 |
| Image: Page views for Anthony's www.wattsupwiththat.com blog. Friday his blog was number one on Wordpress beating others like CNN and People Magazine. I've watched with fascination over the last couple of days as our own Anthony Watts has become part of a national media story. What was once a tiny Chico, CA blog now stands in the robust current of global issues. A British climate research unit had its computer system hacked, and the purloined emails and files quickly spread throughout the Internet. News stories then popped up on the New York Times, NPR, Fox, Drudge, UK Guardian, the BBC, and many more sites. While Watts did not post the files, they became a topic of discussion that generated immense interest at his blog. When other web sites that cover the topic of climate change began to shut down due to traffic overload, Watts' site remained online. This pushed him to receive over 180,000 page views on the day the story broke. What's the hubbub? It all comes down to men behaving badly. Emails and files related to top scientists that support man made global warming theory were released in the hacked files. These scientists have authored/co-authored many of the studies relied on by the UN IPCC, and world governments. The studies have been used to pronounce global warming an immediate, and therefore taxable, threat. Here are some of the highlights of the documents released. 1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests(across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He's just not very good at securing his web site. 2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be "predictable". 3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2. 4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favorable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favorable online communities. What the emails/files don't do is completely destroy the possibility that global climate change is real. They don't preclude many studies from being accurate, on either side of the discussion. And they should not be seen as discrediting all science. Kudos to Anthony for being there online, and being prepared to handle the traffic this topic generated. I would hope that this event would precipitate a greater openness regarding publicly funded research. It would be nice to see better adherence to scientific method. At the very least it has exposed some well funded, ivory tower thinkers, behaving very poorly. |
Men Behaving Badly
29 Comments
Leave a comment
Lon
About Me: Fasten your seatbelts for an exhilarating trip through Chico's public policy; I guarantee it's marginally better than public access TV.
|
"Men Behaving Badly"
Unfortunately, a great title. Very apropos.
What do men (and women) with power and money want? More power and more money.
That's what they wanted, and that's what they got.
How many instances of fraud were perpetrated to get funding? Misappropriation of funds?
They twisted some legitimate (yea, legitimate) issues out of proportion and into, as John Coleman founder of the Weather Channel termed it the "greatest scam in history".
...And in line with PT Barnum's law, millions fell for it.
I read Anthony's blog because I read this article in the Gray Panther Gazette that said you should challenge your brain every day or you'll go senile. Reading Anthony's blog is like doing brain push-ups.
It's funny. I knew they were doing that, but actually catching them at it is sweet.
Unfortunately, despite the challenge, I'm still getting senile, go figure. Just this morning I did something completely senile. Although we are hip deep in doodoo here at the ranch, with task after task after "who the hell left this mess on the counter", this morning, we decided, why not shake it up a little and go up to do maintenance on the frisbee course?
There's nothing so annoying when you're working your ass off doing something without any help from anybody than having some jackamoe accuse you of not doing anything. So there we went, steppin' up!
no, we did not check to see if there was a cancellation. We just looked outside and said, "damn, what a fine day! I feel like busting my buns moving rocks around in the mud, totin' that barge, and liftin' that bale." So we got into the Nagon Mothership and headed for the far side of the galaxy. Which is anything farther than Mangrove Safeway, as far as I am concerned.
yeah, there were some other senile dummies up there too. I lemoned one of them, which made it worth the gas. Anytime I can unload some lemons, I feel a sense of accomplishment. Fresh off the tree too, none of those "been sitting on the ground for weeks" kinda lemons.
Well, after we read the official hastily scrawled on kids construction paper cancellation notice, we sighed heavily with disappointment, then went and checked out the previous week's accomplishments. Pretty impressive. Enjoyed a quick stroll, checked out that moss that only grows during the rainy season, neat-o. Then we went over and told some people they weren't supposed to be playing the course when it was closed, nag, nag, nag. I had my little taste of authority, and I wasn't thrilled as I thought I'd be. So, we went home.
Maybe next spring. I have the feeling maintenance season is over til at least January. 9 oclock is too early, there's no sun on that ridge before 10. See you next year.
Juanita,
I appreciate you guys giving it a shot. I'm sure we had 20 or so people that would have worked today. I checked with the city yesterday to be sure that the weather had postponed the trail day. To my surprise, I was told that the trail day was still a go (at 3PM).
I was even more surprised to see the sign that they cancelled it this morning. I guess the guy in charge of the project made the decision this morning (and he doesn't have my number). The only good thing was that I got there around 8:30AM and was able to call about 8 people that I knew were coming to let them know it wasn't going to happen.
Still, not a good way to treat volunteers. I think they could have cancelled it yesterday when I checked in to see if it was too wet.
Lon
I'll agree with Juniata. At least the first few sentences.
Much more serious than porn on the computer. Being in the science world data is data and opinions are opinions. Once you mix the two you are in deep, deep trouble. Good job Mr. Watts
Thanks Lon, very much.
I just came up for air after days of being absorbed in this national story. I was in Brussels Belgium last week speaking to the European parliament on the issue of surface temperature measurements".
http://www.rogerhelmer.com/conferenceprogramme.asp
http://www.rogerhelmer.com/climateconference2009.asp
The story started materializing while I was over the Atlantic, and I wrote the blog entry that started it all on laptop/WiFi at Dulles airport just after clearing customs.
My blog is on track for over 2.5 million hits this month. I'm getting overwhelmed, even with a staff of 3 volunteer moderators.
My best analysis is this:
"climate change" in the last century is real, it has in fact gotten warmer. Some of the warmth is over-hyped and over-adjusted, and the result of poor thermometer siting as a well as urbanization/land use change issues. Solar changes also figure in. It is all a complex series of contributions, and CO2, while a driver of change, is not the only component.
And the Climategate scandal shows that some scientists were indeed "men behaving badly" and not doing science with the best transparency. There's no room for opacity in science because replication is required to prove any theory or model. Replication is what is missing from the global climate issue and the gatekeepers were keeping the data and code to themselves.
Anthony,
This has been an incredible story to follow. You deserve a lot of credit for being there for science when it needed you. And you make great points related to what is actually occuring regarding global temperatures.
A lot has been made about the emails, but there are hundreds of other document types people are reviewing that may be important. For readers a searchable database of the emails is located here...
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/
The emails show attempts to modify data to meet the hypothesis that global warming is manmade, amongst other troubling activities. It's not just email communication though. Source code comments seem to indicate poor quality control. The source code may have been used in the computer models that these scientists rely on for dire predictions.
And that really gets to the heart of the problem for me. These scientists, who have led the UN and other governments/institutions to consider spending trillions of dollars combating climate change, seem to have ignored scientific method.
They hide data, manipulate records, and prevent methods from being released to avoid scrutiny. All this time they demand that they are above reproach and call people with opposing opinions "deniers" in order to associate them with the Nazi holocaust. They publicly claim the "science settled", and privately complain that they can't explain why their computer models are wrong.
If the basis of global climate change's science is computer models you cannot hide the inner working of those models (software code and datasets).
Just as an example, we've had scientists claim to have created "cold fusion" (seen as an ultimate energy source). Time and again, those experiments have not been reproducable, indicating that cold fusion is not a reality. We would not spend trillions of dollars shifting our economy to cold fusion based on experiments that can't be reproduced.
Computer models indicating global warming must have their source code revealed, and the raw unaltered data they rely on made public. If the experiment cannot be independently reproduced it FAILS SCIENTIFIC METHOD. If the raw unaltered data has been destroyed, or the adjustments to it have not been adequately documented and can't be explained, then this is MAY BE FRAUD.
Lon
Lon,
I am one of Anthony's early surfaces station volunteers. I enjoyed your layman's write up on the issues. I have an editorial due next week in our local paper and I would like to echo some of your thoughts. This in an important story, but everyone must understand that the real loser is science and the peer review process if some action is not taken to punish these rogues. Sweeping it under the rug will not send the right message to those still working that we want truthful science and reporting, not politics as usual. I will give you a credit line and link in my editorial.
Hi, I just wanted to give you a quick hi and hello.
Anthony Watts mentioned that you were inspirational in the early days of his site, particularly regarding thermometers. Thanks for that. He's done well and truly deserves all his success.
Keep on keepin' on.
Excellent summary Lon. By the way, is there a place online I can information on the science and engineering of thermometer systems?
If the Warmist Willies' science was valid, why did they have to be so secretive? Why did they subvert FOI requests? Why did they damage the careers and reputations of others? Why did they talk about putting journals out of business for publishing even a few anti-AGW papers? But the big question: Why are the media mostly refusing to print the biggest story of the millenium? Have the media betrayed us?
And how do I get rid of that annoying pop-up ad that covers the text at the top of your site?
Lon,
You're famous!
You were the subject of conversation at our poker game in Devon, a rural part of England 230 miles fom London.
Thanks for putting AW onto the track of the stations.
Also thanks for your very readable summary.
Regards,
Ed, Ron, Fat Pete, Glasgow Mike and Dave.
The “hundreds of other document types” are a bit harder for some folks to get their head around but good summaries are appearing, such as that of Marc Sheppard (The American Thinker) now also posted on Icecap. The tech folks are working overtime too, but I can’t send non-tech friends to those. So concise statements such as “Men behaving badly” are needed. Thanks for writing and getting it out.
Not related to the above, but Bjorn Lomborg has been writing a series for the WSJ on how ordinary people in poor areas view the global warming issue. Latest one had this quote from India: “If we don’t have a house, food and water, how can we think about these things?”
It seems to him, and to me, the costs of GHG reductions will have no immediate effect and little long term. There are better uses for limited resources.
Thanks for putting young Anthony on the right track (to fame?), pal...
(Australia)
Mr. Glazner: OT but Anthony Watts requested readers of his blog drop a note on your blog thanking you for getting Anthony involved in the AGW issue. Since I feel I owe Anthony beaucoup gratitude, I'm doing what he requested. Thank you! Without your prodding, we might not have WUWT, and that would be a shame.
Do they know what they are talking about?
What is Weather? Is 'average weather' climate?
What is the difference between partly cloudy and partly sunny, or warm and cold weather? In Australia, in China or in North America? You know, we know, the weather forecaster know! Often we needs much more specification, concerning season, location, temperature and humidity conditions. But we know as we have a lot of knowledge about weather conditions and a lot of experience. Every day we are confronted with weather, we talk a lot about the weather, and are usually keen to know what is happening next with the weather. For this reason we are grateful for being advised about the weather today, tomorrow, and beyond. As it works fairly well for a couple of days, it is less convincing with regard to months, years and millenniums. This touches the question how science handles the terms: weather, average weather and climate. That is a complex matter and the material and comments provided can only hope for initiating a border discussion. Lets have a look:
ENTIRE TEXT http://www.whatisclimate.com/c305-what-is-weather.html
or read the posting At Air Vent (13/Nov.2009) OPEN LETTER ON CLIMATE LEGISLATION http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/
Thanks from across the Atlantic for the précis of recent events.
I feel we have slipped back to the medaevil warm period when a small group of people with power and influence decide and announce ex cathedra what fact is and what all shall think... or else.
Great summary of the messages retrieved from CRU. Something tells me that all this is just the tip of the iceberg.
This is not just researchers behaving badly, this is a community acting in a mafia-like fashion to protect both their turf and their assumptions related to a certain research outcome. I think there needs to be more than just a few resignations flowing from this; rather, I think people need to be investigated for fraud.
Tens of millions of dollars have been spent to research global warming, national policies throughout the world have been shaped by data which now stands in question. When societies are asked to change fundamentally the way they live, there better be good reason for that change. Now all of that is in question.
Regards,
David
That graph looks like a hockey stick...
thank for lighting the fire at WUWT.
For me the most shocking thing in all of this is not that a small group of scientists has obstructed the peer review process. No one ever said that scientists cannot be corrupted with lot's of money, professional prestige and political power.
What is so shocking is that the science journals have been happy to publish these corrupt scientists' articles without demanding that they publish their raw facts and computer code, and that the scientific community hasn't rebelled at this.
When the time came close that huge amounts of money were going to be wasted, it was inevitable that someone with inside knowledge of these despicable practices would expose them. It may even be one of the inner circle, who feels the responsible for the damage that was about to be done.
Lon aptly uses cold fusion theory as an analogy.
I'd like to venture a questionable form of criminal prosecution as another analogy.
Suppose you somehow found yourself accused of a felony crime and your attorney had the prosecution's evidence withheld from him, so he couldn't plan his challenge to it. Suppose that evidence was 'cooked up' to frame you by people who for their own convenience wanted to convict you, but you were not allowed to cross-examine their testimony. Suppose the judge disallowed all exculpatory evidence that favored you from being presented, but allowed everything the prosecution wished to present. Suppose the meager testimony by your witnesses was cross-examined by a series of compounded, 'have you stopped beating your wife'-type questions that required explanatory answers and were objected to by your attorney, but the judge always overruled him and insisted on yes-or-no answers. You might conclude you were in a kangaroo court.
But worse, suppose it was a sensational capital crime you were accused of, and the prosecution had long been busy feeding the news media incendiary, fear-evoking information about you, which they eagerly used over and over, effectively creating a lynch mob attitude against you throughout the public. Suppose that frenzied public mood was held up as being "settled consensus" about your guilt. Suppose a special ruling provides that your estate was to be confiscated and distributed to the prosecuting attorney and the judge for their own use. And suppose that the supposed murder victim had credibly been found still alive and unharmed, but the media, public, prosecution and judge weren't interested?
Does this add up to being well-respected due process?
Anthony seems to think you should have a flood of comments. Yeah? He hasn't figured out that his thousands of readers have dropped everything for the last several days to gape at all the revelations that have come out of Climategate. We don't have time to come over here and thank you for your part in encouraging Anthony on the path that has got him where he is today - so busy he hasn't even written up and account of his trip to the EU Parliament.
Can you give him a call and let him know he needs to be spending more time on his little blog? :-)
-Ric Werme
Boscawen NH
Oh - on Cold Fusion - it doesn't quite have the decency to go away, and some experiments have been reproduced. check out http://www.sciencenews.org/index/feature/activity/view/id/41220/title/Cold_Panacea
the article is a big disappointment, but the comments are great.
Tough captcha - hey, if I click preview I get another one.
"What the emails/files don't do is completely destroy the possibility that global climate change is real. They don't preclude many studies from being accurate, on either side of the discussion. And they should not be seen as discrediting all science."
Agreed, these e-mails should not be used to discredit science. Instead, they should be used as a case study for a badly needed "Science Ethics" class.
The worst crime that can be committed against true knowledge - in any discipline - is that of forcing facts to fit the story, rather than having the story fit the facts. The former happens almost always when political agendas intrude, and it is obvious to all but the most willingly obtuse that a political agenda has, in this case, over-ridden the search for objective truth.
Science is supposed to be - first and foremost - an honest broker, and that is why the "scientists" involved in this travesty should be very publicly humiliated and dismissed from their positions, the sooner the better.
Lon,
Just a quick thanks for an wonderfully easy to understand explanation. Saw it over at Anthony's site first.
Both of you guys deserve Kudo's and thanks.
Great analogy with Cold Fusion. What irks me most is all of the time and money that has been wasted on this.
Why not true transparency and letting ideas stand or fall on their own merit without interjecting a political or social agenda? That would be a welcome change.
Thanks for the post...and from what I have seen the duck is walking like a duck and the type of duck is called fraud.
Keep up the good work.
Cheers,
Andrew Anderson
Thanks for being there to keep us informed. I was referred to your site from "Watts Up With That" and I'm planning to send an email to many of my interested friends containing your explanation and a link to your site.
My husband is a zoologist - no where near climatology but we like science - we've been skeptics from the beginning because we were youngsters in the when the global cooling story broke decades ago... at least that made cyclical sense!
Best wishes. Keep you head down and your powder dry.
Thanks to all of Anthony's readers who have stopped by.
I'm sorry about the CVS ad, if it's in your browser. This blog is run by our local newspaper, and I don't have control over the ads.
I wish I could take credit for some of Anthony's work. That would be like taking credit for someone becoming a doctor after I suggested he "do well in school".
What I did tell Anthony was something along the lines of measuring temperature is "not that easy". Accurate, automated, measurements are a fairly recent development. He began looking into how temperatures were measured. When scientists are promoting the ability to measure differences to a tenth of a degree over decades they've got some explaining to do.
Lon
Wow. You don't need Jessica. Just put up a few more stories on WUWT and you can watch Post Scripts fade to dust in your rear view mirror.
Mark
Yep, I get my 5 minutes of fame basking in the shadow of Anthony's glow, and I decide to spend that time offline embibing turkey. Maybe opportunity will knock twice.
Lon
David W.
Sorry I didn't answer your question earlier, I had intended to. I don't know where a site exists that describes technical issues with measuring temperature.
Temperature is related to well defined physical properties of matter such as the boiling point of liquids or melting point of solids. But outside of well calibrated systems it can be a lot like measuring color. How red is that red car? That is a question that can be answered, but not easily. NIST calibrated systems with low error drift over time are available, but I'm not sure to what extent they are used in the measurement of global temperatures.
While I'm not an expert in the global warming science, I believe that it is promoted that a 0.8C increase has occurred over the last 150 years.
In order to get that number scientists have had to mesh together data that includes input from temperature proxies (like tree rings), manual measurements, and satellite data. These disparate input sources have apparently been washed of all error by some "qualified scientists". The scientists have refused to give up their data and methods. And, apparently the computer models they have built based on their assumptions, are not accurate in predicting the near future temperatures. The recently exposed emails seem to indicate that the scientists responsible for removing data errors may have removed data and let opinion guide their methods.
Modern low cost semiconductor based systems that measure temperature can probably provide accuracy to +/-0.5C over a wide temperature range. Regularly calibrated systems relying on mulitple measurements can probably get closer to 0.1C accuracy and low error drift over time. Manual measurements of thermometers (using eyeballs) must be less accurate than automated/calibrated systems due to human error. And the accuracy of using tree rings, who knows? Intuitively, I have a problem with the accuracy expressed by the statisticians. Judging from the siting issues Anthony has found I think there are unaccounted for errors (UHI) that exceed the accuracy of the thermometers.
As a laymen, but one who has designed low cost temperature sensors, I don't think the science is settled on this issue.
Lon