No, really.
If you haven’t heard, someone has posted a whole bunch of correspondence between AGW “scientists.” The mask has slipped, fallen, and shattered:
This is part of a letter send from Michael E. Mann to Phil Jones:
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?
mike
Wow, it’s almost like the AGW community has been conspiring to suppress skeptics, or something.
The best part: AGWers have long rolled their eyes and claimed loony skeptics were positing some sort of conspiracy to suppress the truth… claims that are now retroactively hilarious.
You couldn’t write a fictional scenario like this. It would be tossed back as not believable.
UPDATE: I just wanted to add, whoever released this deserves a Nobel Prize.
Preferably, Al Gore’s.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 23 comments }
These emails are cherry picked and could easily have been “tweaked”. Its impossible to treat this as serious evidence. Its not like they were obtained via a lawful means where the data integrity could have been maintained; this was a hacker. Strange hero for the climate skeptics considering their concerns until now has been the sanctity of the scientific method and professional ethics.
The RC folks have a response and directly address the “hide the decline” remark which is destined to get enthusiastic play:
They are sounding pretty desperate over there.
There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy,
Hahahahahahahahahahahaaha! Now the bar is “worldwide.” Truly hilarious.
Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact… None of this should be shocking.
It isn’t shocking… to skeptics. But the RC folks have been claiming for years that nothing like this was going on, and getting all offended at the very notion of such shenanigans. Now it’s “Oh, well, that’s just how science is done.” Please.
Hear that sound? It’s the last bit of AGW’s credibility slipping away…
Its not like they were obtained via a lawful means where the data integrity could have been maintained;
Its not like they would have voluntarily released incriminating emails in a million years. It took ten years just to get Briffa’s data.
Whoever did this is a hero. They may have saved trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.
Quote of the day, from a NYT article of all things:
“This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?hp
Aziz, the RC folks are liars. Look at the evidence (which, I should point out, you don’t seem to contest). Have you ever seen a situation where people who were trying to silence debate on a subject were on the right side of it? You need to examine your anger over the fact that someone revealed the truth, and what it says about your beliefs.
“Climate change,” formerly called “global warming,” formerly cloaked in the concept of “ozone depletion” or “acid rain” is all bovine scatology. Not a hint of science.
Comparing climate change to real science is like comparing fantasy football to the NFL.
–HB
Emails and commentary taken out of context are often badly skewed. Still, this doesn’t look good.
I’ve been pretty sure up to now that for the most part those who believed in human-caused global warming were about as innocent as those who believed in phrenology or that malaria was caused by noxious vapors (i.e. not guilty, just myopic). On the other hand, it wouldn’t surprise me if, in a growing feeling of unease, some of these researchers began doing things to help keep their own state of denial in gear.
There’s simply no questioning the intellectual corruption here. Most of it stems, as I have said for so long, from the deplorable state of the current peer review process, most particularly peer review in funding. Until we look at that, hard, and do something to reform it, we can expect more and more disasters and less and less real science.
Aziz,
Schmidt and Mann of Realclimate show up extensively in the e-mail collection. They are not impartial in this matter.
Mann particularly comes off badly.
There’s evidence in these files that Gavin is using GISS time (and at least his GISS e-mail) to manage Realclimate.
Here’s one:
From: Gavin Schmidt
To: Tim Osborn
Subject: latest
Date: 28 Sep 2009 17:59:04 -0400
Hi Tim, I know Keith is out of commission for a while (give him my
regards when you see him), but someone needs to at least give some
context to the latest McIntyre meme.
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2Q5ZGExZTc3ZTlmMTA5OTdhOGRjNzdlNmU4N2M4ZTg=
None of us at RC have any real idea what was done or why and so we are
singularly unable to sensibly counter the flood of nonsense. Of course,
most of the reaction is hugely overblown and mixed up but it would be
helpful to have some kind of counterpoint to the main thrust. If you can
point to someone else that could be helpful, please do!
Thanks
Gavin
Why would that be relevant? People often cubicle-surf while on break or downtime or lunch or whatever. And frankly, something like this might be even considered part of his job.
Why would that be relevant?
1) Hatch Act.
2) Appearance and claims that they are doing this on their own time.
3) Who’s paying.
As I understand it, Hansen is aware of his activities, though I have no direct evidence of that … yet.
4) It’s probably a violation of NASA policy.
Gavin Schmidt has an official job description. I don’t believe that running RealClimate is part of that official job description.
Isn’t it illegal to hide information from FOIA requests?
Is criminal prosecution possible here?
I have a PhD in astronomy. Many years ago I was a postdoc at one of the worlds top observatories and worked for three years at another top observatory. I remember talking privately with one of the top astronomers in the world in my field. He told me when I write a paper, I should take my best example of something and describe it as a typical example in my paper. I was surprised that he would say this.
Scientist are people, even top scientist. The top scientist usually have huge egos and are top scientist in part because of self-promotion. The check on this is independent reproduction of results. This is usually not done by scientist giving their raw data to other scientists, but by other scientists collecting their own data and trying to reproduce the results.
That all sounded right until I read this part, Mikeca:
This is usually not done by scientist giving their raw data to other scientists, but by other scientists collecting their own data and trying to reproduce the results.
Independent observation is the norm in astronomy, but if you’re using math to show something you need to show your math, and if you’re using data that no one else has access to, then you need to show your data as well.
Independent observation is the norm in astronomy, but if you’re using math to show something you need to show your math, and if you’re using data that no one else has access to, then you need to show your data as well.
In astronomy it is mainly access to large telescopes. Only a small subset of astronomers have access to the largest telescopes with the best instruments to collect data. This is somewhat better today, because there are more large telescopes, some at the national observatories open most astronomers.
I have not gotten into the details of this climate controversy very deeply. Much of it seems to be controversy over analysis of tree ring samples. Why can’t more people collect independent tree ring samples? Why spend all this effort arguing over the analysis of one set of samples? Collect more data and independently analyze it. That is the way scientific controversies are resolved. Re-analyzing the same old data different ways will not really resolve anything. It just shows that you need more data.
It seems obvious to me that any estimates about global temperatures 1000-2000 years ago are very uncertain and subject to bias. You simply will never be able to know this with any great certainty. We know that there was a so called “little ice age” somewhere between 1300 and 1850 and that it was warmer before that. Whether the earth was as warm as now or warmer than the current temperature seems not relevant to the question of whether human activity and CO2 in particular is responsible for any of the current warming over the last 100 years.
mikeca,
A number of your points I have some knowledge of.
The Earth’s average surface temperature is essentially independent of the contents of some piece of paper. The only reason that the pieces of paper matter is how we understand our environment. Our understanding is captured in terms of models, which may or may not be relevant. It largely comes down to a question of what the models say, and whether or not the models are valid.
The historical reconstructions matter for two reasons:
1) The IPCC claim of “unprecedented” warming. There are a number of reconstructions which show a RWP and MWP warmer than today, and a LIA much colder than today. Mostly these were generated prior to 1995, though Loehle and others have generated some since. The MBH99 reconstruction (aka The Hockey Stick) showed almost no MWP or LIA. Subsequent reconstructions by Mann, Briffa and others (The Team) have shown a MWP much lower than today. The Team figures prominently in the CRU e-mails.
2) They’re useful for validating models. Existing models have problems with the MWP and LIA. They can’t really explain them. If the model can’t explain some significant data features, then it has a problem.
The “Ababneh thesis” was an attempt at independent verification of the Graybill Sheep Mountain series used by Mann. She got different results.
Professional researchers face retribution for asking too many questions (see reference Saier).
There is no real organized, well funded “skeptics” group. It’s mostly individuals asking questions on their own dime. Organizing a trip to Siberia to gather new Yamal data would be more expensive than most of us could justify, and it wouldn’t necessarily even work. On the other hand, Briffa didn’t make that trip himself. There’s evidence in the e-mails that a new data set could be secured for $10k.
There’s also evidence, both in the e-mails and in existing public information, that the scientists involved have deliberately chosen to involve themselves in political activity and seek political action. This takes it out of the realm of pure science, and I believe, brings with it higher level of scrutiny. It’s no longer enough to conduct separate paths of research. The science has to be right.
… or put another way…
Unless you’re hunting rocks, I’m not terribly concerned about any mistakes you make with your astronomy. It really doesn’t affect me. I get enough value out of your work that I don’t even mind paying for it, as long as you don’t go overboard. Even your mistakes help push science forward.
I care a whole lot more if someone asks me to dramatically change my lifestyle. That affects me. That gets my attention, and I start to care.
The IPCC claim of “unprecedented” warming …
Global temperatures have gone up a lot in the last 100 years. Who cares if it is now hotter than in the MWP. The important question is how much (if any) of these warming is due to CO2 and will the warming continue at the same rate for the next few hundred years.
They’re useful for validating models. Existing models have problems with the MWP and LIA. They can’t really explain them. If the model can’t explain some significant data features, then it has a problem.
Global climate has been changing for billions of years. It is clear that many factors effect global climate. CO2 is only one factor that may be effecting climate. Other factors include the energy output from the Sun. I know from astronomy that many stars are variable in energy output. It is clear our sun does not vary by large amounts, but it is very hard to determine if it is not slightly variable. This is an extremely difficult thing to measure. It is entirely possible the Sun is slightly variable in energy output and that might explain some climate variations.
It would be extremely naive to expect to be able to explain all temperature changes in the last few thousand years based on CO2 alone. So what if climate models of CO2 variation cannot explain MWP and LIA. That just means there are other factors effecting global climate.
The question remains, is CO2 a factor we should be worried about. Human activity is increasing CO2. Will that lead to any global climate changes?
Organizing a trip to Siberia to gather new Yamal data would be more expensive than most of us could justify
Why do we need more samples from Siberia? Samples from Siberia can only give you temperature data about Siberia, which is subject to local climate as well a global climate variations. To get an estimate of global temperatures we need samples from more places. There are very old trees in other places in the world too.
Unless you’re hunting rocks, I’m not terribly concerned about any mistakes you make with your astronomy. It really doesn’t affect me.
This is generally true, but from astronomy I am very familiar with studying subjects where we simply cannot get good data.
I remember in graduate school one student with a physics background saying a certain book wasn’t very good because it only gave the distance to Hyades to two decimal place. This distance is general considered the underlying basis of all stellar distance determinations. The other astronomy graduate students considered this hilarious, since the distance to the Hyades had be revised by a factor of two only a few years before the book was published. Even the two decimals given are not significant. We simply don’t know this kind of thing with great precision.
I think the same thing can be said about global temperatures 1000 years ago. We do not know this very accurately, and unless we develop time travel technology, probably never will. To do science in this area, you have to understand the limitations of your data.
Global temperatures have gone up a lot in the last 100 years. Who cares if it is now hotter than in the MWP.
It matters because the AGWers claim is that current temps can only be explained by current CO2 levels. If temps were higher when CO2 was lower that hurts that argument a lot. That’s one reason why these emails are important: they show a deliberate effort to kill the MWP.
Global temps probably underwent a similar rise around 1200.
The top scientist usually have huge egos and are top scientist in part because of self-promotion.
That’s fine for astronomy. No one is asking us to spend trillions of dollars to keep the Moon from crashing into the Earth.
It matters because the AGWers claim is that current temps can only be explained by current CO2 levels. If temps were higher when CO2 was lower that hurts that argument a lot. That’s one reason why these emails are important: they show a deliberate effort to kill the MWP.
It should be obvious to anyone that there are many factors that effect global climate. The question that should be studied is whether human caused CO2 increases is a factor effecting global climate and whether it might cause changes that will effect global climate in dangerous ways. Anyone who thinks CO2 is the only factor needed to explain all global climate changes is just naive. If these scientist were cooking there data to agree with the models, they should get what they deserve for doing it, but this really does not seem central to the issue of global warming.
Dendro is important, but not the only consideration at CRU.
They’re also the keepers of one of two major terrestrial instrumental temperature records. If it’s corrupt, then we’re down to GISS for instrumental record. That has its own problems.
Without a long instrumental record, we’re down to just satellite data. I wouldn’t think that to be a terribly solid basis for evaluating models.
Mike: They’ve been pushing CO2 as the primary cause of all perceived global warming (real or otherwise) for about 20 years now. Spending billions on the issue of CO2 nearly to the exclusion of all else, and proposing spending trillions, money that could be put to other uses. So the question of CO2 does in fact turn out to be quite central: researchers like this put it at the center, whereas others have been saying for some time that CO2 doesn’t look capable of doing all it’s cracked up to do. So this is a very big question indeed, and has been thrust to the center by the very people we’re discussing here.
Leave aside the notion that there hasn’t been any discernible warming trend in about 12 years, despite continuing increases in global CO2 levels. The fact is that if there is any real warming trend (increasingly called into question), there is much reason to think CO2 is a minor player at best. And if so, we’ve already wasted money and lives, with proposals on the table to waste much more money and many more lives. Thus, it matters a very great deal if there has been cooking of the numbers. And we’ve seen a growing body of evidence of just such number cooking in the last decade, with this latest revelation seeming to vindicate those who’ve been saying all along that the science on CO2 and warming is very bad. That matters a great deal.
Comments on this entry are closed.