Slashdot Mirror

Trying to organize scientist into a vast, disciplined conspiracy is laughable

Remember CRU emails controversy?

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods â" not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

So I have your assurance that they are scientists and scientists don't engage in conspiracy. And then I have the actual evidence form their own emails.

Oh, but the university investigated itself and assured us that the investigation found nothing wrong so everything is okay.

The above quote talked about "freezing out". Read for yourself. Someone submitted a paper that questioned climate change. Michael Mann's reaction? Get "the community" organized in shunning this journal.

I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in this eventuality,
      terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels--reviewing, editing, and
      submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute,
      Thanks,
      mike

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0255.txt

But surely all "the community" are "obstreperous free thinkers" and didn't cooperate; they were cheering for this brave attempt to publish a paper that does not agree with consensus. Maybe you can find me an email from the "climategate" archive where someone, anyone at all, pushed back against Michael Mann's idea?

One would think the usual response of academics over a bad paper would be to send a letter to the editor, or write an article detailing why the paper is bad, but Michael Mann's first reaction was to destroy the journal publishing the paper. He was only one person but did anyone push back? Did "the community" follow his lead?

Note, I do believe that Michael Mann truly believed he was right and the paper was wrong. But he was acting like a publicity man and not like a scientist who cares foremost about truth.

Citing realclimate.org doesn't help your cause. Several contributors to that site have been implicated in the leaked emails.

With regards to the content of your post, the data was most certainly manipulated. Have you not taken the time to discover the coding travesty documented in the HARRY_READ_ME file that was leaked along with the emails? Here are a couple good links to start with.

Citing realclimate.org doesn't help your cause. Several contributors to that site have been implicated in the leaked emails.

With regards to the content of your post, the data was most certainly manipulated. Have you not taken the time to discover the coding travesty documented in the HARRY_READ_ME file that was leaked along with the emails? Here are a couple good links to start with.

Well I don't think anyone is suggesting that we set it up on github so every clown coding in his mothers basement can can start contributing. I don't know that the important thing here is a true "free software(tm)" or "opensource(tm)" license. The important thing is that before we start looking at this research and assuming it is all correct because a few other scientists did a peer review and then making sweeping and expensive policy changes at the highest levels we should open up what they did so that people can look for problems in their methodology.

Now I don't think that anyone will care what I think of their code but I'm guessing that there is more than one person out there with a Ph.D in climate change that could look at this stuff, if it was public, and either confirm that the work is valid or point out it's flaws. At least there could be a debate about it among scientists. It is understandable that they are worried that powerful lobbies will try to distort their work and lie about it. But there is no other option. This is science that is affecting public policy and it can not be done in the dark.

On the other hand given how poorly some of this stuff appears to be coded it seems that they could use all the coding help that they could get: http://di2.nu/200911/23a.htm. Hopefully these assessments of how sloppy their work is are not accurate, and that most of the work that has gone into the IPCC reports is less error prone than the stuff that has been leaked.

Here's a hint: many articles about climate change are alarmist because, as simulation capability has improved and models improved in complexity and predictive accuracy, they've been predicting increasingly dire scenarios.

As part of the CRU "hack", code to some part of the climate modeling software was released. Here's an early review of the code:

Actually I'm going to stop here. I've examined two files in some depth and found (OK so Harry found some of this)

• Inappropriate programming language usage
• Totally nuts shell tricks
• Hard coded constant files
• Incoherent file naming conventions
• Use of program libray subroutines that appear to be
  • far from ideal in how they do things when the work
  • do not produce an answer consistent with other way to calculate the same thing
  • but which fail at undefined times
  • and where when the function fails the the program silently continues without reporting the error

The author above cites numerous incredibly bad pieces of code and coding practices. There's no way such code can have a valid use in scientific work due to its near complete irreproducibility and inscrutability. As far as I know, this is the code for the model used in the 6C temperature increase paper just released. Do you really want to gamble the future of mankind on this code?

And, as more support for this we have this exchange. ... in which a researcher - encouraged by his colleague (supervisor?) - explicitly decides to reduce the stringency of a statistical test in order to satisfy a political goal. The shift from a 2-sigma to a 1-sigma test is equivalent to a 5-fold increase in the likelihood of the null hypothesis. This would of course never pass muster in a journal submission.

I repeat - the whole enterprise has been corrupted.

Actually, ID doesn't help.
This guy had a false death certificate submitted for his name and is still having problems with it. He finally was able to get his accounts unfrozen, his marriage official, and a new ID card, but only after months of calls and visits to UK ID agency. To this day with his son, he still gets letters of "fraud detection" whenever they try to do something that piggy-backs on the ID system.


Google cache as main page isn't currently loading for me.

http://skender.be/supportdenmark/MohammedDrawings. jpg
http://www.antibuerokratieteam.de/wp-content/moham med_alle.jpg
http://www.stefan-herre.de/mohammed_karikaturen.jp g
http://www.welt.de/z/photos/index.php/item/karikat uren/
http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands _Posten.html
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/28.htm
http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/Jyll ands-Posten_Muhammad_drawings.jpg

And some more links (page in Swedish):
http://www.flashback.se/showarticle.php?id=58

I don't think that anyone cares about this. They're all reading about this story.

Forgive me for posting this URL here:

http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands _Posten.html

The site is apparantly run by idiots, judging by some of the racist sites it links to, but they are one of the few places online that I've seen the actual cartoons referred to on an almost daily basis now on sites such as:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4361260.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4660796.stm
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1 558612
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfi le=data/theuae/2006/January/theuae_January687.xml& section=theuae&col=

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=danish+cart oons+upset+muslims&btnG=Google+Search&meta=