6. Climate Change — Those hacked e-mails: YouTube #climategate #swifthack

Potholer54 is geologist turned science journalist that is semi-retired to Oz. His videos are always clear and to the point. You’ll want to watch this one 🙂

Posted via web from TweetingDonal’s Temporary Insanities

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “6. Climate Change — Those hacked e-mails: YouTube #climategate #swifthack

  1. I think you’re missing the point. I have a day job
    which takes up a considerable amount of time.
    zum Beispiel Ich interessiere mich fĂĽr vieles,
    was eigentlich sehr wenig mit Klimatologie zu tun
    hat. Deswegen habe ich keine Zeit, durch zigtausend
    wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen zu durchstöbern. Aus
    diesem Grund verlasse ich mich auf den MSM(Main stream
    Media) und erwarten, dass der mir halbwegs die Wahrheit
    ĂĽbermittelt.

    When you’ve done translating that, you’ll see
    what I mean!

    And by the way, those mails are very incriminating.
    Just ask Hans von Storch!

    • Nein, ich bin einverstanden. My job is quite taxing when it comes to time. I have plenty of other interests, although I must admit that lately this one seems the most important, so it’s getting the lion’s share of my spare time.

      I’m not missing the point, I’m just disagreeing 🙂

      Main stream media cannot possibly keep up with the details, much less understand them. And editors want circulation more than accuracy when it comes to scientific detail, pushing them off in the direction of sensationalism. The amount of factual information that comes from the MSM in the United States continues to decline. I’m prone to getting my news from the BBC, the Guardian, and Al Jazeera.

      As to Professor von Storch, he has publicly admitted a bias, specifically against both Mann and Jones because of the great Hockeystick battle… I listen to his input, and Pielke’s (both of them) with caution and reach my own decisions.

  2. One more observation Kevin King, and I’ll stop. An affectation of moral outrage and a lecture about scientific integrity, based upon documents that were purloined and published without any consent from any of the principals pretty well destroys your point. Your moral outrage is based around what amounts to a theft. Not exactly starting on the moral high ground are you? You appear to be having a hissy fit about raw data that requires considerable additional effort and information to properly interpret. Was it repeatable? Yes. Have other sites reached the same conclusion through independent means? Yes. Does it measure up to scientific standards. Most certainly.

    Tell you what, you give me all your data… all of it… don’t tell me what it is… bank accounts, work emails, private emails, tax codes, employee ID (if they use those where you work), social security number, checking transactions. Send it to me in a heap… I’ll take it off to some virtual corner, then re-spin it, arrange it to my liking, then publish it on a web site. Perhaps I’ll attempt to prove you are a felon, perhaps a sex offender. How much would you like to bet that I can take the information and fabricate a credible argument that you are some sort of criminal?

    I won’t take the same bet, because I know how the big smear and the big lie work. I’ve been the victim of smear campaigns before. I don’t need to learn that lesson.

  3. At the risk of spinning you up even more, you may wish to share your views with Potholer54, the creator of this video.

    With regard to your points for consideration, I mostly agree with the points themselves. What I have been unable to determine based on the information that I can gain access to, is whether or not this is in fact the common approach, or if these were selected for maximum embarrassment. Having worked with PhD’s in Physics, Aeronautics, Mathematics, Electrical Engineeering, etc to handle simulations we used in DoD projects, I am familiar with the mess they can create when it comes to computer anything. (My background in Physics and degree in Computer Science lent a hand in bringing it back together). Since I cannot assert knowledge about the entire project, only the part that someone with apparent ill will has chose to publish in an unauthorized fashion, I won’t assume that it’s all like this. It could be, or not. Rumour has it that they’re about to re-write a bunch of this, but I haven’t heard it officially. There are rumblings that sound like they may be headed that way though: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091205.html.

    I’ve built and discarded thousands of lines of code in the process of testing other code, or testing a new model, or creating a truth model to run error calculations against. Most of it was as ugly as what I’ve seen in the hacked/leaked code sets. I don’t know where they found this pile of code. I can say that what I can see does not look good, and could be the sort of thing that a Mathematician or Physicist would create. That said, it proves little.

    The other parts of your argument do not hold much water though. Do you really believe that there were only 1,000 emails on that server over the last 13 years? I’ve got more than 2,000 emails in my folders just from 2009.

    Have you read all of the related threads and grasp the discussion before leaping to the conclusion? No, you haven’t, because they were not all released. The content release was determined by the aforementioned malefactor, someone with an axe to grind, who did not release everything, just what they felt could do the most harm.

    All of the papers have been out there in public view, but no one force fed them to you. They were right where they were supposed to be, in the public eye, a source of open debate for thousands of interested people. If you had spent the money and taken the time to track down the articles cited in Nature, Science, The Journal(s) of Geophysical Research, and similar publications you would be fully aware of the papers discussed, the articles cited. I don’t have them all, but I have a lot of them, just to make sure I understood what was going on. If you haven’t made that effort, then you have no claim in the matter. I am certain that the BBC would not be interested in publishing all the contents of the technical journals of the world.

  4. A hopeless attempt to trivialise and play down
    something which all rational and objective people
    recognise as indefensible.

    You forgot to mention the two other most damning
    pieces of evidence which have been cited just
    as often as the quotes you highlighted. They
    are:

    The attempts by Mann and Jones et al
    to control the publication of scientific
    papers that they considered “ideologically”
    incorrect. This simply cannot be spun or
    played down. This is fraud and should result
    in a criminal investigation.

    The attempts to conceal and hide data.
    They deleted data in direct breach
    of the law.

    You also mentioned that Trenbarth published
    a paper where he expresses his concerns w.r.t
    the lack of increase in global temperatures and his
    inability to account for it.
    Your argument is totally disingenuous. How many
    people in the wider world were aware of the
    existence of this paper? Did the BBC report it?
    Did you? Oh please.

    I now quote you part of a speech made by a
    very famous scientist that encapsulates everything
    that is wrong with “climate research” as demonstrated
    in the leaked emails.

    “But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing
    in Climate Science. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a
    principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
    utter honesty—-a kind of leaning over backwards.
    For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should
    report everything that you think might make it invalid
    not only what you think is right about it: other causes that
    could possibly explain your results; and things you thought
    of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and
    how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell
    they have been eliminated.
    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must
    be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can
    —if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—-
    to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and
    advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all
    the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree
    with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have
    put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you
    want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those
    things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for
    the theory; but that the finished theory makes something
    else come outright, in addition.
    In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information
    to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not
    just the information that leads to judgment in one particular
    direction or another”

    I have a physics degree and know how rigorous science can be.
    Furthermore I’ve got more than 10 years of commercial experience
    in software design, integration and deployment. I’ve also
    worked for more than 2 years on live production systems.

    Please consider the following:

    The mess that calls itself source code, Hard coded references
    to files in someones home directory!!! Hardly portable software then.

    The lack of intelligible self-documentation
    in the code

    no mention of a versioning system(CVS someone, obviously
    SVN is far too modern)

    A continuous build system somebody!!!
    christ at one point the guy writing the code took 2 days to compile work that worked
    previously…

    UNIT TESTS!!!

    I could go on but I’m only getting more wound up!!! these guys get paid millions
    for this crap and you shouldn’t be letting them off the hook.

Comments are closed.