is scrutinized, to see whether it was a cheating 'trick' or a clever solution.

 

[Sorry!]

Speculating without exact context does not make not much sense but rest assured that somewhere else this case is scrutinized, to see whether it was a cheating 'trick' or a clever solution.

The only reason that people possibly could be speculating without exact context is if they do not believe the scientists. There are no other reliable sources on the matter other than themselves.

Why would you ever even believe it means a cheating trick when the people claiming this have nothing to do with the e-mails what-so-ever and are basing THEIR perspective only on the context we have available anyways? That makes no sense to me.

 

[DanP]

The only reason that people possibly could be speculating without exact context is if they do not believe the scientists. There are no other reliable sources on the matter other than themselves.

Why would you ever even believe it means a cheating trick when the people claiming this have nothing to do with the e-mails what-so-ever and are basing THEIR perspective only on the context we have available anyways? That makes no sense to me.

Because is in the first place political. And political battles are not fought with peer reviewed papers or scientific truths, or reliable sources. It's about gaining support and leverage. Anything is fair game. Besides, no human is above cheating. Scientists are not above the level of trust of your "average human".

 

[Sorry!]

Because is in the first place political. And political battles are not fought with peer reviewed papers or scientific truths, or reliable sources. It's about gaining support and leverage. Anything is fair game. Besides, no human is above cheating. Scientists are not above the level of trust of your "average human".

Well firstly Dan I was responding to Andre in which he clearly says that speculating without context should not occur. What someone would have to do in order to think that the word trick implies cheating is speculate on people FAR removed from the 'ring' of scientists the e-mails came from, who are trying to make the scientists look bad, speculating themselves on what the word meant.

So it makes more sense to allow 'speculation upon speculations' instead of just believing what the scientists who actually wrote the e-mails speak about? Thats absurd and it would definitely show who is biased. As well yes, scientists generally do have more trust than your 'average' human...

 

[Andre]

Well firstly Dan I was responding to Andre in which he clearly says that speculating without context should not occur.

It would be better to quote, because that is not what I said. I said that it makes no sense.

So it makes more sense to allow 'speculation upon speculations' instead of just believing what the scientists who actually wrote the e-mails speak about?

Believing is not what science is about, is it? It's about transparancy and reproduceability. If if the word "trick" is used in a good scientific context, it would be easy to reproduce and explain what it was all about. And of course, also about the word "hide" that was in the same sentence, as far as I remember.

 

[turbo]

Because is in the first place political. And political battles are not fought with peer reviewed papers or scientific truths, or reliable sources. It's about gaining support and leverage. Anything is fair game. Besides, no human is above cheating. Scientists are not above the level of trust of your "average human".

One thing about collaborative research is that personal biases tend to get evened out through feedback within the group - a level of self-check that you don't get with solo researchers. This makes charges of dishonesty or fraud quite serious, because the clear implication is that the researchers colluded to knowingly produce a fraudulent result. Such charges are political in nature, and when made by "scientists", are quite unprofessional.

 

[DanP]

So it makes more sense to allow 'speculation upon speculations' instead of just believing what the scientists who actually wrote the e-mails speak about? Thats absurd and it would definitely show who is biased. As well yes, scientists generally do have more trust than your 'average' human...

The problem is that you can't stop "speculation upon speculation". It's also not a issue of "believing the scientists". Even if the exact meaning and context of the word "trick" (and I agree about the fact the words "hack" "trick" are often used for legit work) it still doesn't matter. It's a thing which can be twisted to offer leverage, and it'll be used even if they know it's usage was honest to god.

As for bias, is very hard to blame on side or another. Both sides are resorting to shady practices. And about trust, there are enough money at play in GW issue to make a nun change into a home-wrecker *****. Noone sane will go on trust when so much money are involved.