Two perspectives: One Funny and One Serious

Here are two perspectives on the Climate Gate scandal.  First a brilliant piece of satire by Jon Stewart that although quite funny, shows how serious the scandal is.  Then an analysis by the lawyers from Powerline who look at the case from a legal perspective.  Frankly both pieces are devastating.

Meanwhile, the lawyers who write the Powerline blog have an interesting perspective on the criminal aspects of the case.

There's no question that it's a fraud, but whether the "scientists" who have been promoting the global warming hoax have committed felonies is not yet clear. They have taken countless millions of dollars in government money and used it to produce fraudulent results, which may very well violate criminal statues both here and in the U.K. And the "scientists'" destruction of data that was subject to valid Freedom of Information Act requests may have been criminal under British law; that's a subject on which I am not an expert.

I'd love to see the hoaxers behind bars, but it isn't likely to happen, if only because the government officials who would have to bring charges are their allies. Criminal liability aside, the fact is that these "scientists" nearly pulled off the greatest fraud in world history. Compared to them, hoaxers like Enron and Bernie Madoff were pikers. The global warming alarmists sought to impose trillions of dollars in losses on the world economy, while living high off the hog on taxpayer money. If Bernie Madoff gets life, what would be the appropriate sentence for Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, and the others?

Comments

[Nick]

Gore the bore cancels Copenhagen!

[James L.]

The Daily Show bit is funny but can you find a commentator from a blog that's hasn't already made up its mind about global warming-a la Powerline? It would be nice to hear a report from someone who has no ax to grind on this subject.

[Tom]

Looks like the editorial board of the Republic has finally discovered Climategate and they are shocked, SHOCKED to find that climate scientists have never actually released the data upon which their apocalyptic predictions are based. Perhaps they'll start actually covering the story now...

[Nick]

James L

Anyone that has not made up their mind
on Climgate has been sleeping or throwing
craps in Vegas.

[Nick]

Agnostic found.

The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle: Because Computers Do Lie When Humans Tell Them To

From Cube Antics, by Robert Greiner

I’m coming to you today as a scientist and engineer with an agnostic stand on global warming.

If you don’t know anything about “Climategate” (does anyone else hate that name?) Go ahead and read up on it before you check out this post, I’ll wait.

Back? Let’s get started.

First, let’s get this out of the way: Emails prove nothing. Sure, you can look like an unethical ******* who may have committed a felony using government funded money; but all email is, is talk, and talk is cheap.

Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

Line 8

This is where the magic happens. Remember that array we have of valid temperature readings? And, remember that random array of numbers we have from line two? Well, in line 4, those two arrays are interpolated together.

The interpol() function will take each element in both arrays and “guess” at the points in between them to create a smoothing effect on the data. This technique is often used when dealing with natural data points, just not quite in this manner.

The main thing to realize here, is, that the interpol() function will cause the valid temperature readings (yrloc) to skew towards the valadj values.(warming)

It’s not as cut-and-try as one might think. First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce.

This means that all of those billions of dollars we spent as a global community to combat global warming may have been for nothing.

[todd]

"t just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce."

Mr Greiner has a few problems, first being he isn't showing where any of this has actually been used in published research. Beyond that , scientists try all sorts of methods to understand what is happening with data and he fails to attempt to understand what and why someone was trying to do here. Greiner should now that and the fact he does not makes me question his knowledge or his honesty.

Finally, Greiner has a real problem in that the next lines in the code look like this:

;
;filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy+yearlyadj,tslow=tslow
;oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=20
;

This is the only time the yearlyadj is used but as anyone can see that part is actually commented it, meaning the yearlyadj is NEVER USED when this code was run.

The only time something similar is used it is plotted on a graph and labeled as corrected MXD data vs. uncorrected. Hardly an attempt to hide the truth.

NIck, it is clear to me you have no idea what you are talking about with this and just are relying on copy and pasting things that agree with your beliefs. Since you can't understand or won't spend the time to actually verify the claims the people you copy and paste from maybe you should stop before you further make a fool of yourself.

[Trent Humphries]

Todd,

"Never Used" is certainly a strong term. Can you be sure? If it is never used, why did they place it within the program? I think its existence shows that it HAS been used, just maybe not all of the time. Oftentimes I would comment in a kludge just in case it was needed later. When there was no more need for it, I would remove it altogether. If the code was not possibly needed, it would have been removed.

The big thing here is that they have disposed of data, dodged freedom of information requests, and work in a very closed environment. Any bit of scrutiny invariably turns up more embarrassment.

You have to admit the whole thing is at best a sloppy mess that hits their credibility at least a little, right?

[todd]

Trent,
I said it was never used when that particular code was run. Clearly files change and things get added and deleted. This code was essentially to plot data and for all we know yearlyadj was used to test plotting code before the programmer had other data. IDL is used in this case to do some plotting and once they got an output there is no reason to go back and remove anything since the code is not going to be used again. My point is that this whole argument is silly to begin with since we don't even know what this code was used for. However, I did find this from someone who seems to have matched this code with the paper (and also discusses the fact yearlyadj was commented out) :
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php

As to getting rid of 30 year old magnetic tapes which they used to compile data sources - it is an interesting criticism considering these tapes would likely be unreadable unless one had a working system of the kind they had been recorded with. There is a great deal of data out there - from astronomical readings to geological data - that was originally recorded on some now obsolete medium. Scientists in many fields have this problem and demanding they either provide the original format or a direct transcription after decades seems a little absurd.

The one point I would criticize them for, and I have mentioned this on this blog, is the way they seem to handle FOI requests. It is my understanding they are bombarded with FOI requests, as many as 50 a week, from people who have mocked them and publicly impugned their credibility and honesty. Clearly they took these efforts personally and were seeking to frustrate some of these people. What they should have done is ask their employer if they should spend their time doing the research they are being paid to do or responding to FOI requests. If the former, then their employer likely needed to hire dedicated staff and attorneys to handle these requests and deal with the issues of non-disclosure agreements, international differences in laws, and determining what were valid and invalid requests.

[Trent Humphries]

todd,

The point is we don't know ANYTHING about how the code was run in production at what interval. There is simply no reason to trust these guys on ANYTHING they say. The only thing plausible to remove the stench is to replot the data which is now IMPOSSIBLE because they destroyed the data.

Your damned right I expect the original data to be preserved. It is not that difficult. I still have important data generated from the eighties. I used the PRINT button if I thought the data could not be moved from its previous state (which it could have been and still could be, if it existed.) Wanting to see the original data is far from absurd.

This is science as it would be run by the Tucson City Council. You take the government funding, you open up your research and code. If you can't, you better find someone else to write your checks.

[todd]

Trent - actually we do know. I think the link I posted makes a good case. Also, the use of the code is obvious - to plot these graphs - it is not used in 'production.'

Even in the case you present you made decisions about what we be useful to keep for the future. CRU did the same thing by taking the data and removing noise and bad readings and compiled it into something useable. All of that is intact.

Lastly, there is no requirement for code or data of researchers who are receiving funding to be open. In the case of the CRU part of the problem is they have put up much of their data but some they have not been able to release because of the laws of the many disparate countries and sources the data was collected from.

[Trent Humphries]

todd,

No we don't know. We know what they tell us, but it cannot be verified because they destroyed the data, which was entirely unnecessary. The difference is that you trust these people and I don't. The scientific model is on my side. Faith has no place in scientific method.

You say,

"there is no requirement for code or data of researchers who are receiving funding to be open"

which is exactly the problem. Again, the scientific method requires that you show all your work and it be replicated by others in reality, not by a closed computer model. You don't get to pick and choose your challengers. The warmists have not been exposed to a tenth of the scrutiny given Einstein's theories, and he was a giant compared to these people.

"they have not been able to release because of the laws of the many disparate countries and sources the data was collected from."

This doesn't even make any sense, and was pulled directly from your backside.

All in all, though, you are my favorite global warming disciple as you argue actual points rather than dogma.

[todd]

Trent,
Source code are tools, the specific models and such used is explicitly provided in the papers, that is how science works.

Einstein is an interesting example because many of his theories can only recently have been verified. Remember, the work he is most known for was largely theoretical. I don't think he is a good example.

I am happy to continue the discussion but claiming I am pulling things out of my backside is not really conducive. Also, the claim I made is absolutely accurate.

Many countries do not operate like the US in trying to make data freely available (although this trend was somewhat curtailed post 9/11). You have to specially request data and/or buy and are subject to whatever terms are imposed by the government or institution. See for instance in Germany - http://www.dwd.de ( you have to look for their climate data. Sorry in German)

Even in the US there are actual commercial enterprises set up to sell data from some sources - such as climatesource.com .

[Trent Humphries]

AGW isn't theoretical? Really? A science that depends upon computer models that have very little actual predictive use or verification? Einstein's stuff made predictive statements, and such as the technology was available at the time, were verified. Skeptics went after him with relish and weren't demonized.

As for the data, we are talking about the historical, pre-eighties data that they deleted. If each country has that data on meteorological ebay, then it wouldn't be destroyed, right? As for the new data, it could certainly be obtained in the same manner as any other group gets it. It is not the data they input that is the main issue here, it is how they build that data into the model. THAT is what is being hidden and it has NOTHING to do with purchased data.

[todd]

Trent,
No, seriously. Much of Einstein's work was not verified until well after he published or even after he was long dead. Look at all the predictions from general relativity. I don't say this to belittle or suggest his predications and theorems should not have carried weight, just pointing this out.

I do find it interesting how in the public's mind there was no question about Einstein's theories but other things like evolution through the mechanism of natural selection, which is probably the most studied and proven idea in modern science, is somehow 'just a theory.' The difference between Einstein's theories and climate change or evolution through natural selection in this context is that no well-heeled interests were seeking to discredit the research.

Now here is the part were we here about how 'the left' wants climate change to be true, etc, etc. I must admit some confusion on what the term 'left' means to conservatives but let's think for a minute about what the most *likely* short to medium term outcomes would be if climate change affects policy. One major thing would likely be a very strong case for more reliance on nuclear energy, which is hardly something people on the left are going to get behind. We might have agreements which will have the outcome of retarding standard of living for people in developing nations - not a strong left wing rallying point. Finally, we will see some type 'carbon exchange' which will likely make some people very wealthy who are likely the same people who are currently wealthy.

As to the data question, I think there is confusion. The issue of seeking approval for disclosure has to do with the FOI requests, not any supposed data that was lost.

Finally, I think that universities keeping intellectual property derived from public funding is an absolute travesty. However, in the US this goes back to the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 that allowed universities to do so. Now the expectation is that universities make money from research so you see these ridiculous things like licensing data.

[Steve F.]

The nice thing about this is that the folks involved in this are going to have to release ALL data so it can be analyzed by anyone willing to do so.

If they don't, they're dead in the arena of public opinion.

If Global Warming is real, they need to get cracking on this NOW, take their lumps, and defend their findings against any and all.

But they won't. They'll hope that their collaborators in the media and in government agencies will cover for them. So far, that ain't working out too hot...

[Nick]

TODD,

PHIL JONES TICKLES MY FUNNY BONE WHEN
HE ASSUMES HE CAN ELIMINATE THE WARMING
PERIOD FROM 900 T0 1200 AND NO ONE
WILL NOTICE!

Babble on with your real religious ferver.

[Nick]

1974 Climate science.

The threat of a new ice age loomed so large in 1974 that American intelligence collated a report on the likely effects. Maurizio Morabito unearthed it.

A high-priority government report warns of climate change that will lead to floods and starvation. ‘Leading climatologists’ speak of a ‘detrimental global climatic change’, threatening ‘the stability of most nations’. The scenario is eerily familiar although the document - never made public before - dates from 1974. But here’s the difference: it was written to respond to the threat of global cooling, not warming. And yes, it even mentions a ‘consensus’ among scientists.

[Nick]

American Physical Society.

It now appears that 230 members of the society, a hardly insignificant number, have joined in this petition, according to Declan McCullagh of the CBS News blog Taking Liberties:

In the aftermath of the embarrassing data leaks, however, Princeton's Happer says that about half of the APS members they've contacted now support the petition (which, after all, is only asking for an independent analysis of the science involved).
Of the signatories so far, Happer says, 77 are fellows of major scientific societies, 14 members of the National Academies, one is a Nobel laureate, and there is a large number of authors of major scientific books and recipients of prizes and awards for scientific research. He adds: "Some have accepted a career risk by signing the petition. The 230 odd signatories can hardly be dismissed as lightweights compared to those who spread the message of impending climate disaster."

This has become a common refrain: Hans von Storch, director of the Institute for Coastal Research, calls the climate change axis a "cartel."

Todd,
More cut and paste about people that I
agree with.

[todd]

Nick,
APS - someone got their members list an sent an unsolicited email to members seeking support. APS has 46,000 members. 230 is an insignificant portion.

You have also posted a statement, post on the hilariously named 'American Thinker', from someone who claims unspecified non-linear differential equations in unspecified climate models are not solvable by computers. Doubtlessly you have no idea what a non-linear equation is, but you seem convinced by this uncheckable, unexplained claim to post here. You seem to have a real cognitive problem in evaluation arguments. Please keep posting though, it just makes you look silly.