Climate Research Unit email scandal - AKA 'Climategate'

[Deuce]

You make it sound as though no credible scientist opposes the idea of GW, which is quite far from the truth.

Well, it's a good thing nobody is actually saying that.

 

[theangryamerican]

Well, it's a good thing nobody is actually saying that.

Orion seems to think that all the scientific evidence available stands as incontrovertible proof that man made GW exists. I think you should read what I quoted from him again.

 

[Deuce]

Orion seems to think that all the scientific evidence available stands as incontrovertible proof that man made GW exists. I think you should read what I quoted from him again.

No, you're extrapolating a bit there.
There are skeptics, yes, but the evidence in favor is so far overwhelming. Arguments put up by skeptics are addressed quickly. Is it possible there's some other forcing that is causing the current temperature trend? Yes, but all evidence points towards CO2. Skeptics either offer no alternative explanation or they offer an explanation that is readily debunked.

The main temperature forcings are:
Variations in solar cycles
Greenhouse effect (CO2, water vapor, CFCs, methane, etc)
Continental positions (land and water absorb heat differently)
Wobbles in the earth's orbital path and axis
Volcanic activity
El Nino/La Nina

These are all easy to account for. CO2 is the only one that matches the current temperature change.
So, unless there's some new climate forcing we previously were not aware of, it's us. As research continues, the likelihood of finding such a mysterious factor decrease.

 

[theangryamerican]

No, you're extrapolating a bit there.
There are skeptics, yes, but the evidence in favor is so far overwhelming. Arguments put up by skeptics are addressed quickly. Is it possible there's some other forcing that is causing the current temperature trend? Yes, but all evidence points towards CO2. Skeptics either offer no alternative explanation or they offer an explanation that is readily debunked.

The main temperature forcings are:
Variations in solar cycles
Greenhouse effect (CO2, water vapor, CFCs, methane, etc)
Continental positions (land and water absorb heat differently)
Wobbles in the earth's orbital path and axis
Volcanic activity
El Nino/La Nina

These are all easy to account for. CO2 is the only one that matches the current temperature change.
So, unless there's some new climate forcing we previously were not aware of, it's us. As research continues, the likelihood of finding such a mysterious factor decrease.

Interesting, considering that if calculated theoretically, with no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming. CO2 is not as big a factor as you've been led to believe.

 

[Deuce]

Interesting, considering that if calculated theoretically, with no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming. CO2 is not as big a factor as you've been led to believe.

Do you have some evidence to support that? Does it factor in the positive feedback that water vapor provides? (since "no other changes" is a silly qualification since increased temperatures will affect water vapor)

 

[theangryamerican]

Do you have some evidence to support that? Does it factor in the positive feedback that water vapor provides? (since "no other changes" is a silly qualification since increased temperatures will affect water vapor)

It's not a silly qualification, since you stated that CO2 was only thing that affected visible climate change.

 

[Deuce]

It's not a silly qualification, since you stated that CO2 was only thing that affected visible climate change.

Water vapor isn't a forcing, it's a feedback. It magnifies changes that are happening, but can't start a change in temperature on its own. (since the water vapor content in the atmosphere is determined by temperature)

CO2 is the only forcing that matches the current changes.

 

[reefedjib]

That there are credible scientists that disagree with the conclusions of the majority climate scientists, you would think they would be invited to peer review so that there is a contrary voice. They are not welcome. That climate scientists make decisions about who gets research funding and they exclude credible skeptics from this process causes one to be suspicious of political leanings. That AGW rests upon the data from a very few sources, like the institute at the center of climategate, any questions of the data's integrity should addressed, not hidden or explained away.

AGW climate science is political, excludes contrary voices, has suspicious funding, and is dependent on questionable data sources.

 

[Deuce]

That there are credible scientists that disagree with the conclusions of the majority climate scientists, you would think they would be invited to peer review so that there is a contrary voice. They are not welcome. That climate scientists make decisions about who gets research funding and they exclude credible skeptics from this process causes one to be suspicious of political leanings. That AGW rests upon the data from a very few sources, like the institute at the center of climategate, any questions of the data's integrity should addressed, not hidden or explained away.

AGW climate science is political, excludes contrary voices, has suspicious funding, and is dependent on questionable data sources.

They aren't excluded from peer review. The papers they publish are freely available. The data is from literally thousands of sources. What makes skeptics funded by oil companies somehow more impartial?

 

[reefedjib]

They aren't excluded from peer review. The papers they publish are freely available. The data is from literally thousands of sources. What makes skeptics funded by oil companies somehow more impartial?

They don't get published, they get turned down for peer review.

The data was integrated by the English lab. It was one of only a couple of datasets upon which all other research was based. It calls into question all research based on that dataset.

Skeptics are not funded by oil companies. This is your conspiracy theory.

It is not an issue of impartiality. It is an issue of contrary conclusions based upon the same data. Those with contrary conclusions are excluded. Not published (some of the emails discuss this), not peer reviewed, not part of peer review (not a peer reviewer), not funded.

 

[Deuce]

They don't get published, they get turned down for peer review.

The data was integrated by the English lab. It was one of only a couple of datasets upon which all other research was based. It calls into question all research based on that dataset.

Skeptics are not funded by oil companies. This is your conspiracy theory.

It is not an issue of impartiality. It is an issue of contrary conclusions based upon the same data. Those with contrary conclusions are excluded. Not published (some of the emails discuss this), not peer reviewed, not part of peer review (not a peer reviewer), not funded.

Oh, well if you say so then it must be true.
(POST EVIDENCE)

 

[reefedjib]

Oh, well if you say so then it must be true.
(POST EVIDENCE)

I was unable to find an authoritative source that states that skeptics get turned down for publication, other than the hacked emails from CRU, themselves:

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review:

Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The scientists involved disagree. They say they were engaged not in suppressing dissent but in upholding scientific standards by keeping bad science out of peer-reviewed journals. Either way, when passing judgment on papers that directly attack their own work, they were mired in conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions.

...

The head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, as a top expert in his field, was regularly asked to review papers and he sometimes wrote critical reviews that may have had the effect of blackballing papers criticising his work.

Here is how it worked in one case.

A key component in the story of 20th-century warming is data from sparse weather stations in Siberia. This huge area appears to have seen exceptional warming of up to 2C in the past century. But in such a remote region, actual data is sparse. So how reliable is that data, and do scientists interpret it correctly?

In March 2004, Jones wrote to Professor Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, saying that he had "recently rejected two papers [one for the Journal of Geophysical Research and one for Geophysical Research Letters] from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised".

He did not specify which papers he had reviewed, nor what his grounds for rejecting them were. But the Guardian has established that one was probably from Lars Kamel a Swedish astrophysicist formerly of the University of Uppsala. It is the only paper published on the topic in the journal that year.

Kamel analysed the temperature records from weather stations in part of southern Siberia, around Lake Baikal. He claimed to find much less warming than Jones, despite analysing much the same data.

Kamel told the Guardian: "Siberia is a test case, because it is supposed to be the land area with most warming in the 20th century." The finding sounded important, but his paper was rejected by Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) that year.

and here is another interesting page I found. From .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

...

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. (Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ).

...

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”

...

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

Regarding the fact that the dataset from the CRU was one of only a handful, this article points out that one of the others, the NASA GISS dataset, is actually based on data from the CRU dataset, so it cannot be viewed as an independent dataset. That leaves 3 datasets: the NCDC GHCN dataset, the CRU dataset, which is suspect, and the Japan Meteorological Agency dataset.

From Pajamas Media » Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU

Following Climategate, when it became known that raw temperature data for CRU’s “HADCRU3″ climate dataset had been destroyed, Phil Jones, CRU’s former director, said the data loss was not important — because there were other independent climate datasets available.

But the emails reveal that at least three of the four datasets were not independent, that NASA GISS was not considered to be accurate, and that these quality issues were known to both top climate scientists and to the mainstream press.

Proving that skeptics are funded by oil companies is your claim to prove. Even if you prove, I am not convinced that this discredits their research.

 

[Deuce]

The emails themselves do not provide any real evidence of suppression of peer review. It's literally just two guys griping about one journal they personally think is biased. Two guys. Out of thousands of scientists across the world over more than a century. There isn't any evidence that they actually acted on these beliefs either. (especially considering that these two guys weren't in charge of peer review decisions)

As for the rest, I'll write up more on that later tonight.

 

[reefedjib]

The emails themselves do not provide any real evidence of suppression of peer review. It's literally just two guys griping about one journal they personally think is biased. Two guys. Out of thousands of scientists across the world over more than a century. There isn't any evidence that they actually acted on these beliefs either. (especially considering that these two guys weren't in charge of peer review decisions)

Oh but they do provide evidence of a high ranking and influential scientist repressing dissenting research.

 

[Deuce]

Oh but they do provide evidence of a high ranking and influential scientist repressing dissenting research.

No, they realy don't. Writing an email doesn't actually accomplish this repression. There's no evidence that any actual action was taken.

Usually, the dissenting research is directly addressed in a research paper. Funny how the skeptics never talk about that.

 

[reefedjib]

No, they realy don't. Writing an email doesn't actually accomplish this repression. There's no evidence that any actual action was taken.

Usually, the dissenting research is directly addressed in a research paper. Funny how the skeptics never talk about that.

The emails represent admissions.

The problem is that funding is not given to those with dissenting research. On top of that they are excluded from publishing in the best journals. So there is little dissenting research for people to address in their papers. They are having a religious moment and all come to Jesus to get the truth. Climate change is religion.

 

[Deuce]

The emails represent admissions.

The problem is that funding is not given to those with dissenting research. On top of that they are excluded from publishing in the best journals. So there is little dissenting research for people to address in their papers. They are having a religious moment and all come to Jesus to get the truth. Climate change is religion.

No, it's science.

The oil industry funds groups that do "dissenting" research.

 

[reefedjib]

I'm waiting for you to post a response to the other evidence I cited in this post, Deuce.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...scandal-aka-climategate-7.html#post1058844386

 

[reefedjib]

I'm waiting for you to post a response to the other evidence I cited in this post, Deuce.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...scandal-aka-climategate-7.html#post1058844386

Deuce has completely conceded the argument.

 

[Deuce]

Deuce has completely conceded the argument.

Hah. I'm sorry for not working on your schedule.

 

[Deuce]

Ok, so the first half is about the emails. Again.

That idiotic article says the emails "reveal strenuous efforts" to suppress peer review blah blah blah.

No they don't. "Critical reviews" of a paper aren't suppressing peer review. It is peer review. The writer of the article obviously doesn't have a clue how the peer review process works. Someone looks over your work. If there's flaws, they point them out. That's "being critical." That's peer review. The entire point is to get counter-arguments, so it's stupid to complain when someone actually does it. When work gets debunked, it doesn't make the journal. To presume the paper is left out for ulterior motives rather than being bad science is making an assumption based on a conspiracy theory. Feel free to read the papers yourself and analyze the science, though.

Next link: Oooh, 400 "prominent scientists?" Last time it was 30,000. Except that was proven to be bull****. Global Warming Petition Project
Here, look for yourself. Of these 30,000 scientists, 39 were climatologists. Only 579 had any degree in atmospheric-related science. 12,715 had a "bachelors or equivalent" in whatever random field. A bachelor's degree is hardly a scientist. Worse, the petition didn't check any of the names to see if the people actually held the degrees they say they held. The list was much better in its first iteration, when Daffy Duck and several Dallas Cowboys player names showed up on it.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
95% of climate scientists support AGW theory. I really, really don't care what a metallurgist or a mechanical engineer thinks about it.

The datasets you mention are measured temperature datasets. There's only a few, because there's not really any need for more. These measurements come from the reporting stations around the world. Corroborating their numbers are: satellite data from more than one country, indirect temperature reconstructions using various methods, as well as literally thousands of natural indications of a warming planet.

Anthony Watts, one of the leading skeptics, Heartland Institute:
The video that Anthony Watts does not want you to see: The Climate Denial “Crock of the Week” « Climate Progress

McIntyre, the other big name, and Exxon Mobile
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...d-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html

 

[reefedjib]

Ok, so the first half is about the emails. Again.

That idiotic article says the emails "reveal strenuous efforts" to suppress peer review blah blah blah.

No they don't. "Critical reviews" of a paper aren't suppressing peer review. It is peer review. The writer of the article obviously doesn't have a clue how the peer review process works. Someone looks over your work. If there's flaws, they point them out. That's "being critical." That's peer review. The entire point is to get counter-arguments, so it's stupid to complain when someone actually does it. When work gets debunked, it doesn't make the journal. To presume the paper is left out for ulterior motives rather than being bad science is making an assumption based on a conspiracy theory. Feel free to read the papers yourself and analyze the science, though.

I read the emails. They were not critically reviewing the articles, they were celebrating the papers' exclusion from publication based on their own efforts. This was not peer review. This was suppression of opposing viewpoints. Not very scientific.

In addition, you do not address the conflict of interest represented by these scientists reviewing work critical of their own.

Next link: Oooh, 400 "prominent scientists?" Last time it was 30,000. Except that was proven to be bull****. Global Warming Petition Project
Here, look for yourself. Of these 30,000 scientists, 39 were climatologists. Only 579 had any degree in atmospheric-related science. 12,715 had a "bachelors or equivalent" in whatever random field. A bachelor's degree is hardly a scientist. Worse, the petition didn't check any of the names to see if the people actually held the degrees they say they held. The list was much better in its first iteration, when Daffy Duck and several Dallas Cowboys player names showed up on it.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
95% of climate scientists support AGW theory. I really, really don't care what a metallurgist or a mechanical engineer thinks about it.

Strawman. You are producing a separate list of signers who were not climate scientists. The scientists in my list are prominent climate scientists.

The datasets you mention are measured temperature datasets. There's only a few, because there's not really any need for more. These measurements come from the reporting stations around the world. Corroborating their numbers are: satellite data from more than one country, indirect temperature reconstructions using various methods, as well as literally thousands of natural indications of a warming planet.

They were faking data.

 

[Deuce]

I read the emails. They were not critically reviewing the articles, they were celebrating the papers' exclusion from publication based on their own efforts. This was not peer review. This was suppression of opposing viewpoints. Not very scientific.

In addition, you do not address the conflict of interest represented by these scientists reviewing work critical of their own.

Link these emails that show this.

Strawman. You are producing a separate list of signers who were not climate scientists. The scientists in my list are prominent climate scientists.

Well, apparently they're less than 5%.

They were faking data.

No, they weren't.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

I read the emails. They were not critically reviewing the articles, they were celebrating the papers' exclusion from publication based on their own efforts. This was not peer review. This was suppression of opposing viewpoints. Not very scientific.

In addition, you do not address the conflict of interest represented by these scientists reviewing work critical of their own.



Strawman. You are producing a separate list of signers who were not climate scientists. The scientists in my list are prominent climate scientists.



They were faking data.

do you have evidence that they were faking data?

if so, perhaps you should be sending it to the right people. Three reviews have so far found otherwise.

 

[reefedjib]

do you have evidence that they were faking data?

if so, perhaps you should be sending it to the right people. Three reviews have so far found otherwise.

They were not faking data in the sense that they were producing raw data from scratch. They have raw data from a number of sources. These range from actual temperature measurements, over the past century in parts of the world, to measuring tree rings and looking at geological measures. With these last two, they need to transform these non-temperature readings into temperatures. They do this using algorithms, that, for the instance of tree rings, will measure the spacing of the tree rings and convert that into a yearly average temperature. The emails talk about massaging these algorithms to produce what they feel is an accurate measure of temperature. The are selecting an algorithm that produces the results they expect. This is what they are faking. There is no evidence that supports those algorithm choices.