My latest column for The Week asks what the news about the scandal at the UK’s Climate Research Unit tells us.
On their way to discovering the double helix structure of DNA, James Watson and Francis Crick drew important inspiration from an unauthorized glimpse at the unpublished research of a third scientist, Rosalind Franklin.
Yet when James Watson published his famous memoir in 1968, he made scant mention of Franklin’s contributions—holding her up instead to vicious and misogynistic mockery.
Scientists—even brilliant ones—are not better than other people. They are at least as prone to vanity, malice, groupthink, charlatanism, and outright dishonesty as those in any other line of work. Happily, science is bigger than the scientists. Nobody would respond to Watson’s bad behavior by saying, “See—that proves that DNA does not exist!”
42 responses so far
1 ProfNickD // Nov 26, 2009 at 1:17 am
David,
I’m afraid your article entirely misses the point of the hacked & released emails, making me wonder whether you have actually read through any substantive amount of them.
The issue is not about these researchers’ boorish and manifestly unprofessional behavior.
The issue is about the falsification of data to perpetuate and give creedence to a massive scientific fraud.
The emails focus on tree ring research from samples collected in the Yamal region of northern Siberia, which are vitally important to the IPCC report that claims anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is 1.) real, 2.) “proved,” and 3.) a global threat to man.
The CRU at East Anglia has never released the hard data or the statistical models they used to conclude — based on the tree ring research — that modern warming is greater than any for several centuries, including the medieval warm period, producing a “hockey stick”-appearing graph showing rapid warming.
Even when other scientists filed Freedom of Information requests with the CRU in the effort to get the data, the CRU refused to release it. Climatologists, including one with whom I have a close working relationship, have not been able to duplicate CRUs modeling results. It’s reconstructions have left the scentific community baffled, but given enormous legitimacy to AGW hysterics.
Now we know why: the CRU has been falsifying its data. Not just data “smoothing,” “cherry-picking,” and other statistical contortions, but actually making up data.
Those who believe in AGW should begin to question why they believe in what they believe, because as we now know, it certainly can’t be based on the “science.”
Try reading what actual scientists say on the matter — in other words, those who don’t make-up data.
http://www.climatechangereconsidered.org/
2 joemarier // Nov 26, 2009 at 9:41 am
It’s actually kind of ironic that the modern environmental/progressive movement focuses on overconsumption (of fossil fuels, health resources etc.), while opposing all taxes on consumption (preferring income taxes to sales taxes, preferring cap and trade to carbon taxes, preferring the Tobin tax to excise taxes on health care, etc.)
And I think you’re right: the core of the climate change issue is not a hoax. But it was also exaggerated and manipulated for political reasons. Let’s go back to DNA: If Watson did steal from another scientist, it doesn’t mean that DNA doesn’t exist. But it does mean that criticizing him for his moral reasoning on the second order question of eugenics, say, is legitimate. That’s not attacking Science: that’s attacking a someone who doesn’t care about people in instance A for not caring about other people in instance B.
3 sinz54 // Nov 26, 2009 at 10:07 am
joemarier:
Many in the environmental movement favor taxing gasoline.
As for your other point, the fact that anthropogenic global warming is occurring (and that IS a scientific fact) happened to fit a preconceived New Left narrative–that industrialization has corrupted us, and that we must go back to nature.
4 sinz54 // Nov 26, 2009 at 10:11 am
Most of those who claim that anthropogenic global warming is a modern “hoax” or “scam” are unaware that it was already understood, decades before it finally became a big issue. Isaac Asimov wrote about it in the 1960s.
The following comes from Popular Mechanics, August 1953:
Dr. Gilbert Plass was a pioneer in understanding the global warming process. He published his papers in the 1950s, and died in 2004.
5 BoolaBoola // Nov 26, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Well, I haven’t read the details, so I won’t pretend to have read them. BUT: in every field with policy implications, there are “scientists” with whom real scientists SHOULD refuse to share a forum. An outstanding example from another field: Professor Joel Brind.
Insisting that bullshitters-for-profit be excluded from a scientific journal or forum is NOT “censorship”.
6 sinz54 // Nov 26, 2009 at 4:19 pm
BoolaBoola:
This may come as a shock to you, but “profit making” is not a curse.
I published papers when I worked for a profit making organization.
So do many other engineers and scientists in the computer business.
And what WAS censorship, was threatening to boycott a particular publication if it dared to print papers with a contrary point of view–even if those papers had passed peer review and were deemed fit for publication by the peer reviewers:
That’s disgraceful, and it should stop. I can think of a number of scientific theories, deemed radical and disturbing in their day, which would never have gotten accepted if they had been suppressed this way.
If a paper is deemed fit for publication by peer reviewers, it gets published. Period. If other scientists disagree with its conclusions, they can publish refutations or critiques. But not to suppress it a priori.
Censorship by boycott is for politics, NOT for science.
7 sdspringy // Nov 26, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Sinz54:
As for your other point, the fact that anthropogenic global warming is occurring (and that IS a scientific fact
The IPCC and Gore have tried for over 15 years to frighten mankind into the fraudulent science of global warming. Global temperatures from 1856 thru to 1998, (warmest year on record) has only shown a 1(one) degree C rise in temperature. From 1999 to today that has been reduced by global cooling.
The latest fraud is the attempt to use handpicked tree ring data to support AGW. A fraud as ClimateGate is showing.
The whole concept is a hoax, time to turn in the Prius for an actual eviromentally friendly car, Chevy Impala.
8 BoolaBoola // Nov 26, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Sinz54, do you know the expression “You can’t teach your grandma to suck eggs?” I did science for profit too! Created a new drug and named it after an opera character, in the Journal of Biological Chemistry.
So I have no problem with for-profit SCIENCE; I object to for-profit BULLSHIT. Tobacco “scientists” who tried to deny the harmfulness of smoking while being paid by cigarette companies, right-to-lifist “scientists” who claim abortion causes breast-cancer, and now, global-warming deniers paid by oil companies.
I love the report in WSJ, which said that the emails show a community that “feels threatened and desires to censor its critics”. OF COURSE earth-scientists feel threatened, and they should, because they ARE threatened, by purchased propagandists masquerading as scientists, undermining their work. OF COURSE they want to keep their “critics” from publishing in real scientific journals, because these “critics” are not scientists. OF COURSE they get angry when a journal’s editorial staff, who should know better, takes the purchased opposition seriously. Your quotation from Professor Michael Mann just confirms my point: the purchased GW-denialists have apparently taken over a journal which used to be respectable, and established a system of fake peer-review. Real scientists are ABSOLUTELY WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS to point this out and to refuse to work with that journal any longer. In fact, they’d be culpably negligent if they DIDN’T do that.
The right-to-lifers have done something else: they have FOUNDED a fake journal. It’s called the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. For a good laugh, google it up!
You wrote: “I can think of a number of scientific theories, deemed radical and disturbing in their day, which would never have gotten accepted if they had been suppressed this way.”
No you can’t. If the theories in question had merit, they would eventually be accepted IN SPITE of all attempts to suppress them. In science, the truth will out, eventually. You may be able to think of theories whose acceptance would have been DELAYED, but not forever.
9 BoolaBoola // Nov 26, 2009 at 8:45 pm
“Peer-review”: who do you think decides WHICH peers should review a submitted article? The journal’s editorial staff makes that decision. If said staff is purchased or otherwise biased, they can easily restrict their choices to a biased subset of “peers”. This, apparently, is what is going on in this case.
10 sinz54 // Nov 27, 2009 at 9:23 am
BoolaBoola:
Which proves my point.
Attempts to suppress ideas are self-defeating–and unnecessary.
You never know in advance where a novel idea will come from. And you never know in advance which ideas will pan out.
If the arguments advanced by the proponents of global warming aren’t so bulletproof as to withstand criticism by climate skeptics, then they should go back to their laboratories and drawing boards and make their arguments more bullet-proof. They should NOT duck scientific criticism (no matter WHAT the source), and they should never attempt to censor those who disagree with them.
In the case I mentioned, the climate change skeptics did NOT “take over a journal.” What they did was send a bunch of papers to that journal, which were evidently good enough to pass peer review. And that’s all that matters.
If you disagree hotly with the peers’ judgment, you can demand from the editor that he allow rebuttals to be published. That happens in the medical journals all the time. You do NOT threaten the editor with a boycott unless he caves in to you.
Boycotts are for politics, NOT science.
11 sinz54 // Nov 27, 2009 at 9:26 am
The case of Immanuel Velikovsky may be instructive here.
In the 1950s, Velikovsky wrote “Worlds in Collision,” a book in which he argued for a totally crackpot theory of astronomy, to make it conform to events in the Bible.
Scientists threatened to boycott Velikovsky’s publisher unless the publisher stopped publishing the book. They succeeded. But this became big news in the press–scientists trying to suppress the publication of a book. As a result, millions of Americans heard about Velikovsky who had never heard of him before. Doubleday saw an opportunity and offered to publish Velikovsky’s book. With all the publicity, the book became an instant best-seller.
The moral of the story is: Scientific suppression is self-defeating.
12 erasmuse // Nov 27, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Do take a look at the emails. You said,
“And we have observed that over the past half-century, until about the year 2000, temperatures in the northern hemisphere trended upward, peaking in 1998. The warming trend seems to have abated over the past decade, but rising carbon emissions give reason to fear that it will resume in the future.”
We have indeed thought that temperatures were rising. But that’s based on the work on the exposed East Anglia scientists and James Hansen’s NASA. So now those basic facts are up for grabs.
Take a look at the even more recent (i.e. two days ago) New Zealand scandal too, where it’s been discovered that the basic data showed no warming until they were adjusted by the government scientists in charge of such things. This is a lot easier to comprehend than the many-faceted East Anglia scandal. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
13 PracticalGirl // Nov 27, 2009 at 6:18 pm
JoeMarier says
“And I think you’re right: the core of the climate change issue is not a hoax. But it was also exaggerated and manipulated for political reasons.”
Agreed. We’ve entered the silly season when it comes to environmental concerns, and each side of the debate is exaggerating and marginalizing the other not to solve the issue but to win the popularity contest. While the left has the sky falling, the right is busy denying that CO2 is a pollutant and distilling the issue down to cow farts. As with every issue facing this country, the debate has swung in favor of the loudest and most extreme on both sides.
14 Chekote // Nov 27, 2009 at 6:45 pm
#1
Very interesting post. I didn’t know that other scientists could not reproduce the results. Thanks for your input.
15 Chekote // Nov 27, 2009 at 7:00 pm
the right is busy denying that CO2 is a pollutant
CO2 is not a pollutant any more than Oxygen is a pollutant. CO2 is plant food.
16 BoolaBoola // Nov 27, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Sinz54, please argue in good faith, or else shut your yap.
One mo’ time: refusing to share a platform with for-profit fake-scientists is NOT “suppressing science”. You say you’re a computer scientist? Would you submit your papers to a journal which published articles funded by the abacus industry, claiming that computers cause cancer? I hope not, because that journal would no longer be a legitimate academic forum.
You wrote: “In the case I mentioned, the climate change skeptics did NOT “take over a journal.” What they did was send a bunch of papers to that journal, which were evidently good enough to pass peer review.”
Source please. How do you know that this is not as I described–a clique of paid warming-denialists who have managed to gain control of an editorial board? I have yet to see an email, or a discussion of the emails, which contradicts this hypothesis.
17 BoolaBoola // Nov 27, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Chekote:
Whether or not the greenhouse effect justifies calling CO2 a “pollutant” is obviously a purely semantic question. But CO2 does other things too: it acidifies the waters. Remember, CO2 + H2O turn into H2CO3, which is carbonic acid (the conjugate base is baking soda)? That’s the same process which triggers puffing during exercise: acidification of the blood. And that property DOES mean it’s a pollutant.
Also, CO2 is not “plant food”; it’s something plants make food FROM, some of the time.
18 Chekote // Nov 28, 2009 at 10:36 am
Also, CO2 is not “plant food”; it’s something plants make food FROM, some of the time.
Talk about semantics!!!! I guess we can say that CO2 is plant food some of the time.
19 BoolaBoola // Nov 28, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Chekote,
FOOD is something you BURN, for ENERGY. CO2 is not plant-food, EVER. You can’t burn CO2. Even when plants are making food FROM CO2, the CO2 is not the food. When the plant uses the food, it does so by burning it back INTO CO2.
Bah. You don’t know enough basic chemistry to have an opinion on this question; at least, not an opinion worth reading. Go back and take chem 101, also read the METABOLISM section of any basic biochem book, and THEN come back and post your opinions.
20 We’ve Got A ‘Gate’! We’ve Got A ‘Gate’! « Around The Sphere // Nov 28, 2009 at 12:38 pm
[...] David Frum and FrumForum [...]
21 SFTor1 // Nov 28, 2009 at 6:31 pm
As one of the liberal Democrats on this forum let me say this:
The leak/hack at CRU has uncovered serious misconduct by leading climate scientists. These are the people who directly influence policy at the UN and national governments around the world.
These scientists continue to refuse to release their data and may have destroyed publicly funded data. They have used underhanded methods to attack and discredit dissenters and skeptics. They have sought to control the scientific publishing process and have usurped the peer review process.
They have thoroughly corrupted the field of climate science, which can no longer be trusted until positive steps are taken to restore its integrity.
Dr. Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, and several other prominent figures must resign or be fired immediately. The work product they have delivered over the last ten years must be withdrawn and critically and publicly reviewed. The academic institutions they come from must conduct open inquiries, publish the results, terminate scientists guilty of misconduct, and apologize for their lack of oversight. Policy conferences should be put on hold until we know what’s really going on, as much of the central work AGW is based on is heavily influenced, or authored by these individuals.
Science is all we have in many cases to make complex policy decisions. The taint of this scandal must be dealt with swiftly and decisively.
Throw the bums out, the sooner the better, for the sake of scientific credibility.
22 SFTor1 // Nov 28, 2009 at 6:36 pm
One more comment: With this it has become impossible to know whether AGW is a real threat or not.
My research tells me that it isn’t, but in the least there is now so much doubt about something as basic as the 20th century temperature record that we really have to start all over.
23 BoolaBoola // Nov 28, 2009 at 8:12 pm
The implications of the “Climategate” emails are, unsurprisingly, being heavily exaggerated. For instance, here’s a piece on pajamasmedia entitled “Three things you absolutely must know about Climategate” by Iain Murray. The first of the three is:
“Mann later (2003) announced that “it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP,’ even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back”. The MWP is the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures may have been higher than today. Mann’s desire to “contain” this phenomenon even in the absence of any data suggesting that this is possible is a clear indication of a desire to manipulate the science. ”
Bad scientist, bad! (slap slap slap), right?
Well let’s read the line IN CONTEXT. He’s asking a colleague to draw up a figure for him, a plot of temperature vs time.
“A plot of various of the most reliable (in terms of strength of temperature signal and reliability of millennial-scale variability) regional proxy temperature reconstructions around the Northern Hemisphere that are available over the past 1-2 thousand years to convey the important point that warm and cold periods where highly regionally variable. … Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back [Phil and I have one in
review--not sure it is kosher to show that yet though--I've put in an inquiry to Judy
Jacobs at AGU about this].”
So he’s not trying to include something, as the Murray says, “in the absence of any data”. He’s trying to include it in the absence of “hemispheric mean reconstruction”, but in the PRESENCE of other data such as regional data from various places, and he is conscientiously making inquiries whether or not the community would consider this acceptable. What’s the problem?
24 SFTor1 // Nov 28, 2009 at 8:34 pm
BoolaBoola:
There is absolutely no need to exaggerate. The emails and other files provide ample reason to launch an investigation.
If you are interested in actual information on the MWP and other climate records, march yourself over to Wattsupwiththat.com and start reading. No, the site is not shilling for Big Oil. Promise.
25 BoolaBoola // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:50 pm
SFTor1, I’m sorry but your unsupported word that some of them provide “ample reason” is not quite enough. Now the emails are becoming available on the web (Murray posts links) so, source from the goose, source from the gander, please. WHICH of the emails, and WHAT other files, provide “ample reason” to launch an investigation into WHAT question?
The other two items in Murray’s “Three things….” article are similarly vapid. The second one just shows the authors raging about a journal editor who is printing junk science in order to give both sides a say (as in “Shape of the world: flat or round? Experts differ”), and vowing to oppose him.
And the third item–a professor vowing to delete his data rather than share it with a skeptic as required by law, is obviously a joke. There is a problem with paid fake-skeptics abusing the law–making nuisances of themselves by swamping the scientists with endless pointless requests and re-requests for data. The scientists are discussing ways to deal with the problem.
Beyond that, what is there, besides a lot of combatative, paranoic tone? Science is combative, or more politely, science is ADVERSARIAL, like civil courts. People slit each others’ throats about much less-important stuff than this. Try listening in on a seminar where both x-ray crystallographers and NMR-ists are present, it’s like a cockfight with razor-spurs. And it’s not paranoid for real atmosphere-scientists to feel embattled; they ARE embattled by a very well-funded fake-science industry.
Maybe Iain Murray’s article is just a bad apple. Maybe as you say there are ample reasons to investigate. I’m just saying, I’ve been poking around a little bit, and I haven’t seen any yet; all I’ve seen so far is context-switch “gotcha” games and exaggerations. If Murray’s three complaints turn out to be typical, then this scandal will fizzle out like a cold fusion.
26 SFTor1 // Nov 29, 2009 at 12:38 am
Here. Read it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole…/
I understand that science is adversarial. The CRU scientists made sure it wasn’t, by working to exclude dissenters from the important fora. I’m not talking about crackpots here, but people like Lindzen, Pielke, McIntyre, Eschenbach, and Christy. Some were outright excluded, some were ignored in the process.
“Requests and re-requests for data?” The data should have been made available at the time the work was published, simple as that.
You are throwing out more red herrings than a Portuguese trawling cutter. Get yourself informed and we can talk.
27 BoolaBoola // Nov 29, 2009 at 6:29 am
I read your link. It is absolutely consistent with my hypothesis, that some paid “skeptics” are abusing the Freedom of Information law to make nuisance requests, and the authors of the stolen emails are resisting this. In fact your link serves as a nice example, supporting my point. And, the author of your link again posts the joke–”I think I’ll delete my data rather than share it with so-and-so”–as if it were serious. In other words, your link is just a reiteration of Murray’s third fake item, which I have already debunked.
When you argue with me, it is NOT enough for you to make an assertion, and then post a link to any old gossip-site which trumpets agreement with your assertion. I am able to read scienctific papers, having written two or three my ownself, so with me, your link must ACTUALLY SUPPORT your assertion. In particular, any link from an obvious anti-gw cheerleading site like wattsupwiththat should be viewed with suspicion and carefully evaluated for veracity and for “gotcha” tricks BEFORE you post it. I not sure whether you have enough experience with science-wheeling-and-dealing to do such evaluations. Sites like, for instance, freerepublic.com, are not appropriate sources.
You wrote: “The data should have been made available at the time the work was published, simple as that. ”
Have you ever WORKED in a scientific lab? Most don’t make raw data available, nor do authors typically have to give out original computer-code. That would be like asking scientists who publish experimentalist papers to be willing to come to skeptics’ homes and repeat their experiments there upon request. Or, to make a large supply of replicas of every scientific instrument constructed, and send one to every skeptic who asks. In this case, we’re talking about a data set that took 25 years to compile–someone’s lifework. “Disclosure” doesn’t mean giving your work away.
RE: “CRU scientists making sure science isn’t adversarial, by excluding skeptics” –if you were cancer specialist, in the 1950s, would you share a platform with hired “smoking-cancer” skeptics, paid by the tobacco industry? No, you wouldn’t, you’d be too busy conducting adverserial science with REAL scientists. You are just trying to use the old canard “unless you let EVERYONE participate, it’s not real science”. No. We require doctorates as a precondition for applying for grant money, precisely in order to avoid wasting time on cranks and hired nuisances. You can’t put on a football match unless you first choose the teams, and your players must be qualified.
28 BoolaBoola // Nov 29, 2009 at 7:05 am
SFTor1, one more thing. You wrote: “Dr. Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, and several other prominent figures must resign or be fired immediately.”
Hee hee! We don’t have enough real meat from the emails yet to even decide whether or not they merit a formal investigation. And you want to fire Jones, Mann, and Briffa before even STARTING an investigation! This suggestion of yours confirms that you are not serious, and/or that you are not familiar with scientific oversight. Rather, you seem to be functioning as a member of the same “maximize-the-noise” crowd that brought us “death-panel” hysteria.
You call youself a climate researcher–you wrote “My research indicates [AGW] isn’t [a threat]“. Elaborate, please. I’m not saying reveal your identity, but do please advise, what research-position and/or academic rank do you hold? Are you a professor, or what? (PREDICTION: you will dodge this question, not because you have something to hide, but because you have nothing to reveal).
29 cpanza // Nov 29, 2009 at 7:08 am
BoolaBoola:
Thanks for your knowledgeable input here. It is unfortunate that in the hyper-partisan world we live in people feel like they have to have strong opinions (and be duly outraged) by all the things their side tells them they are supposed to have opinions about, even when those persons (and the leading voices on their side) are not qualified to back those opinions/outrage up (that goes for left and right). Frum himself is not innocent of this.
The gw “debate” reminds me of the whole “id/evolution” nonsense, where scientific terms are thrown around regularly in ways that an intro to science text would rule out as ridiculous. Because outrage and not truth is really the aim, however, these basic requirements for having a sensible discussion are completely ignored.
The less they know, the more they think they know it.
30 SFTor1 // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:50 am
BoolaBoola:
I am fully willing to wait for an investigation, and I should not jump to conclusions. Fully agreed. But a guy like George Monbiot has already called for Phil Jones’s resignation, based on what he has seen. He is not exactly a shill for the oil companies, now is he?
Anyone who can read however sees that these people appear to have engaged in serious offenses against scientific openness, on the public dime.
Let’s have it investigated.
Cpanza, I am a liberal Democrat, so that whole partisan thing doesn’t fly. Your comments about the “id/evolution nonsense” tells me that you are the one who is not interested in a fair discussion.
BoolaBoola: I am not a scientist. When I say research I am talking about my own personal secondary research.
31 SFTor1 // Nov 29, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Here:
“SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.”
You don’t have to have committed high treason to get fired from a scientific institution. It’s enough to be incompetent.
32 SFTor1 // Nov 29, 2009 at 12:54 pm
The quote above is from The Telegraph, by the way, July 29 2009.
I read your comments stating that scientists who publish papers are not required to include their data and methods. You are either misinformed, or lying.
Here’s something else I don’t understand: what makes you think Phil Jones was joking, when the critical data were in fact deleted on his watch? Some joke.
Your assertions that “labs don’t give out their data” is cute. When scientists publish, they show their work. Dispute that, please.
33 BoolaBoola // Nov 29, 2009 at 12:57 pm
SFTor1, I guess you can fault them for not entering the raw data onto a computer alongside of the revised figures, but that’s not a great enough error to be called “incompetence” and certainly not enough to merit firing someone. It’s not as if they had exclusive custody of the raw data. The weather stations haven’t gone anywhere. If other academics want to check the basic calculations, they can go re-gather the raw data themselves! The checkers should want to do that anyway–why take the UEA scientists’ word for what the weather stations told them??? They could be lying, no?
34 SFTor1 // Nov 29, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Yes, BoolaBoola, and several scientists attempted to do just that. They couldn’t even get the CRU to tell them where the data were coming from.
And you are telling me that the original data were never entered electronically? You think they just read them off the page and adjusted them on the fly?
Are you crazy?
What raw data did they use to produce CRU TS3 and HADCRUT? Stuff they read off a tape and never saved anywhere in a data file?
35 BoolaBoola // Nov 29, 2009 at 1:15 pm
SFTor1, please, you’re just misquoting me now. When did I say you don’t have to include data and methods? Of course you do. But you don’t (usually) have to give out RAW data. For instance, when you publish data which you measured in a vacuum chamber, you don’t have to include, or distribute, the pressure-readouts during the experiment, or the calibration curves you used to standardize your detectors. The reader assumes your pressure was suitably low and your instruments properly calibrated. If you’re expressing a protein in a particular cell line, you don’t include all the population counts while the cell line was being grown up; you just say you expressed the protein stably and go on and say what you did with it. In other words, you condense your data, and include the meaningful ones.
I’m willing to explain this stuff to you, but please, no more putting words in my mouth, or, if yer gonna put them there, at least don’t be so obvious about it. OF COURSE I never said “labs don’t give out their data” (you left out the critical word “RAW”), and OF COURSE I know that scientists report data and methods, the former in the Results section and the latter in the Materials and Methods section. There is no need for you to pretend to be more obtuse than you are–really, there is no need to do that.
Re: Phil Jones and deleted data–if he were seriously planning do that, he would not have shared his intentions with anyone. No way anyone would write down the intention to do that, except as a joke. Your colleague would not thank you for making him into an accessory.
36 BoolaBoola // Nov 29, 2009 at 1:24 pm
We are posting on top of each other….RE: storing the raw data. I don’t know enough details and neither do you. But I could easily imagine, say, adjusting the raw data one by one as they come in from the various sources, and only storing the adjusted data, not the raw data, on the big master-list.
37 sinz54 // Nov 30, 2009 at 9:32 am
SFTor1:
I’ve had experience with legacy data, so I’m willing to make a guess what happened:
Most likely the data were entered electronically–but many years ago, in some legacy format like EBCDIC on magnetic tape (or even worse, paper tape), on some ancient mainframe computer that has long since been scrapped or gone to some museum. Such data would have just disappeared unless there was a specific project to save it. They used this raw data just once–to adjust it for differences among reporting stations–and entered the adjusted data on a more modern computer. Then they just forgot about the raw data.
But I can see that climate skeptics won’t be convinced by anything less than a rise in global temperature that is so obvious that no one will be able to deny global warming any longer.
That’s why I have been saying for a long time that the only politically acceptable way to deal with global warming is mitigation of its effects, only after it becomes obvious to all. Trying to prevent it, when all we can show the public is a bunch of mathematical models, is hopeless. The public won’t be convinced by theories to make major changes.
Remember the novel (and movie) “When Worlds Collide”? Despite warnings from the world’s top astronomers, the public refused to believe that a planetoid was on a collision course with Earth until they could see it in the sky with the naked eye. And that’s when the panic really started.
38 sinz54 // Nov 30, 2009 at 9:36 am
BoolaBoola:
The reader does NOT have to just assume that.
He’s free to conduct his own experiments to try to duplicate or refute your findings.
In this case, the raw data can and should be gathered over again. I have no doubt it will validate the original adjustments. Because there is plenty of confirming evidence for AGW that has nothing to do with the original raw data.
39 Carney // Nov 30, 2009 at 7:15 pm
BoolaBoola constantly uses the term “paid” to discredit skeptics. Aren’t AGW believers paid, too, or are they all independently wealthy and do their work pro bono? And since they are paid by governments and other institutions, such as the green lobby, that stand to gain more money and power from the “science” they peddle, aren’t they just as compromised, if not more?
40 BoolaBoola // Nov 30, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Carney, yes the AGW believers are paid, but they are paid by scientific research-granting agencies, not by corporations with a profit-stake in the results turning out one way rather than another.
Sure they stand to gain if their ideas turn out right, but that’s true of everyone.
41 BoolaBoola // Nov 30, 2009 at 10:34 pm
If you need me to point this out to you, then you don’t know enough about science for your opinion to matter. Would you ask a janitor for medical advice????
42 BoolaBoola // Dec 1, 2009 at 12:16 am
Sinz54, you wrote: “That’s why I have been saying for a long time that the only politically acceptable way to deal with global warming is mitigation of its effects, only after it becomes obvious to all.”
It is ALREADY obvious to all. All who can read a satallite-map of the polar ice-caps, that is. How much more obvious do you want? You wanna wait until there are no more polar ice caps at all???
You must log in to post a comment.