TheEEStory.com

News, Reviews and Discussion of EEStor Inc.
Fraud by Climate Alarmist - Par for the course « Patents « Technology
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 11:42am #31
dvelasco68
EEluminated
Dvelasco68
Registered: Jan, 2009
Last visit: Tue, 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 720

Robert Tracinski wrote:

Fakegate: Global Warmists Try to Hide Their Decline
By Robert Tracinski
February 23, 2012

The promoters of the global warming hysteria never really recovered from Climategate, the release of e-mails and data which demonstrated that climate insiders were using questionable data, promoting misleading arguments, and conspiring to block dissenting views from the scientific literature. It was a fatal blow to the credibility of the warmists, and it has been followed by a steady stream of distinguished scientists standing up publicly to withdraw their backing from the global warming "consensus." The latest example is an op-ed by sixteen such scientists in the Wall Street Journal, followed up by a devastating response to their critics.

The global warming alarmists are losing the argument, and the latest scandal—James Delingpole calls it Fakegate—shows just how desperate they have become.

This was supposed to be a scandal that would undermine the global warming skeptics. In fact, it was supposed to be an exact parallel of Climategate, but this time discrediting the Heartland Institute, a pro-free-market think tank in Chicago that has been a leader in debunking the global warming hysteria.

Someone calling himself "Heartland Insider" released a series of internal documents from Heartland. On the whole, the documents were unremarkable. They revealed that a think tank which advocates the free market and is skeptical of global warming was raising money to, um, advocate the free market and promote skepticism of global warming. As Delingpole put it, "Run it next to the story about the Pope being caught worshipping regularly in Rome and the photograph of a bear pooping behind a tree."

But there was one document, a "confidential strategy memo" that provided more inflammatory material, including an admission that one of Heartland's programs is aimed at "dissuading teachers from teaching science." See, those evil global warming deniers really are anti-science!

But if you are an actual global warming skeptic, this is a big red flag, because we skeptics view ourselves as the defenders of science who are trying to protect it from corruption by an anti-capitalist political agenda. We never, in our own private discussions, refer to ourselves as discouraging the teaching of science. Quite the contrary.

This is the dead giveaway that the "confidential strategy memo" is a fake, and that is what the real scandal has become. The Atlantic blogger Megan McArdle helped break this open with an initial post raising questions, as well as a detailed follow-up. McArdle gets a little too far into the weeds of information technology, not to mention grammar and English usage, but the basic issue is that the "meta-data" in the Heartland files—data marking when the documents were created, on what machines, in what format, and in what time zone—don't match. Most of the documents were created directly as PDFs from a word-processing program, while the supposed "confidential strategy memo" was printed and then scanned. The genuine Heartland files were created weeks earlier in the central time zone, while the incriminating memo was created very shortly before the release of the documents and in the Pacific time zone. This corroborates Heartland's claim that the document is a fake.

McArdle also points out that the "confidential strategy memo" consists almost completely of facts and wording lifted from the other files, with the inflammatory quotes pasted in between in an inconsistent style. Moreover, some of the facts from the other files are used inaccurately. For example, the memo claims that money from the Koch brothers—central figures in any good leftist conspiracy theory—was being used to support Heartland's global warming programs, when it was actually earmarked for their health-care policy work. That's something a real Heartland insider would know; only a warmist creating a fake document would get it wrong.

So it was pretty obvious that the "confidential strategy memo" was not a Heartland document at all but a fraud pasted together after the fact by someone who wanted to discredit Heartland, but who didn't know enough about IT to cover his tracks.

Note one other thing: how this fraud self-consciously tries to recreate every aspect of the Climategate scandal, projecting those elements onto the climate skeptics. Climategate had: a) an insider who leaked information, b) private admissions of unscientific practices, like misrepresenting the data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and c) discussions of attempts to suppress opposing views. Further scandals that followed on from Climategate included one more element: d) using material from non-scientists in activist groups to pad out scientific reports for the UN.

The fake Heartland memo tried to re-create all of this. It was posted to the Web by someone who called himself "Heartland Insider." It contains admissions of things like opposing the teaching of science. It includes discussion of attempts to exclude global warming alarmists from the media, particularly an attempt to oust a fellow named Peter Gleick, described in the memo as a "high profile climate scientist," from his Forbes blog, because "This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out." And it describes a program to hire a "paid team of writers" to "undermine the official United Nation's [sic] IPCC reports." So this has all of the elements of Climategate, but in mirror image.

But it is all a lie. It took bloggers mere days to spot the document as a fake and less than a week to find the person who posted it and the other Heartland documents. He turns out to be...Peter Gleick, a climate scientist who is president of the left-leaning Pacific Institute. It's actually kind of pathetic, when you think about it. What gave Gleick away was the little touch of self-aggrandizement, the fact that he couldn't resist over-inflating the significance of his Forbes blog. In his own mind, clearly, he is the one man whose bold opposition keeps the Heartland leadership awake at nights.

So the "leaker" wasn't an insider, Heartland has not been exposed as anti-science, and it is not conspiring to silence opposing voices. In fact, days before the documents were posted, Heartland had asked Gleick to participate in a debate, and he refused the invitation. Oh, and those "paid writers" who were supposed to "undermine" the UN climate reports? They were actually a team of distinguished scientists who were compiling their own independent climate research.

After he was caught, Gleick confessed, but he's still trying the "modified limited hangout": confess to a small crime in the hope that this will mollify investigators and they won't dig up evidence of your big crime. So Gleick has confessed to obtaining the genuine Heartland documents through deceptive means. (He called Heartland posing as a member of the institute's board and talked a gullible junior staffer into sending him the handouts for an upcoming board meeting.) But he still maintains that the fake "confidential strategy memo" was sent to him by an anonymous source, and that he only obtained the Heartland documents in an attempt to verify the memo.

This won't hold up, because Gleick still doesn't understand the meta-data that tripped him up. The fake strategy memo was created about a day before the documents were released, which appears to be well after Gleick pilfered the genuine documents. That fits with McArdle's impression that the fake memo was created by cutting and pasting facts from the other documents. Which implies that Gleick was the forger.

All of this will come out, and in a much fuller way than in the Climategate scandal. With Climategate, the victim of the fraud was the public, which pays the salaries of the scientists who have been fudging the facts. But this means that the government and its scientific institutions were put in charge of the investigation, and they had a vested interest in whitewashing the story. In this case, the victims are Heartland and other independent scientists whose reputations were impugned by the forged document. They have a good criminal and civil case against Gleick for identity theft, fraud, and defamation, and they will be able to use the courts' subpoena power to dig into Gleick's computer records and get to the whole truth. So he's now going to suffer the same fate as John Edwards: admit part of his wrongdoing but cover up the rest, then be forced to admit more, then a little bit more. It's the most ignominious way to go down.

Which means, for us skeptics, that it's time to pass around the popcorn and enjoy the show.

Oh, and it gets better. Some global warming alarmists are lining up to defend Gleick. Judith Curry points to the blog where Gleick posted the fake memo, which is now declaring, "For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, [Gleick] deserves our gratitude and applause." Another warmist adds that Gleick "is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him."

I certainly hope so. A lot of people deserve to go down along with Gleick.

Even many of those who deplore Gleick's fraud are still willfully blind to its implications. In Time, Bryan Walsh laments that "Worst of all—at least for those who care about global warming—Gleick’s act will almost certainly produce a backlash against climate advocates at a politically sensitive moment. And if the money isn’t already rolling into the Heartland Institute, it will soon." So yet another warmist has been exposed as a fraud—and the worst thing that can happen is that this will reduce the credibility of the warmists? But they deserve to lose their credibility.

Fakegate shows us, with the precision of a scientific experiment, several key truths about the global warming movement. It shows that most warmists, both the scientists and the journalists, will embrace any claim that seems to bolster their cause, without bothering to check the facts or subject them to rigorous investigation. (Anthony Watts notes how few journalists bothered to contact him before reporting the claims about him that are made in the fake memo.) And it shows us that warmists like Gleick have no compunction about falsifying information to promote their agenda, and that many other warmists are willing to serve as accomplices after the fact, excusing Gleick's fraud on the grounds that he was acting in a "noble cause." It shows us that "hide the decline" dishonesty is a deeply ingrained part of the corporate culture of the global warming movement.

Gleick wasn't just an obscure, rogue operator in the climate debate. Before his exposure, his stock in trade was lecturing on "scientific integrity," and until a few days ago he was the chairman of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics. So this scandal goes to the very top of the global warming establishment, and it compels honest observers to ask: if the warmists were willing to deceive us on this, what else have they been deceiving us about?

Between Climategate and Fakegate, the warmist establishment now has zero credibility, and we must call all of their claims into question.

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com.


"So long as they don't get violent, I want to let everyone say what they wish, for I myself have always said exactly what pleased me..." - Albert Einstein

Offline


Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 12:04pm #32
supamark
EEcclesiastical
Supa_avatar
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 17 Mar 2012
Posts: 1240

oh look, another story that says stealing emails from climate scientists then completely misunderstanding their content (and spreading that disinformation around the 'net) is just fine and dandy, but publishing information about the deniers' funding sources (and lies) aquired through misrepresentation is bad?

that's some seriously stupid "logic" there. it's even sadder that anyone would defend an organization that has in the past tried to FUD about smoking's dangers. If anyone believed them, then later got lung cancer and died, that makes the Heartland Foundation murderers. that's some quality organization y'all are defending.

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 1:08pm #33
dvelasco68
EEluminated
Dvelasco68
Registered: Jan, 2009
Last visit: Tue, 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 720

Actually this article is more along the lines of the Dan Rather 'Faked' discharge memo...

But you'd have gotten that if you made it past the first paragraph...


"So long as they don't get violent, I want to let everyone say what they wish, for I myself have always said exactly what pleased me..." - Albert Einstein

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 1:20pm #34
supamark
EEcclesiastical
Supa_avatar
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 17 Mar 2012
Posts: 1240

I don't have time for "wall of text" reading at work...

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 1:50pm #35
dvelasco68
EEluminated
Dvelasco68
Registered: Jan, 2009
Last visit: Tue, 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 720

The problem is, I could have posted just the relevant parts, but then I'd open myself up to 'out of context' attacks...:

The fake Heartland memo tried to re-create all of this. It was posted to the Web by someone who called himself "Heartland Insider." It contains admissions of things like opposing the teaching of science. It includes discussion of attempts to exclude global warming alarmists from the media, particularly an attempt to oust a fellow named Peter Gleick, described in the memo as a "high profile climate scientist," from his Forbes blog, because "This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out." And it describes a program to hire a "paid team of writers" to "undermine the official United Nation's [sic] IPCC reports." So this has all of the elements of Climategate, but in mirror image.

But it is all a lie. It took bloggers mere days to spot the document as a fake and less than a week to find the person who posted it and the other Heartland documents. He turns out to be...Peter Gleick, a climate scientist who is president of the left-leaning Pacific Institute. It's actually kind of pathetic, when you think about it. What gave Gleick away was the little touch of self-aggrandizement, the fact that he couldn't resist over-inflating the significance of his Forbes blog. In his own mind, clearly, he is the one man whose bold opposition keeps the Heartland leadership awake at nights.

So the "leaker" wasn't an insider, Heartland has not been exposed as anti-science, and it is not conspiring to silence opposing voices. In fact, days before the documents were posted, Heartland had asked Gleick to participate in a debate, and he refused the invitation. Oh, and those "paid writers" who were supposed to "undermine" the UN climate reports? They were actually a team of distinguished scientists who were compiling their own independent climate research.


"So long as they don't get violent, I want to let everyone say what they wish, for I myself have always said exactly what pleased me..." - Albert Einstein

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 1:56pm #36
supamark
EEcclesiastical
Supa_avatar
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 17 Mar 2012
Posts: 1240

only one of the documents was faked, the rest were quite real (and quite damning). Heartland was in fact in the employ of the tobacco companies to spread FUD about smoking NOT being dangerous in the 1990's. for that alone, they should be in prison (lying about something that can cause death isn't covered by the 1st amendment).

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 2:01pm #37
dvelasco68
EEluminated
Dvelasco68
Registered: Jan, 2009
Last visit: Tue, 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 720

I will take that admission from you supamark and move on... with a smile on my face...

Although, I will admit, that like unipress, I sometimes agree with some of your points... (ouch that hurt...)


"So long as they don't get violent, I want to let everyone say what they wish, for I myself have always said exactly what pleased me..." - Albert Einstein

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 3:53pm #38
unipres
EEuphoric
Mikes2
Registered: Jul, 2009
Last visit: Tue, 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 833

dvelasco68 wrote:

Although, I will admit, that like unipress, I sometimes agree with some of your points... (ouch that hurt...)

It gets easier. The first one hurts the most. ;-)


I do not debate to prove you are wrong, but rather to test that my convictions live up to your scrutiny. --me

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 4:31pm #39
supamark
EEcclesiastical
Supa_avatar
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 17 Mar 2012
Posts: 1240

I think there's a support group... which is helpful.

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 5:04pm #40
celo d
EExtensive
Registered: Sep, 2010
Last visit: Sat, 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 21

The earth is warming in the very short term. That statement has been answered with overwhelming evidence.
The question is Why? and
Is that a problem in the future?


I hate pumping gas

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 3:40am #41
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

Yazzur wrote:

I suppose Gleick's resignations are appropriate given all of the remorse and resignations from the participants of the stolen "climategate" emails. <sarcasm>

My hat is off to the whistle-blowers; those who made public the Climategate and Climategate 2.0 e-mails. My hat would be off to Gleick, too, if he hadn't faked that memo.

It is a travesty of justice that none of those exposed by the Climategate e-mails were arrested for conspiring to destroy evidence requested by a FOIA-- a crime in the UK, where the conspiracy occurred-- or was even fired from his position. In my opinion, the fact that none of them got more than a slap on the wrist is pretty strong evidence of just how influential this confluence of interests is. It may not be an actual coordinated international conspiracy, in the sense that there is no one at the top issuing orders to underlings on how to carry the conspiracy out. But as far as the results go, this confluence of interests has the same effect as an actual international conspiracy.

The whitewash of those climatologists is certainly strong evidence of how deeply entrenched this "Cause" is, and how much political influence they have. But altho that's disappointing, it's not really surprising. After all, the IPCC is composed of not just climatologists, but climatologists and politicians. When it comes to global warming alarmism, there is a confluence of interests between people who are supposed to be scientists prostituting science for their political agenda and for grant money, and politicians looking for a way to get voters to pay attention to them by making them afraid.

One hand washes the other.


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 6:58am #42
EricOlthwaite
EElevated
Avatar2
Registered: Sep, 2009
Last visit: Mon, 08 Apr 2013
Posts: 439

Lensman wrote:

Yazzur wrote:

I suppose Gleick's resignations are appropriate given all of the remorse and resignations from the participants of the stolen "climategate" emails. <sarcasm>

My hat is off to the whistle-blowers; those who made public the Climategate and Climategate 2.0 e-mails. My hat would be off to Gleick, too, if he hadn't faked that memo.

It is a travesty of justice that none of those exposed by the Climategate e-mails were arrested for conspiring to destroy evidence requested by a FOIA-- a crime in the UK, where the conspiracy occurred-- or was even fired from his position. In my opinion, the fact that none of them got more than a slap on the wrist is pretty strong evidence of just how influential this confluence of interests is. It may not be an actual coordinated international conspiracy, in the sense that there is no one at the top issuing orders to underlings on how to carry the conspiracy out. But as far as the results go, this confluence of interests has the same effect as an actual international conspiracy.

The whitewash of those climatologists is certainly strong evidence of how deeply entrenched this "Cause" is, and how much political influence they have. But altho that's disappointing, it's not really surprising. After all, the IPCC is composed of not just climatologists, but climatologists and politicians. When it comes to global warming alarmism, there is a confluence of interests between people who are supposed to be scientists prostituting science for their political agenda and for grant money, and politicians looking for a way to get voters to pay attention to them by making them afraid.

One hand washes the other.

Seems like Gleick may have redefined the term own goal. Most likely he destroyed any chance of ever being able to present what may have been somewhat relevant information he had obtained from the Heartland institute by a clumsy attempt to sensationalise what he had found as well as doing a great deal of damage to the climate scientists.

Is it possible that the infamous memo is not a fake, you may have to believe that the Heartland institute and supporters are able to create evidence that this was faked. I'm no believer in complex conspiracies of this type as the sources for this information seem to be widely varied and credible.

I guess now there even greater chance that those that believe that there is no AGW conspiracy will be left to watch uneasily as human Co2 emissions are allowed to grow expediently.

As it is now the position of those who deny that humans are responsible for any dangerous climate change (it's just easier to say deniers, I hope this is a better description for you) that although the planet seems to be warming this is normal and nothing to do with the increase of CO2 levels from 280ppm to 390ppm (approx %40).

We will now just have to wait and see, this would not really be such a catastrophe if this does happen, except the one thing I am certain of is the fact that there are significant delays in the climate system, this is the danger of getting this wrong any corrective action would almost certainly be futile. Hope I'm still totally wrong about this in ten years time but, I still need more evidence to convince me at this point.

Some random links related to the Gleick fiasco (is there anyone left on the planet that doesn't know how to "google" ?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2104786...

You have to feel a bit sorry for Mr Gleick. I don't think it is the worst crime in the world to give a different name in order to get some pretty damning information. That information revealed that some "independent" and high profile climate change deniers are funded (via Heartland) by big US corporates. Mr Gleick is embarrassed simply for changing his name to get information - he thinks scientists should stick solely to their research and not involve themselves in policy debate. But the ones getting paid by the corporates should be the ones who are embarrassed!

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=9987...

http://ethicsalarms.com/2012/02/23/climate-wars...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s...

t included, he claimed, plans to create an 'anti-global warming science campaign for grade schools that will dissuade teachers from teaching science'.
Heartland has labelled that document a 'forgery' and says it is now considering legal action against Gleick.
But the environmental activist, who forwarded his finds to to campaigners and journalist, said he was angry with the way the organisation subverted the science for its own ends.pq

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 8:08am #43
Yazzur
EExpert
Registered: Sep, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 184

Lens:

I have no problem with whistle blowers, but what Gleick did was wrong. At least he admitted what he did.

The Climategate participants were also wrong, and since they have not come forward, and their identities have been kept hidden and kept secret by all those involved in the hacking, editing, distribution and publishing, that seems more conspiratorial to me than the UK governmental
investigation that found:

"The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jone’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change."

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog...

If the Climategate people had just released all of the information they had, instead of parsing and doing partial releases to create impressions that have mostly been shown to be false, I might have some respect for them as whistle blowers.

As it is, I consider the Climategate releases as just another political hack job similar to what the Heartland Alliance does in many of its releases.

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 10:00am #44
EricOlthwaite
EElevated
Avatar2
Registered: Sep, 2009
Last visit: Mon, 08 Apr 2013
Posts: 439

Yazzur wrote:

Lens:

I have no problem with whistle blowers, but what Gleick did was wrong. At least he admitted what he did.

The Climategate participants were also wrong, and since they have not come forward, and their identities have been kept hidden and kept secret by all those involved in the hacking, editing, distribution and publishing, that seems more conspiratorial to me than the UK governmental
investigation that found:

"The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jone’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change."

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog...

If the Climategate people had just released all of the information they had, instead of parsing and doing partial releases to create impressions that have mostly been shown to be false, I might have some respect for them as whistle blowers.

As it is, I consider the Climategate releases as just another political hack job similar to what the Heartland Alliance does in many of its releases.

The argument about not releasing the raw data was unfortunately used repeatedly to build the case against Jones and the CRU, however after the briefest of checks it is clear that the release of the raw data was far more complex than simply posting the data publically.

As this data was obtained from perhaps thousands (source anyone?) of various sources and some were commercial and others of some value in regard to some agricultural reasons it was clearly not a simple task to release all of the raw data.
This was a another instance were the case from the denialists seems to have been built from wilful misinformation.

PS The computer codes of the data analysis have been publicly released

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 10:20am #45
hum
EExpert
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 21 Feb 2013
Posts: 202

Lensman wrote:

Yazzur wrote:

I suppose Gleick's resignations are appropriate given all of the remorse and resignations from the participants of the stolen "climategate" emails. <sarcasm>

My hat is off to the whistle-blowers; those who made public the Climategate and Climategate 2.0 e-mails. My hat would be off to Gleick, too, if he hadn't faked that memo.

It is a travesty of justice that none of those exposed by the Climategate e-mails were arrested for conspiring to destroy evidence requested by a FOIA-- a crime in the UK, where the conspiracy occurred-- or was even fired from his position. In my opinion, the fact that none of them got more than a slap on the wrist is pretty strong evidence of just how influential this confluence of interests is. It may not be an actual coordinated international conspiracy, in the sense that there is no one at the top issuing orders to underlings on how to carry the conspiracy out. But as far as the results go, this confluence of interests has the same effect as an actual international conspiracy.

The whitewash of those climatologists is certainly strong evidence of how deeply entrenched this "Cause" is, and how much political influence they have. But altho that's disappointing, it's not really surprising. After all, the IPCC is composed of not just climatologists, but climatologists and politicians. When it comes to global warming alarmism, there is a confluence of interests between people who are supposed to be scientists prostituting science for their political agenda and for grant money, and politicians looking for a way to get voters to pay attention to them by making them afraid.

One hand washes the other.


Wow this is good. I had to quote it because it needs to be repeated.

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 10:29am #46
hum
EExpert
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 21 Feb 2013
Posts: 202

Nobody^8^ wrote:

[The argument about not releasing the raw data was unfortunately used repeatedly to build the case against Jones and the CRU, however after the briefest of checks it is clear that the release of the raw data was far more complex than simply posting the data publically.

As this data was obtained from perhaps thousands (source anyone?) of various sources and some were commercial and others of some value in regard to some agricultural reasons it was clearly not a simple task to release all of the raw data.
This was a another instance were the case from the denialists seems to have been built from wilful misinformation.

PS The computer codes of the data analysis have been publicly released

Wrong, they used those excuses as strawmen. When CRU and Jones were FOIA'd for the NDA's, agreements and contracts limiting data distribution they would not provide them. Later it was Jones the dog ate them excuse. When asked to supply the data excluding any restricted data Jones again would not comply. Although he was more than happy to share all the data including so called restricted data with his friends, which if NDAs were in place would have been a violation.

Jones should be fired from CRU and removed from the IPCC.

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 4:46pm #47
EricOlthwaite
EElevated
Avatar2
Registered: Sep, 2009
Last visit: Mon, 08 Apr 2013
Posts: 439

hum wrote:

Nobody^8^ wrote:

[The argument about not releasing the raw data was unfortunately used repeatedly to build the case against Jones and the CRU, however after the briefest of checks it is clear that the release of the raw data was far more complex than simply posting the data publically.

As this data was obtained from perhaps thousands (source anyone?) of various sources and some were commercial and others of some value in regard to some agricultural reasons it was clearly not a simple task to release all of the raw data.
This was a another instance were the case from the denialists seems to have been built from wilful misinformation.

PS The computer codes of the data analysis have been publicly released

Wrong, they used those excuses as strawmen. When CRU and Jones were FOIA'd for the NDA's, agreements and contracts limiting data distribution they would not provide them. Later it was Jones the dog ate them excuse. When asked to supply the data excluding any restricted data Jones again would not comply. Although he was more than happy to share all the data including so called restricted data with his friends, which if NDAs were in place would have been a violation.

Jones should be fired from CRU and removed from the IPCC.

These lies are repeated often enough to make many think they are true.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/07/at_long_la...

With yesterday’s release, raw data from 5,113 weather stations around the globe are now in the public domain. The only data missing are those from 10 stations in Poland. The Polish meteorological service, say CRU officials, refused permittence to have their data publicly released. But CRU reluctantly opted to release station data from Trinidad and Tobago against the Caribbean state’s express wish.

We want to place beyond all doubt our determination to be open with our data and to comply with the ICO’s instruction,” Trevor Davies, UEA’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, said in a statement. “We remain concerned, however, that the forced release of material from a source which has explicitly refused to give permission for release could have some damaging consequences for the UK in international research collaborations

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20739-ok-...

Thomas Peterson, chief scientist at the National Climatic Data Center of the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and president of the Commission for Climatology at the World Meteorological Organization, agrees there might be a cost to releasing the data.

"I have historic temperature data from automatic weather stations on the Greenland ice sheet that I was able to obtain from Denmark only because I agreed not to release them," he says. "If countries come to expect that sharing of any data with anyone will eventually lead to strong pressure for them to fully release those data, will they be less willing to collaborate in the future?"

Davies is confident that genuine and proper analysis of the raw data will reproduce the same incontrovertible conclusion – that global temperatures are rising. "The conclusion is very robust," he says, explaining that the CRU's dataset of land temperatures tally with those from other independent research groups around the world, including those generated by the NOAA and NASA

And after all this trouble even the sceptics now find that the earth has in fact been warming (BEST etc), the data is out there and there is still no reputable study that has concluded differently.

Last edited Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 4:53pm by EricOlthwaite

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 5:21pm #48
supamark
EEcclesiastical
Supa_avatar
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 17 Mar 2012
Posts: 1240

hum wrote:

Nobody^8^ wrote:

[The argument about not releasing the raw data was unfortunately used repeatedly to build the case against Jones and the CRU, however after the briefest of checks it is clear that the release of the raw data was far more complex than simply posting the data publically.

As this data was obtained from perhaps thousands (source anyone?) of various sources and some were commercial and others of some value in regard to some agricultural reasons it was clearly not a simple task to release all of the raw data.
This was a another instance were the case from the denialists seems to have been built from wilful misinformation.

PS The computer codes of the data analysis have been publicly released

Wrong, they used those excuses as strawmen. When CRU and Jones were FOIA'd for the NDA's, agreements and contracts limiting data distribution they would not provide them. Later it was Jones the dog ate them excuse. When asked to supply the data excluding any restricted data Jones again would not comply. Although he was more than happy to share all the data including so called restricted data with his friends, which if NDAs were in place would have been a violation.

Jones should be fired from CRU and removed from the IPCC.

dude, stop with the FUD.

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 5:22pm #49
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

Nobody^8^ wrote:

Is it possible that the infamous memo is not a fake, you may have to believe that the Heartland institute and supporters are able to create evidence that this was faked. I'm no believer in complex conspiracies of this type as the sources for this information seem to be widely varied and credible.

I can easily believe it might not be faked... that it's real. The evidence that it's faked boils down to "the scan of this document was created later and by different means than the other electronic documents".

Gleick's story is that this was something he received in the mail very shortly before he leaked the info, so was scanned by him, and only recently. I think he's claiming that the other documents were received via e-mail... that is, he received electronic copies of the other documents he released, not hardcopies. If so, then it's hardly a surprise that the scan of the one memo, done by a different person on a different computer at a later time, shows different origins for the electronic file!

Now, I don't have sufficient information to have an informed opinion on whether the memo is fake or real. But if it's real, then it seems quite odd that Gleick would have issued a public apology for his whistle-blowing, nor can I see that his career would be damaged by such actions.

Nobody^8^ wrote:

I guess now there even greater chance that those that believe that there is no AGW conspiracy will be left to watch uneasily as human Co2 emissions are allowed to grow expediently.

I haven't seen much action from the pro-CAGW crowd in actually talking about what might be done to mitigate global warming, if they think it's really a problem. There are things we could try, but it seems they would rather just argue about what the causes are play the blame game. That's not productive; in fact, it's counter-productive because finger-pointing poisons rational debate on the subject.

I find it ironic that the only people on this forum to advocate discussion of what we could actually do to counteract global warming-- not just reduce the rate of increase of CO2 emissions very slightly by cap-and-trade shell game-- are those who, like me, have strong doubts about the claims of Catastrophic Anthropic Global Warming.

Nobody^8^ wrote:

As it is now the position of those who deny that humans are responsible for any dangerous climate change (it's just easier to say deniers, I hope this is a better description for you)...

The term "denier" is a deliberately offensive term, intended to cause the reader to make a comparison with Holocaust deniers.

No, I don't appreciate being equated with Nazis who killed millions of Jews and others they considered "subhuman".

In fact, Nobody, in the past I've used the term "natural climate change deniers", to force the pro-CAGW folks on this forum to actually think about how the term "denier" is such an emotionally loaded term, and therefore unfair.

However, after some discussion about attempting to maintain civility in these politically charged discussions on climate science, I have decided it's inappropriate for me to use that term.

I would appreciate it if you'd do the same. The terms "anti-AGW" or "AGW skeptic" or "AGW doubter" are appropriate.

Nobody^8^ wrote:

...although the planet seems to be warming this is normal and nothing to do with the increase of CO2 levels from 280ppm to 390ppm (approx %40).

I'm perfectly willing to believe that anthropic influence has caused some fraction of the global warming since, say, 1950. But I do not believe it has been proven that anthropic causes are the primary cause of the overall warming trend which has been ongoing since about 1850. So long as the pro-CAGW advocates continue to try to suppress and trivialize the evidence for relatively recent climate fluctuations, such as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, then it seems obvious to me that they know their argument is full of holes.

Natural climate variation is far greater than they would like us to believe, and calling a few degrees of warming or cooling a "catastrophe" is nothing but alarmist demagoguery. It's the pseudo-scientific equivalent of yelling and throwing a tantrum to get attention.

The Earth has warmed and cooled a lot over the lifetime of our species. The temperature has varied a lot more than the piffling 1 degree or so of warming since the mid-1800s. Humans have adapted before, and will again.

Climate change is normal, and we cannot stop it from happening. Get over it, or else start talking about realistic ways to practice large-scale carbon sequestration and ways to reduce global temperatures.

But either way, the alarmists need to quit whining about AGW. Nobody is going to volunteer to go back to the stone age, or commit suicide to remove themselves from the environment, just because the pro-CAGW crowd are whining. It just irritates people, and is counter-productive to what they claim their Cause is.


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 6:12pm #50
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

Yazzur wrote:

If the Climategate people had just released all of the information they had, instead of parsing and doing partial releases to create impressions that have mostly been shown to be false, I might have some respect for them as whistle blowers.

Wow, how did you get such a mistaken impression? Even the people who wrote those e-mails are not denying they wrote them. I don't know what your source of info is on this subject, Yazzur, but you need to read up on this subject from other sources, because clearly where you're getting your info from is feeding you lies.

And the Climategate e-mails were not "cherry-picked", it was a raw info dump. According to Wikipedia:

The material comprised more than 1,000 e-mails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.

I think you're confusing whoever released the climategate info dump with a few bloggers who cherry-picked bits and pieces of some of the e-mails, in some cases taking things out of context. If you want to criticize them, I think that's entirely appropriate. But to criticize the whistle-blower for how the info he released was used (or misused) by others, is unjust.

Yazzur wrote:

As it is, I consider the Climategate releases as just another political hack job similar to what the Heartland Alliance does in many of its releases.

I don't think you have an informed opinion on the subject.

The pro-CAGW climatologists, and IPCC politicians, are not part of some black-and-white good-versus-evil vaudeville melodrama. They are not stereotyped villains fingering their curled mustaches, or cackling evilly. They actually do believe anything they do in the name of their Cause is Right.

That's why there are e-mails like this one:

This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?

I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.

It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !

You see, this guy doesn't even bother to hide his agenda to suppress publications contrary to the so-called "consensus" of climate science.

That's not the action of a scientist. It's the action of someone with a near-religious Cause.

Last edited Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 6:23pm by Lensman


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 6:20pm #51
supamark
EEcclesiastical
Supa_avatar
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 17 Mar 2012
Posts: 1240

your last quote Lens, he's talking about sceptics "buying" one of the peer reviewed journals (Climate Research) and that there's no point publishing in a journal owned by people with a set agenda (climate change denial) because it can no longer be considered a reputable or unbiased source.

all scientific journals should be owned/operated by folks who are essentially agnostic on the subject of the journal, i.e. no set point of view.

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 6:27pm #52
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

supamark wrote:

your last quote Lens, he's talking about sceptics "buying" one of the peer reviewed journals (Climate Research) and that there's no point publishing in a journal owned by people with a set agenda (climate change denial) because it can no longer be considered a reputable or unbiased source.

That's his opinion. It's clearly not an opinion based on reality, because he then goes on to say he's going to try to pressure the journal in question to fire one of its editors, and implies that if they do, he'd be willing to work with them again.

In other words, he has a personal axe to grind with this one editor, and he's willing to use his influence to ask his colleagues to help him gang up on this one guy.

Which is pretty much what a lot of those climatologists who refuse to be part of the so-called "consensus" have been complaining about, innit?

And in case you didn't notice: That is pretty clear evidence of a conspiracy to suppress non-"consensus" climate science.


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 6:53pm #53
EricOlthwaite
EElevated
Avatar2
Registered: Sep, 2009
Last visit: Mon, 08 Apr 2013
Posts: 439

Lensman wrote:

….

Nobody^8^ wrote:

As it is now the position of those who deny that humans are responsible for any dangerous climate change (it's just easier to say deniers, I hope this is a better description for you)...

The term "denier" is a deliberately offensive term, intended to cause the reader to make a comparison with Holocaust deniers.

I will use something other than “denier” for you. Even though this to me has no relation to the completely disgusting Holocaust deniers, if you feel there is an issue then I can understand your offensive.

Lensman wrote:

….

Nobody^8^ wrote:

I guess now there even greater chance that those that believe that there is no AGW conspiracy will be left to watch uneasily as human Co2 emissions are allowed to grow expediently.

I haven't seen much action from the pro-CAGW crowd in actually talking about what might be done to mitigate global warming, if they think it's really a problem. There are things we could try, but it seems they would rather just argue about what the causes are play the blame game. That's not productive; in fact, it's counter-productive because finger-pointing poisons rational debate on the subject.

I find it ironic that the only people on this forum to advocate discussion of what we could actually do to counteract global warming-- not just reduce the rate of increase of CO2 emissions very slightly by cap-and-trade shell game-- are those who, like me, have strong doubts about the claims of Catastrophic Anthropic Global Warming.

I would welcome a debate on how best to go about reducing CO2 emissions. If CO2 emissions are to be reduced in a meaningful way surely a market based approach would be welcomed by those who supposedly believe in the free market. Until replacement technologies are available governments will also need to help with funding of research AND commercialisation.
You seem to be saying that reducing emissions substantially is just not possible without destroying our economies, however what we can be doing now is preparing for the changes that may be required. An emissions cap is perhaps the best tool to allow this to happen as the cap can be set at a level that does not cause too much economic pain and reduced as newer technologies allow more reductions with less cost. Distributing all the income from the permits as tax cuts and reductions or replacement of existing taxes negates any argument that this is a government tax raising exercise. The effect is simply to move the tax pressure from one place to another and give industry a cost incentive to reduce emissions.
The alternative to a market based approach is for governments to directly mandate allowable levels for each business and/or industry whilst picking projects and companies to build replacement technologies. This would seem to be far more communist but oddly enough seems to be the preference of the conservative organisations. [The politics of this is intrinsically a part of the debate, this topic perhaps could have its own thread entirely]

Having further debate about this would be interesting if people could get past the simplistic and unhelpful and even dishonest comments about left wing conspiracies and other such things.

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 6:59pm #54
supamark
EEcclesiastical
Supa_avatar
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 17 Mar 2012
Posts: 1240

Lensman wrote:

supamark wrote:

your last quote Lens, he's talking about sceptics "buying" one of the peer reviewed journals (Climate Research) and that there's no point publishing in a journal owned by people with a set agenda (climate change denial) because it can no longer be considered a reputable or unbiased source.

That's his opinion. It's clearly not an opinion based on reality, because he then goes on to say he's going to try to pressure the journal in question to fire one of its editors, and implies that if they do, he'd be willing to work with them again.

In other words, he has a personal axe to grind with this one editor, and he's willing to use his influence to ask his colleagues to help him gang up on this one guy.

Which is pretty much what a lot of those climatologists who refuse to be part of the so-called "consensus" have been complaining about, innit?

And in case you didn't notice: That is pretty clear evidence of a conspiracy to suppress non-"consensus" climate science.

well, if that editor was injecting his bias into the journal, then he does/did in fact need to go. ANY bias from journal editors (beyond a bias towards truth) is bad, and that was what I was trying to convey.

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 8:05pm #55
Yazzur
EExpert
Registered: Sep, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 184

Lens:

These are the facts as I understand them:

Climategate I was released in November 2009, with 1000+ private emails plus some 80 or so other documents.

Climategate II was released on 22 November 2011 with several thousand emails, plus a "context" file of cherrypicked quotes.

Both I and II covered the same time period.

Do you have contrary facts?

If this was a "data dump", as you imply, why didn't they just release all the documents the first time, without the out of context cherrypicked quotes? On what basis were the 1000 emails selected for the first release? What were they trying to imply? Since this is all done in secret and hidden from journalists, for what purpose or why were those particular emails selected for release, only 1000 emails out of the 200,000+ the hackers claimed they had, for the first release?

Since you are so well informed, I think a lot of us would like answers to the above questions.

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 8:07pm #56
WalksOnDirt
EESUrient
Ctenucha
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1749

Nobody^8^ wrote:

I will use something other than “denier” for you. Even though this to me has no relation to the completely disgusting Holocaust deniers, if you feel there is an issue then I can understand your offensive.

I'm with Lensman here. If you want a reasonable debate it is important to use neutral language.

Nobody^8^ wrote:

I would welcome a debate on how best to go about reducing CO2 emissions. If CO2 emissions are to be reduced in a meaningful way surely a market based approach would be welcomed by those who supposedly believe in the free market. Until replacement technologies are available governments will also need to help with funding of research AND commercialisation.

You seem to be saying that reducing emissions substantially is just not possible without destroying our economies, however what we can be doing now is preparing for the changes that may be required. An emissions cap is perhaps the best tool to allow this to happen as the cap can be set at a level that does not cause too much economic pain and reduced as newer technologies allow more reductions with less cost. Distributing all the income from the permits as tax cuts and reductions or replacement of existing taxes negates any argument that this is a government tax raising exercise. The effect is simply to move the tax pressure from one place to another and give industry a cost incentive to reduce emissions.

The alternative to a market based approach is for governments to directly mandate allowable levels for each business and/or industry whilst picking projects and companies to build replacement technologies. This would seem to be far more communist but oddly enough seems to be the preference of the conservative organisations.

You want the government sticking its nose into every nook and cranny of business and deciding how much CO2 they can emit? The big winner would be whoever can spend the most on lobbying, which I think would be coal. A far better approach is fee and dividend. But what politician wants to be left out of what could be the biggest gravy train ever to hit Washington D.C.?


Deasil is the right way to go.

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 8:34pm #57
EricOlthwaite
EElevated
Avatar2
Registered: Sep, 2009
Last visit: Mon, 08 Apr 2013
Posts: 439

WalksOnDirt wrote:

Nobody^8^ wrote:

I will use something other than “denier” for you. Even though this to me has no relation to the completely disgusting Holocaust deniers, if you feel there is an issue then I can understand your offensive.

I'm with Lensman here. If you want a reasonable debate it is important to use neutral language.

I'm ok with that too, I was in fact accepting Len's argument above I hope I was clear enough.

WalksOnDirt wrote:

Nobody^8^ wrote:

I would welcome a debate on how best to go about reducing CO2 emissions. If CO2 emissions are to be reduced in a meaningful way surely a market based approach would be welcomed by those who supposedly believe in the free market. Until replacement technologies are available governments will also need to help with funding of research AND commercialisation.

You seem to be saying that reducing emissions substantially is just not possible without destroying our economies, however what we can be doing now is preparing for the changes that may be required. An emissions cap is perhaps the best tool to allow this to happen as the cap can be set at a level that does not cause too much economic pain and reduced as newer technologies allow more reductions with less cost. Distributing all the income from the permits as tax cuts and reductions or replacement of existing taxes negates any argument that this is a government tax raising exercise. The effect is simply to move the tax pressure from one place to another and give industry a cost incentive to reduce emissions.

The alternative to a market based approach is for governments to directly mandate allowable levels for each business and/or industry whilst picking projects and companies to build replacement technologies. This would seem to be far more communist but oddly enough seems to be the preference of the conservative organisations.

You want the government sticking its nose into every nook and cranny of business and deciding how much CO2 they can emit? The big winner would be whoever can spend the most on lobbying, which I think would be coal. A far better approach is fee and dividend. But what politician wants to be left out of what could be the biggest gravy train ever to hit Washington D.C.?

That's where it seems the US is not capable of this sort of change because the population does not have any trust in their government to implement policy without some form of corruption. why is it that other countries seem to be able to have these discussions and implement changes to taxation?

I don't see how a fee (ie tax) and dividend is any better. The disadvantage of a fee is that this does not put a fixed limit on emissions directly.

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 8:39pm #58
EricOlthwaite
EElevated
Avatar2
Registered: Sep, 2009
Last visit: Mon, 08 Apr 2013
Posts: 439

That's where it seems the US is not capable of this sort of change because the population does not have any trust in their government to implement policy without some form of corruption. why is it that other countries seem to be able to have these discussions and implement changes to taxation?

That's where the lobbyists have already won this debate by destroying any trust that the population has had by running a fear and smear campaign against any sort of government regulation over anything.

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 10:06pm #59
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

Yazzur wrote:

Lens:

These are the facts as I understand them:

Climategate I was released in November 2009, with 1000+ private emails plus some 80 or so other documents.

Climategate II was released on 22 November 2011 with several thousand emails, plus a "context" file of cherrypicked quotes.

Both I and II covered the same time period.

Do you have contrary facts?

Well, Wikipedia has a detailed article on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_...

There's no mention of any document containing a "context" file of cherry-picked quotes. What it does say is that one analysis suggests the documents were filtered by a word search on certain words, but I see no indication that only excerpts from certain files or documents were included in the data dump.

Do you have an authoritative citation for your claim the hackers included a file of "cherry-picked quotes"?

Frankly, Yazzur, I don't think you have a leg to stand on in this argument. Usually you appear to be practicing honest debate, but in this particular case you seem to have stepped over the line into intellectual dishonesty.

Is Gleick to be castigated because he didn't come up with thousands of documents from the Heartland Institute? Of course not. He only copied and forwarded documents which were relevant to the basic dishonesty of the Heartland.

Likewise, what right do you have to castigate the Climategate whistle-blowers for not dumping 200,000+ files onto the internet? That would be like what we saw in the "Erin Brockovich" movie where Pacific Gas & Electric Company tried to bury her litigation in paperwork, by delivering literally tons of paper to her office. Her team did finally find the one document which proved conspiracy by PG&E; of course, that paper had been mis-filed, so they had to literally look thru every individual sheet of paper in every box which had been delivered.

Should Erin Brockovich's team be castigated for not showing literally tons of irrelevant papers to the jury in her lawsuit against PG&E? Of course not. Her team showed them what they thought was relevant. If PG&E thought they had documents that refuted what her team found, or put it into a "context" which explained their actions as neither criminal nor unethical, then it was up to them to produce those documents.

And if the scientists at the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit can put what appears to be incriminating e-mails into a larger context, showing that what appears to be a pattern of suppressing the publication of papers contrary to their Cause isn't, and showing what appears to be a pattern of refusing to comply with requests for their raw data, or even destroy data to avoid complying, isn't really the pattern of conspiracy and scientific dishonesty it appears to be, then it's up to them to produce those documents.


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 10:40pm #60
WalksOnDirt
EESUrient
Ctenucha
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1749

Nobody^8^ wrote:

I'm ok with that too, I was in fact accepting Len's argument above I hope I was clear enough.

But can you see that it is still wrong with anyone else?

Nobody^8^ wrote:

I don't see how a fee (ie tax) and dividend is any better. The disadvantage of a fee is that this does not put a fixed limit on emissions directly.

How's the European experiment with cap and trade working out? Are carbon allowances still nearly worthless? I think we'd do a lot worse with our whole "corporations are people, too" stance.

What limit on emissions do you want? We need something very close to zero, and we will need decades to get us there. Can you not see the difference between a simple accounting function (you mined 100 tons of carbon, here's your bill) and what we'll likely get under cap and trade (you mined 100 tones of carbon, but since you produce power with it you are charged for 50 tones. Minus the 30 ton credit you purchased at bankruptcy, and the credit you get from your Malaysian palm oil plantation, means you get this much back).


Deasil is the right way to go.

Offline