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."
The fact that this story is posted under Politics says a lot about what's wrong with the global warming 'debate' IMO.
Your cause may be correct, but your methods damage all of science as well as your cause.
True science should not hide data or pick data to support predefined conclusions. And dissenting papers with proper methodologies should never be suppressed. This is the only way to do science right.
Prof. Michael Mann, another prominent climate scientist is also under inquiry by Penn State University
Mann? Is he the same guy who said global temperature will go up exponentially like a hockey stick unless we cap and trade right now?
Science is not done by consensus. Science is done by showing your work so that others can see it and confirm that your data and methods make sense... sort of like the Open Source process. Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted, our very economy is at stake from the "warmers" and their political machinations.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
I know there are lots of whackjobs who are conviced that GW is a worthless topic, or that the scientists are all on someone's payroll, or that GW science is some kind of master plan to give a certain political party power (and that power will just evaporate if they lose the next election? I've never understood those kinds of consiracy theories). That being said, the issue that I have is more along the lines of scientists trying to "do what's right" to protect the planet (meaning it's not about science anymore for some of them, it's about protecting the planet).
At best, that attitude leads to behaviors like celebrating the death of someone who disagrees with you; at worst it leads to falsifying data to ensure that world sees things the same way you do. We know, for a fact, that the former has happened; the question to me is, how far towards the latter end of the spectrum is their behaviour? Release the raw data and let everyone take a look at it, until then I'll always have my doubts as to what is really going on.
So now we have hard working scientists who have their lives disrupted over this idiocy. This whole matter has been completely overblown. So people ranted and sent intemperate emails on a private mailing list? Wow. Newsflash: Scientists are not vulcans. The only thing that's even more shocking is the email where using a standard statistical technique is referred to as a "trick." If this is the grand conspiracy, it has to be the most pathetic grand conspiracy I've ever seen. A private mailing list of a few scientists that was mostly used productively and with an occasional whiny email or rant simply isn't that big a deal. People backbiting and such is really common. Welcome to academia.
Not stepping down. Standing aside. As in "I won't be the one in charge whilst this investigation is going on, just like a judge would recuse himself if he had even the appearance of interest in the case".
Even the WSJ article they linked to included the key word "temporarily". They relegated it to the subtitle, but it was there. (The WSJ, owned by Rupert Murdoch, also owner of Fox News, can be assumed to to take the climate-denialist position on everything.)
Temporarily stepping down is very different from an admission of guilt. It can be a way of allowing work to go on while investigations are under way, when a controversial figure attracts so much attention as to detract from the real work.
Maybe there are some real failures here, for which the guy does deserve to be removed from his job, but so much of what I've read about the hacked emails is hyped and deliberately misinterpreted that I'm unimpressed by this incident.
"or that the scientists are all on someone's payroll"
Umm, yes. They are.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
FALSE. All accusations of fraud have been addressed by the scientists in question, as well as outside sources. There is a reason this hasn't been getting much mainstream media coverage. For everyone's information: data was not manipulated, dissenting papers were not suppressed
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/cru-hack-more-context/
chillax137
After all Exxon is so broke...
Madoff? The guy who stole billions of dollar? Versus a guy who might, at worst, have infringed on a Freedom of Information act? What else is fraud? The "Nature trick" thing? That's such bullshit it's ridiculous.
Sadly, they don't have the raw data. They threw it away. Worse, they probably have threw it away much more recently than they originally stated.
We'll never see it because they've deliberately destroyed it.
Based on my reading of the e-mails, which are available on Wikileaks for your own inspection, combined with this more recent information about the destruction of the raw data, I'd have to say they are very far towards that latter end of the spectrum.
My blog
Just because climate changes occurred before humanity existed doesn't mean we can't cause changes as well, or that we shouldn't be concerned and mitigate future changes regardless of whether we are the original trigger.
Our industrial processes are massive. Pretending that this has no effect on the environment or that we shouldn't care about the environment is willfully short sighted.
You shouldn't count just direct damages here. Policies resulting from their theories could end up costing $120,000,000,000,000 according to some estimates. Everything from CAFE standards on cars to the ban on incandescent light bulbs has to be factored into this (as well as obvious things like carbon credits and cap and trade). If man made climate change turns out to be a total hoax, then the amount of money and wealth they indirectly stole makes Bernie Madoff look like a mere shoplifter in comparison.
Call me when you can either (a) prevent or (b) cause an iceberg melting.
The energies involved are trivial compared to the energies stored in the oceans that affect the climate. It is possible, but not proven, that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is increasing the energy stored in the ocean system.
What is certain is that slowing the rate of addition of CO2 will do nothing. Except cause a major shift in political and economic power. You want real change? How about doing something real that would actually reduce the emissions rather than reducing the rate of increase of the emissions?
In September of 2001 for a few days passenger air travel was suspended. It actually reduced the emission of CO2 for a few days. This did not cause economic collapse, nor did it kill people or change their lifestyle in a meaningful way. We could shut off passenger air travel and it would have a huge effect on CO2 emissions without a corresponding shift in political and economic power. If there was a real crisis, this would be an option that would make sense. It isn't even up for consideration, almost certainly because of the lack of there actually being a crisis and the fact that it would not cause a huge political and economic shift.
In a commencement speech at Caltech he said:
It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now
and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if
you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another.
Unfortunately, many scientists in many disciplines do not follow this. They seek to prove their theories right, and ignore that which might cast doubt on it.
The CEO of Exxon is the CEO of a company that provides an invaluable service to the entire world.
The guy who stepped down? He's running a political organization designed to create laws and a new economy that will leech money off of the oil industry and the common people.
I don't like that the CEO of Exxon rakes in assloads of cash when economies suffer from fuel prices. But at least Exxon provides a service, manipulates the world governments to a far lesser degree, and doesn't take a complete shit on science itself.
It's a complex issue and there are several opinions:
1) The climate is warming and humans are responsible and the consequences are severe enough to require action.
2) The climate is warming and humans are responsible but the consequences are not severe.
3) The climate is warming and humans are not responsible.
4) The climate is not warming.
5) Whether the climate is warming or not, we should encourage a shift to more renewable energy sources.
There are likely others, but I am sure you will find adherents to all of these at least.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Evidence cited by realclimate.org should no longer be considered admissible in this debate. The contributors at that site are not to be trusted. Click the link; read the correspondence of theirs that was leaked. They are not interested in science but rather pushing an agenda.
I'm not popular enough to be different.
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
I didn't point you to that site to show you that there's support out there for Mann, but to give info about the controversies in question.
Your point about not listening to a person defending themselves is not logical. Of course you want to listen to the person defending themselves. How else would you discover the truth of any particular argument? But the fact that they attempt rebut an argument against them is not so surprising, as you point out. The interesting part is how they do it. Is it with facts? With threatening lawsuits? With wild allegations?
I find the argument coherent and fact-based.
Also, I find it not likely that Mann is alone defending himself here. RealClimate is more than just Mann, so you shouldn't be concerned that it's just Mann defending his reputation, without other scientists agreeing with him.
AGW isn't science, but neither is the competing movement of skeptics. This is all just politics, and the whole thing is awful, and everyone parading around with glee over this controversy is just as guilty of politicizing matters as the people they're lambasting. It's impossible to do proper science when both sides of the argument have become moralistic crusades, and the tainting influence of politics has basically made the entire subject a mish-mash of lies and nonsense on both sides of the equation.
Neither pride nor gloating have any place in science. Global warming needs to be evaluated solely on the evidence. Skepticism should be applauded wherever it's found, but the entire global warming debate has devolved into nothing but gross factionalism.
The motivations are plentiful, not always practiced in concert (until recently) but have found some common ground in some secret unspoken union of so called concerned citizens of the world
1) it began as "scientific speculation"
2) it was then borrowed for enviromental movement and raw political gain
3) it found additional friends in those who seek to destroy successful economies and social
systems which have won against the collectivist/totalitarianist interests who know you
cannot conquer free men and the only way to get over them is to convince them to self
impose their own decline and their rhetoric was spilled into the pond and used over and
over
4) the useful idiot was critical in aiding #3 and proved to be also useful to #1 and 2 and
some of them occupy positions of power and academia as we now see and have known for
some time
5) so called practitioners of science were deluded by their delusions of granduer and self
importance and of course funding streams, some of them present here
6) the media, being the lemmings they are not only willingly promoted the psuedo science but
colluded in the propagation of mis information and intimidation of skeptics
They should all be publicly flogged
Warning: Rant ahead
.3billion, India - 1.1billion. Why in the fuck are we comparing countries as equals for CO2 output? It makes no fucking sense at all. The average Chinese citizen emits less than one-sixth that of the average American. For Indians, the per capita amount is only six percent of the average American. SIX PERCENT and they are called big polluters, fucking ridiculous.
People keep saying China and India are big polluters but that is TOTAL BS.
The metric we use is garbage. China has 1.3billion people, US -
No, it's not. There's a smoking gun that they concealed data contrary to their hypothesis in some cases, modified the data to fit the hypothesis in other cases, and actively worked to prevent researchers with differing opinions from:
1) Analyzing their data
2) Being published at all.
The Korean guy was a lot easier to catch because he was only one guy, and he was what one might call an honest liar. He made a bogus publication while supplying all the information necessary to falsify his claims.
Climate research is dicier because not all that many scientists, really, have access to some of the raw data. Let's say, for example, that I set up a climatological research center. I go take a bunch of ice cores, tree cores, etc. I set up weather stations to record temperatures. I aggregate all this data, then adjust anything that doesn't support my hypothesis. Other researchers at my center and at other places collude with me in doing this. I publish my results.
Later, somebody wants to double-check my work. I hand over all the data. All the massaged data, that is, while claiming that it's raw. No one questions it too closely b/c after all, why should I lie?
Plausible? Sure. Did it happen in this case? Don't know. That's why I said it merits investigation. I didn't say climate change research is rigged. I said it might be, there's a smoking gun, and it needs to be scrutinized very closely. There are reputable scientists who have done so and are calling BS on some or all of it, only to have the other side work very hard to prevent them from being heard at all. Rather than attack their arguments, it doesn't want them to be allowed to argue. That's not how science is supposed to work.
And like you said, if this is bogus, some independent researcher or researchers will find them out. They seem to not want independent researchers to be allowed to fact check them or publish. Could it be that they are in the process of being found out and are trying very hard to prevent it? Maybe. Let all the fact-checking go forward and let any and all scientists who think the pro-GW group is wrong publish. If the anti-GW scientists are wrong, that will become apparent. As you say, that's how science is supposed to work. My contention is that it often doesn't work that way. Science has politics and agendas of its own, driven in large part by the desire for public and private funding, and somewhat by the desire for fame.
I'm not in disagreement with you about how it's supposed to work. What I'm telling you is that because scientists are human too, it doesn't always work that way. You sound like you are clinging to the "scientists are perfect, and perfectly honest" myth. That Korean geneticist is a perfect example supporting my argument. Thanks for that.
Is there a political agenda in the global warming debate? Sure. More than one. The pro side certainly has a political agenda, since GW theory is giving them a good excuse to do what they want to do anyway, and they are not going to scrutinize it too closely. The anti side also has a politico-economic agenda because they don't want to do it if it's not actually necessary.
That's why there needs to be a lot more scrutiny, something which the pro side seeks to suppress. Anytime one side wants to suppress debate, you need to look at their motives. It's kind of like healthcare reform in the US. The pros aren't much interested in debate of what, or even why, action needs to be taken. All the more reason why their should be vigorous and extended public debate.
For scientists it is about getting funding to keep up the research and world wide field trips to prove global warming. For all the Hollywood celebrities its the new hot cause to back since public interest in AIDS has subsided. They are flying their large private jets to Copenhagen right now.
For politicians and economists it is about trying to create a new industry, taxation system, and bureaucracy. Al Gore himself has over 200 million invested in green ventures ("carbon credits"): http://newsbusters.org/node/11149
If the global warming hype subsides a lot of government big shots will lose their investments. Their green industry companies currently depend on government subsidies to survive, and will only boom if the requirement for carbon credits becomes law.
Right alongside the other fools that believe the opposite things without using an ounce of reason to come to their conclusions.
Despite your world view, being ignorant is not limited to only those people with whom you disagree.
Suggesting it might be better, based on scientific evidence, if industries didn't pollute in certain ways is NOT going "Pol Pot".
Let me refresh your memory:
Climate scientists suggest that if we reduce the amount of sulfates, we'll have less acid rain. Sulfates reduced; the amount of acid rain shrinks.
Climate scientists suggest that aerosols are hurting the ozone layer, and point to an actual growing hole in the ozone layer. We reduce aerosols, the hole in the ozone layer shrinks.
I'm not at all suggesting climate scientists are infallible - they should be questioned like anyone else.
But to suggest that reasonable restrictions on companies that produce pollution is "going Pol Pot?" FFS.
Maybe you're right, in a way - Midwesterners may tend not to believe pollution can damage the environment, if they live somewhere that's untouched by industrial waste. If that's the case, they should go live in New Jersey for a while.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
Just because Federal-funded research **may** be influenced by Federal $, does NOT mean that corporate-funded research is clean. If anything, Federal-funded research is more likely to be clean IF ONLY because the Federal government is ultimately beholden to the voters, whereas companies are only beholden to their stockholders, if at all.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
I find it delicious that you were modded funny when I suspect your post was sincere. How can you be so blind as to not see the motivation behind AGW proponents? Economically, the CRU itself has received tens of millions in grant money and I've read that the US Gov't has spent tens of BILLIONS over the decades in AGW inspired research, development, grants, etc. Politically, it's a tool to grant a moral high-ground to unproductive countries which is why it is so popular with anti-consumerists and Socialists. Have you never heard of the calls for exemptions on CO2 emissions for China, et al? What about some South American countries (recently and specifically the President of Brazil) proclaiming that "the Gringos should pay" for the deforestation occurring in their forests?
After further thought I suspect you are willfully blind or simply a shill trying to paint the AGW movement as an altruistic and unpolitical one.
If it were only that simple. What the emails reveal, and what skeptics have been saying for a long time, is that the science is not independent, not reproducible and relies on the same flawed data sets and models used over and over, not multiple lines of evidence. In reality, the ice caps melt during summer and refreeze during winter and the arctic has increased in the last two years, in spite of the dire predictions of an ice free summer. The last 10 years is not the hottest on any records, not even the flawed ones, and is hardly unprecedented.
The hacked emails/data/code reveal plenty of disturbing things and in reality there is much more that has already come out that points to an even wider and more egregious perversion of science. It takes some serious cojones to use a data set that is known to diverge from the only unequivocal temperature record. You can't just hand wave the skeptics away by saying that the authors gave you a note allowing you to drop the data points that don't match up with your hypothesis ,everything after 1960, and which go a long way in raising doubts about their significance prior to 1960.
Your side is being routed at this point and it is only going to get worse. Wait until the public learns how the current temperature data sets are being massaged, using only a few stations, sometimes hundreds of miles apart, and averaging for the most increase. How the rise in temperature is predominantly in areas that have no thermometers. How one small part of Antarctica that is warming has been overlaid over all of Antarctica to present the worst possible scenario.
You are right about the laws of physics, but you are sadly mistaken if you think this is a tempest in a teapot.