Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Step Down After CRU Hack Fallout
An anonymous reader writes "In the wake of the recent release of thousands of private files and emails after a server of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was hacked, Prof. Phil Jones is stepping down as head of the CRU. Prof. Michael Mann, another prominent climate scientist, is also under inquiry by Penn State University."
They were all in Wisconsin, IIRC.
-k
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
Right. Same guy. Random number input into his program produced a hockey stick. I downloaded the 61MB zip file and have read most of the emails. Those are damaging in terms of exposing several issues:
1. They manipulated the peer-review process and controlled it to the point of changing what peer-review meant, freezing out contrary authors, reviewing each others' work, getting editors fired, etc. There's a lot of that kind of manipulation revealed.
2. They colluded to avoid the FOIA and deleted emails and threatened to delete data before they would release it under FOIA. This is illegal.
3. They admitted to manipulating data to 'hide the decline' or 'get rid of the Medieval Warming Period.' I don't have a problem with 'trick' being used. No big deal, but 'hide the decline'? Not good.
4. They would manipulate the data by simply not adding it, closing a run on an increase, when the subsequent data showed a decline. They seem dismayed that the last ten years shows an overall redction in temperature, at one point calling it a travesty and suggesting the data must be wrong.
5. Because there were no thermometers 2000 years ago, they use 'proxies' such as tree rings, ice core samples, etc. However, tree ring growth can be caused by wetness and other issues, not just temperature. In ine case they 'proved; warming based on 12 trees in Siberia. When hey went back and measured many more trees, the increase disappeared.
But the more damning evidence is in the programs themselves, including REM statements where 'hide the decline' is found numerous times, data is manually manipulated, and the programs would throw an error and keep on running.
The code, written primarily in FORTAN and IDL, is a mess--not professional. The datasets are often missing or in poor shape. There's one 'Harry Read me' text file where poor Harry is trying to make sense of the code, over several years, and points out many of the flaws.
So what we've got here is email and program code evidence of manipulation, very poor data, and very poor programming.
The thing is, there are only 4 datasets in the world, two terrestrial and two satellite. There are serious problms with both terrestrial data sets. NOAA's, for example, has manually 'adjusted' data over the years as much as 500%! In other words, the observed degree difference was .1 degree C and the 'adjustment' was +.5 degrees C. You'd think the satellite data asets would be more accurate, however, they were 'calibrated' on the 'adjusted' terrestrial data sets.
Remember Gore's CO2 graph? Probably a 95% correlation between CO2 and temperature, which he presented as proof that CO2 CAUSES global warming. Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend. In other words, warming CAUSED CO2 increases, the opposite of what he implied.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Too fucking right! Those big money scientists are faking the whole global warming thing so they can rake in the big bucks.
Phil Jones, the man who just stepped down has received $22.6 million in grants since 1990.
Research has shown that when the Sahara was grassland it was due to a warmer global climate (including more CO2 in the atmosphere).
You're reaction is hilarious because you refuse to look at any facts or allegations. These e-mails show that only a few scientists were corrupt, but they happened to be the ones most influencing policy at the IPCC. The rest of the scientists just flock to grant money and worry about peer pressure.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
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.
I'm not popular enough to be different.
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
Thank you for the links, best article I've read all day.
A couple of quotes from the Nature editorial for the TL;DR crowd:
(Emphasis mine).
There is far, far too much politics in science. I don't know why Dr. Jones decided to step down, but I'm inclined to believe (after reading the Nature editorial) that the reasons were almost entirely political.
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
fyi realclimate.org should be viewed very skeptically. In the leaked emails the fact that realclimate.org is essentially run by these very scientists is discussed in detail
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&filename=1139521913.txt
I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.
[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.
How exactly does this follow? Their careers and livelihoods are only improved if they are right (through recognition maybe getting them a better job at a better uni or something).
Maybe they will get more funding to carry out more science, but you do know that they don't get to have any of that money, right? It is extremely tightly regulated and controlled by the grant providers.
Disclaimer: I am a researcher in a university lab.
You guys keep pointing back to the same realclimate.org website as if that proves anything. Shall I collect up a few DailyKos, Freeper and HillaryIs44 links to rebut? Realclimate.org is run by the same people who invented global warming. That content may be discussion, but it's not proof.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Isn't RealClimate.org pretty much the creation of Mr. Jones, et al?
this is pretty much like Wikipedia citing Wikipedia.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
One thing you notice about the site is that the members include Micheal Mann, one of the scientists under fire here. Well, it is no surprise that he believes that he's right and says so. Ok but that doesn't prove anything. So if someone publishes a paper, someone else points out serious problems with said paper, well then I am not going to turn the person who wrote the first paper as one to refute the person who's criticizing him. Of COURSE he'll refute it, however that doesn't mean anything.
So to see a site that is run by Mann and others he agrees with supporting him, well that doesn't really say much, does it?
Over the last 10 years Exxon has given about 23 million in research grants for climate research projects (pro and con but you can assume mostly con if you want). In that same period the US government alone has given over 2 Billion in grants for just global warming research.
In the last 20 years the US government has spent almost 70 billion on general climate research and anti-global warming technologies (about 50/50). And all this is just for the US government spending. Other governments spend hundreds of million to billions on global warming as well as the various 'green' companies.
The director of the CRU, Phil Jones, alone has collected almost 27 million in grants since 1990. That's $27,000,000 (figured I'd write it out long hand since you don't seem to understand that that is a LOT of money).
So if you follow the money you'll most likely find yourself starting in Washington or some other capital and then straight to a University Campus with no "Big Oil" boogie man anywhere in sight.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
The source code which was leaked clearly shows the data was manipulated with garbage data and arbitrarily created fudge factors.
I notice you don't mention which data had arbitrary fudge factors applied to it - probably because it sounds more ominous that way. Data from tree cores taken in the Nothern hemisphere post-1960 had arbitrary fudge factors applied to it, and as far as anyone can tell the results were thrown away. It appears the code was part of an attempt to determine why and how the temperatures claculated from the tree cores diverged from the actual temperature. In the end, the researchers didn't find an answer and just advised not using that data.
Even the comments in the code state that this was exactly the purpose.
That didn't ring any alarm bells for you? After all, if you're secretly fudging results, the last thing you want is clear comments stating as much. Perhaps that's because, you know, the code's author didn't want the fudged results to be used...
Someone on another website ran all 0's through the algorithm and the resulting data was the same 'hockey stick' pattern. Even running random data through the algorithm produced the same 'hockey stick' pattern.
Yeah, it would do. The trouble with the conspiracy theories is that the algorithm in question wasn't the one that produced the hockey stick graph. You've got it backwards - the fudge factors make the tree data roughly agree with actual temperatures, which are of course hockey-stick shaped.
So, there's no fraud? Yeah, there is.
No there isn't.
Grain harvest have been cut in half for 8 out the last ten years, billions of dollars of hydro infrastucture built in Tasmaninia in the 90's sits idle for lack of water, the high tech bass-link cable that was to be used to export that power to the mainland is now used to import power. Firestorms convert forrest into grassland, and grassland into desert, the dust from which can be seen on most mornings simply by looking at your car. Lakes that have survived for tens of thousands of years become toxic and whole forrests of 600yo red gums wither and die. Every state capital in the country has been forced to ration water while thier governments spend billions building some of the world's largests desal plants. Had this happened over geological time scales nobody except geologists would have noticed.
Perhaps a little context and some actual data might be useful here.
Tasmania does not lack water. Indeed, it doesn't have water restrictions. Wikipedia
Firestorms, which are usually deliberately lit (most are) or caused by things like power lines are representative of land management practices, particularly green policies that have reduced hazard reduction, and planning failures such as the growth in populations in bush fire risk areas.
None of the "firestorms" (are you even Australian, because if you were, you'd call it a bushfire) turn land into grassland of desert. Indeed, I can drive out to the worst affected areas from February and see the regrowth now.
Issues with occasional dust storms date back to the first European arrivals; dust storms are everything to do with weather patterns (and occasionally poor land management) and nothing to do with global warming
Toxic lakes and dead red gums are a reflection of water management policies, of which Australia is a disgrace on. Global warming isn't stopping natural flows down the Murray or Darling Rivers, farmers raping the rivers in conjunction with state governments are.
Desal has everything to do with environmentalism and nothing to do with global warming: places like Melbourne haven't built a new dam in over 20 years while the population has grown by over a million. Governments won't build new dams because of the perceptions of voter backlash based on green policies.