Climategate Anniversary Funnies

About a year ago the Climategate files were released and things have been interesting. According to the Warm side, there is nothing particularly interesting about the files and I suppose they’re right.

Trimming inconvenient data, tricks to hide the trims, fixing the peer-review, and so on are all S.O.P. across all branches of science. We’ve also learned that one is not supposed to question the science, which makes me wonder why these people aren’t supporting ideas like the Celestial Spheres theory, since it was established science and to question that theory would be bad, bad, bad.

Anyway, what brought this bit of snarkiness of is a hilarious piece on WUWT, that does an excellent parody of the CRU crew. It’s something of an insider joke, one should have a good idea of what’s happened to “get it.”

Everything is consistent with Global Warming
The CRU at East Anglia has released a new study which proves conclusively that Global Warming caused Climate Change, which in turn caused Climate Disruption, which in turn is the cause of everything else. Based on previous research by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster linking global warming with the decrease in the number of pirates over the last few hundred years, and new research showing that the current flat trend in global temperatures correlates with a recent resurgence of piracy, especially in the waters off of Somalia, Phil Jones et al, have submitted a new research paper to the Journal of Unbelievably New Claptrap (JUNC) that proves everything is caused by Global Warming.

The rest: Climategate Anniversary Humor

Dr. Jones Confirms “How Science is Done”

In a previous post – Climategate, NASA, and so on… – I made a few remarks on why Climategate is no big thing and that all the scientific practices (shoddy data handling, using only convenient data, insuring correct pal-review of papers, etc.) were simply SOP.

Apparently another belief that some of us had about “proper science” has been shot down. Dr. Phil Jones makes it very clear that sharing data (so that it can be fact-checked) is not standard practice in science:

Prof Jones today said it was not ’standard practice’ in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.

See WUWT for the article: Phil Jones on the hot seat – not sharing data is “standard practice”

Since Big Climate is setting the standard here let’s remember this the next time Big Pharma tries to hide the data on a drug study. It’s SOP and quite Ok. The same, of course, goes for Big Tobacco. Big Green funds a study that claims some harmless chemical will kill the Earth? No prob, they don’t have to support the claim with anything like actual data. Heaven forbid some evil cynic should check their (or Pharma’s) work.

I feel down here. I used to think that proper scientific procedure involved a certain amount of openness so that work could be duplicated, fact checked, critiqued, etc. Especially publicly funded research.

Update: Heh. Some WUWT comments

• …Which demonstrates that any correlation between ‘climate science’ and real science is purely coincidental.
• (commenter) did my undergrad in geology some years ago. There, it was standard practice to hide your data – but ONLY until you’d published your research, because you didn’t want to get “scooped”. Small wonder that so many geologists think AGW is a load of crap.

And then there’s the THE BIG-SCIENCE POKER GAME which provides a certain amount of justification for keeping data close to the chest.

JoNova has a few remarks about acedemia and their “standards” for science:  Science associations give science a bad name

Another update:

It seems that they can’t write software, either. Now, since the conclusions of these climate “scientists” are the primary drivers behind bazillions of $$ in taxes, fees, and whatever doesn’t it seem reasonable that they should have some standards for the code they write (and the science that they do?) Colleges are full of kids who speak fluent code and who, I’m sure, would be happy to work in a prestigious science environment. Perhaps some of them should be hired? I’m sure it’d be cheap enough.

And why is climate science held to a far lower standard than any other science?

Physicists Weigh in on Climategate

The Institute of Physics defies “science” and acknowledges the importance of the Climategate emails.

From WUWT:

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

Here’s the rest: Institute of Physics on Climategate

Just a few dozen more of these and we may even get Al Gore to admit that CAGW is dead.

Climate “Science” Credibility and Communication

On WUWT Dr. Judith Curry discusses the background of the collapse of trust of climate science and the need for better communication between camps. Other than the amusing “denial machine” remarks it’s not bad, even though it reads more like a lecture than an embracing of different camps. In my eyes, anyway.  Oh, and there’s also the convenient lack of acknowledgment that the pro-warming camp outspends the skeptic camp by, at least, thousands to one.

(Update: I want to note that I respect her for doing this, stepping out of one’s comfort zone into what many perceive as the “enemy” camp is tough. Kudos to her. Apparently she’s being treated much more fairly on WUWT than she is on alarmist sites. )

Here’s the post: On the Credibility of Climate Research, Part II: Towards Rebuilding Trust

A link to part 1 is in the post.

(Update: Here’s a reply to that post: Judith, I love ya, but you’re way wrong …)

One of the comments sums up the entire issue for me, but many of the other comments are also very much worth reading.

PJP (07:37:47) :

Dr. Curry is correct in her assessment that the core issue is one of trust. Unfortunately, many of the primary players on the AGW side have compromised that trust to the point where it is extremely unlikely that those particular players can ever regain it.

Its not just a matter of them being very poor at communicating their expertise, the fact is, they have compromised the very idea of their own expertise by using inappropriate statistical analyses, obviously compromised data, incredibly amateur programming, and various “tricks” which could be grounds for instant rejection of any PhD thesis.

To compound this, the display of arrogance when called on these facts was simply stunning, basically amounting to “I am the expert, I have the title “professor” before my name and PhD after it, my opinion is all that counts, yours is worthless and I refuse to even consider it”. That arrogance is what finally put the final nail in the coffin.

In addition, we see a complete lack of scientific method. From the incestuous and tightly controlled peer review system exposed in the CRU emails, to the refusal to share data and methods to enable others to verify their results to the jump to the conclusion that temperature rises are solely caused by anthropogenic CO2, even if that requires the modern equivalent of “the ether”, a magical component necessary to make their models work, namely “forcing” which appears to be a purely mythical dimensionless quantity which can be applied as a multiplier wherever and whenever required to the fact that looking at historical projections from these people and these models shows a large divergence, and a refusal to acknowledge that they were wrong then, and are likely to be wrong now.

We see cherry picking of data to get the desired result. We see these same results disagreeing with current reality. Even though unable to explain why the divergence with current measurements, the “experts” absolutely insist that although they are completely ignorant of why the divergence, that that are completely justified in ignoring this discrepancy between theory and practice for current data, but absolutely insist on its integrity for 1,000+ years prior.

This is ether supreme stupidity or supreme arrogance. In either case, it is undeserving of trust.

The MET Office seem to have understood the issue (somewhat), as does Dr Curry. However, the answer is not rehabilitation of the current crop of “experts” and data, it is starting from scratch, with people of integrity and an open process to ensure that integrity is not compromised by the numerous interested parties on both sides.

Update:

Just a thought… since Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Co. are far closer to the reality of global warming than is the Al Gore crowd why are they the ones to collect all the insults and slime? Seems to me the the “denier camp” has nothing to apologize for and the Alarmist camp does. It’s the alarmist camp that needs to be a whole lot less condescending here.

That is, if communication is really what we’re interested in. And no, we’re not talking about scientists who might differ by a couple tenths of a degree or so on the reality of warming or whether the trend is slightly positive or slightly negative. We talking about Gore & Co and the voices that oppose him/them.

Update:

Alarmists like to slime the skeptic camp by claiming that BIG OIL funds said skeptics. Here’s a clipped list entities who have provided funding for England’s Climate Research Unit (CRU,) see if you recognize any of them (full list is here, at the bottom of the page.) Big Oil also funds other pro-warming research projects.

British Petroleum
Central Electricity Generating Board
Department of Energy,
Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA),
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
Eastern Electricity
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
Shell
Sultanate of Oman
United States Department of Energy
United States Environmental Protection Agency

I just had to add this comment from the same WUWT post. It nicely sums up why some of us started on the skeptic side, not the believer side.

A lil analogy: if a man comes to your house, and says it will burn down if you dont give him the contents of your wallet… you will be suspicious, if the man is fingering a pack o matches.. most of us joe six packs will be reaching for the shot gun, not the wallet. Now if the man has a gang of known arsonists with him to boot(extreme environmentalists) It will not take much for us to start shooting.

Update:

Other blogs are chiming in on this discussion. Lucia, of The Blackboard, adds her comments and is also building a list of the other blogs that are participating: On the Credibility of Climate Research: The Blackboard Responds

Climategate, NASA, and so on…

Now, to be fair (why?) I should point out that the warming advocates see nothing in the climategate situation that’s damaging to the science or the message. This means that modern science is in much worse shape that we thought.

• Losing/deleting data is Standard Operating Procedure (SOP);
• Making efforts to keep opposing points of view out of the “peer reviewed” literature is Ok;
• Controlling the “peer review” is recommended;
• Throwing out inconvenient data and keeping the “good” data (hide the decline) is A-Ok;
• It’s Ok to use one tree to support your message if that’s the only tree that supports your message. The other few hundred can be tossed with no problem;
• Keeping on message is good (“…that there is no warming… is a travesty…”);
• Hiding data from those who might criticize your work (even though they own the data, since it’s publicly funded and not classified) is the recommended procedure;
• Incompetent technique (eg: hockey stick creation) is fine if it supports the message;
• Avoiding FOIA requests is a respectable thing to do;
• Flushing other “peer reviewed” research (hundreds of papers proving the medieval warming period, for example) because it doesn’t support the message is a good thing to do.
• Adjusting data until it fits the message is recommended.

Of course, if any of us did any of that in our college science classes we would have flunked and our advisors would have recommended something like Sociology or Alinski Studies. This is just another indication that college/university does not prepare one for the real world (but it can be a great indoctrination experience.)

However, if you’re a professional (climate) scientist then all of the above procedures are recommended, if not encouraged. Somehow I don’t think any of these people could get a job in private industry, where certain standards are legally required and enforced. Imagine if any company treated its tax records this way. Think the IRS (and its many supporters) would say, “it’s really meaningless, you should trust their numbers anyway?”

Now, with the understanding that the Climategate files are really meaningless, since what they show is simply SOP for modern science, I’m going to post my collection of Climategate links. Just as an excercise, mind you. By the way, the US media agrees entirely with the “meaningless” comment, which is why the issue isn’t being covered by them.

But Why Would I Bother If It’s Meaningless????  Oh, just because it’s fun and because I used to respect groups like NASA before they flushed their scientific standards. Seems that NASA has been following the recommended FOIA procedures:

In August 2007, I (Christopher Horner) submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (and RealClimate.org co-founder).

I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.

Here’s the rest of the article: Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive — Part One)

Climategate (and related) links:

• CRU puts public data under lock and key (Aug 09) “On July 31, 2009, the purge of public data at CRU reached levels “unprecedented” in its recorded history. Climate Audit reader Super-Grover said that the data purge was “worse” than we expected.”
• Harvard Prof taken down by reply – He says, “The content of these a few personal emails has no impact what-so-ever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming.” The page also includes links to articles and a plea to the environmental movement.
• Finnish videos on climate and climategate – english transcript
• Unprecedented Warming? A Look at CRU Emails and the Medieval Warm Period
• Nice summary of Climategate – “It’s beyond belief that the mainstream media can’t see the devastating importance of the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) known as Climategate. The blindness cancels the claim they’re society’s watchdog. Left wing journalist Amy Goodman said when writing about the Bush administration, ”You know governments are going to lie, but not the media.”” Heh. Does anyone believe that last statement anymore? 🙂
• Eco site takes a balanced view. An ECO site?????? Aren’t they all in the pocket of the Commies, UN, and Al Gore? Maybe not…
• Independent review of Penn State U?
• BigJournalism articles one, two, three – Their climategate series.
• NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation – NASA follows the above mentioned rules.
• Coleman TV special on feds manipulating data– Followup to above link.
• Son of Climategate! Scientist says feds manipulated data – inconvenient data stations removed. Or maybe it was Ok (LOL wut?) and these people should fire their PR fiirms?
• Climategate: The Truth Hurts When It Hits You in the Head – “What do Tiger Woods and Phil Jones of East Anglia University in Britain have in common? They both got hit in the head by a model.”
• Why it matters, from WUWT, long version of the same from SPPI
• Very nice essay (long) on why it matters – WUWT guest post

And Now, Some Light Reading, from Amazon.com

Climategate: The Crutape Letters (Volume 1)

Climategate: A Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam

The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds)

Books On Climategate and the Hockey Stick

Looking for some good reading?

On Amazon UK: The Hockey Stick Illusion;Climategate and the Corruption of Science

The Hockey Stick Illusion, on Amazon.co.uk

Amazon UK says: Part scientific history and part detective story, The Hockey Stick Illusion tells the extraordinary tale of the iconic global warming graph (created by the US climatologist Michael Mann), the global panic about climate change that it has helped to feed, and the tireless efforts of a lone amateur researcher, Steve McIntyre, that have comprehensively discredited it.

Amazon US has Climategate: The Crutape Letters (Volume 1)

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters

Amazon’s description says: The Climategate scandal covered from beginning to end–from ‘Hide the Decline’ to the current day. Written by two authors who were on the scene–Steven Mosher and Tom Fuller–Climategate takes you behind that scene and shows what happened and why. For those who have heard that the emails were taken out of context–we provide that context and show it is worse when context is provided. For those who have heard that this is a tempest in a teacup–we show why it will swamp the conventional wisdom on climate change. And for those who have heard that this scandal is just ‘boys being boys’–well, boy. It’s as seamy as what happened on Wall Street.

Climategate: The Crutape Letters

Watt’sUpWithThat has an update on the new Climategate book. Anthony Watts says:

If you tried earlier and could not purchase this great book, it is online now at Amazon and ready for purchase…

I’ve read the book, and it appears to be an accurate and detailed portrayal of the history not only of the Climategate events and the players, but also of the events leading up to it. I’m flattered that this book mentions me and my surfacestations project several times. I was interviewed for the book, and this website is featured prominently–and they borrowed liberally from both the posts and the comments.

For those of you that want to follow a detective story, this one has as the twists and turns of Mickey Spillane with a Hardy Boys approach to a matter of fact story line. I highly recommend it.

See WUWT for more: Climategate: The CRUtape Letters now online at Amazon.com

New Scientists Mag Backpedals on Climategate?

New Scientist Mag, well known for it’s strongly supportive stance of the AGW hypothesis, seems to have backpedaled somewhat on the “Himalayan Glaciers Gone by 2035” statements. They also seem to have acknowledged that Climategate has damaged the credibility of the “climate scientists.”

Here’s the story: New Scientist Magazine Backpeddles In CYA Move and Acknowledges Climate Science Has Been Damaged by the Climategate Emails

Speaking of Climategate, there’s a new book out on that very subject. Check out the WUWT announcement, here: first book on Climategate

Update: JoNova chimes in on the subject, points out that the story may be getting some traction, and adds some good points about the “quality” of the  IPPC process. WUWT also has an update on the story and more than a few comments.

• JoNova: Is the media awakening?
• Well, maybe not.
• WUWT: IPCC to retract claim on Himalayan Glacier Melt – Pachauri’s “arrogance” claim backfires
• The Reference Frame remarks on the quality of the IPCC process: IPCC vs Pachauri: 2035 vs 2350
• SPPI: World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
• EUreferendum: Pachauri: there’s money in them glaciers

Update: WUWT prints IPCC “retraction” of glacier story. IPCC admits error on Himalayan glacier melt fiasco