[ale] Disappointed in the recent climate research hack

Tue Dec 1 22:26:45 EST 2009

Here's one more article.

This time in the WSJ.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

The author is a Professor of Meteorology from MIT.  He seems to not
know there is universal concensus that the AGW science is settled.

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
>
> This site is run by climate scientists. The link provided has some pertinent
> comments about the questions raised in this thread. In particular, the
> discussion of the open access (or lack thereof actually) is discussed by a
> researcher from Iceland (I think _they_ would support global warming :-) and
> the politics and financial interests that impede the proper flow of raw
> data.
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Jeff Hubbs <jhubbslist at att.net> wrote:
>>
>> ASHRAE, as in American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
>> Air-Conditioning Engineers?  I guess that lends Dr. Spauschus' input
>> more weight than someone from, say, the American Cheese Society...not to
>> press the ad hominem pedal too hard, but come on...
>>
>> Sure, it's "hard" to separate man-made input from natural input w.r.t.
>> global warming but a great many "hard" things are not impossible.
>> Building the Great Pyramids was hard, as were the Apollo landings
>> (actually, they weren't just "hard;" they were "haaahd").  Just off the
>> top of my head, it occurs to me that isotopic concentrations of methane
>> released through underground/undersea processes may differ enough from
>> that released from livestock that one could "fingerprint" methane in the
>> atmosphere to be able to tell what proportion of methane came from
>> where.  But that's just a guess; I don't know if that's really
>> possible.  But you get the idea:  if you fund really smart and
>> knowledgeable people, they can figure out all kinds of things that are
>> haaahd.  Defund them and/or subject them to the whims of ideologues and
>> fools, and people will just sit around going "duh."
>>
>> But if we start getting sustained daytime temperatures more than about
>> 104F across large sections of farmed land, we'll have a lot more to
>> worry about than whether the cause was man-made or not, because that's
>> the temperature at which photosynthesis stops working.
>>
>> Companies are forced to retool and change processes all the time;
>> there's nothing inherently special or unduly burdensome about that on
>> its face.
>>
>> The only things we know for sure are that certain atmospheric gases
>> drive the greenhouse effect and that human civilization produces
>> stupendous amounts of those very same gases.  What we are now trying to
>> ascertain is the extent to which the latter has had a distinct effect on
>> the former.  The US lags behind much of the rest of the world in that
>> science because of systematic defunding within the agencies that produce
>> it.
>>
>> Dow_Hurst wrote:
>> > I had noticed the scandal on FOX business report.  I've had my doubts
>> > about
>> > global warming ever since an ASHRAE fellow, Dr. Hans Spauschus,
>> > explained
>> > how hard it was to separate man made input from natural input into
>> > global
>> > warming effects.  Anyway, the consensus I took away was that man's input
>> > is
>> > miniscule compared to volcanic activity or ocean chlorine.  I may be
>> > wrong
>> > in my understanding...
>> >
>> > Opening up the code should be a priority since huge amounts of wealth
>> > are
>> > being transferred by government regulations from citizens to companies
>> > as
>> > the companies are forced to retool or change manufacturing processes.
>> >  Just
>> > look at what the cap and trade bill will do to our economy if it is
>> > implemented
>> > as it stands.  This is where the power of open source peer review could
>> > make
>> > a real difference for the plight of the common man.
>> > Dow
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> >
>> >> From: Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer at gmail.com>
>> >> Sent: Nov 27, 2009 12:45 PM
>> >> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux! <ale at ale.org>
>> >> Subject: Re: [ale] Disappointed in the recent climate research hack
>> >>
>> >> All,
>> >>
>> >> I've continued to try and read about the "climategate" emails and
>> >> source code release.
>> >>
>> >> This CBS article seems to be surprisingly well done for a mass media
>> >> report.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml
>> >>
>> >> Much of that article is discussing the release of CRU source code (it
>> >> was CRU that had the unauthorized release).  As I understand it the
>> >> CRU global temperature series  is 1 of 3 "respected" temperature
>> >> series reconstructions.  And if you read "Harry's" comments as he
>> >> works on the code, he is very frustrated with the lack of quality in
>> >> the data and code that he is working with.  This is the very code and
>> >> data that is providing a third of the support for global warming.
>> >>
>> >> Note that the CRU code has apparently never been released previously
>> >> for per review.  So the "embargo" process may apply to US based
>> >> research but it was apparently not followed at CRU.  Given that CRU
>> >> was one of the major drivers of the IPCC reports which in turn has
>> >> been the most relied upon report of global warming, it is all very
>> >> troubling.  At least to me it is troubling.
>> >>
>> >> I sincerely hope one of the major results of this process is that
>> >> source code, raw data, and data adjustments be opened up for public
>> >> access.  Agreed, it does not have to happen immediately, but much of
>> >> the code, data, and adjustments that were leaked are years old.
>> >>
>> >> FYI: The "hide the decline" comment is not a decline in measured
>> >> temps.  It is a decline in temp that one would get if just using tree
>> >> rings as a guide.  Apparently tree ring analysis would show the world
>> >> about half a degree colder than it really is for the last 50 years.
>> >> (Remember the entire global warming to date is just 7 10ths of a
>> >> degree since 1850, so a half degree is a huge discrepancy.  You may
>> >> think tree ring analysis is unimportant now that we have thermometers,
>> >> but the infamous "hockey stick" temperature chart that covers the last
>> >> 1000 years is primarily derived from tree ring analysis.  So if tree
>> >> ring analysis can routinely have .5 degree errors, then it is pretty
>> >> useless for trying to recreate historical temperatures.  The hockey
>> >> stick analysis in particular show\s just 2 or 3 tenths of a degree in
>> >> variation from 1000 to 1850, and then a 7 tenth degree increase since
>> >> then.
>> >>
>> >> Greg
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Greg Freemyer
>> >> <greg.freemyer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Jim,
>> >>>
>> >>> I hope you're right about the embargo process, but the one only chunk
>> >>> of source code I saw a reference to was supposedly 1999 code.  So if
>> >>> the embargo is 10 years it is ridiculous.  6 or 12 months would be
>> >>> fine.
>> >>>
>> >>> The few emails I seen quoted were also 10 year old emails, but I am
>> >>> not saying I think those should be public.  It is the source code to
>> >>> the models and the data they are using that I think should be handled
>> >>> under an open license of some sort.
>> >>>
>> >>> Greg
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I have a bit of insight into the research data issue (brother-in-law
>> >>>> works in the field that had the data loss):
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The data when first generated/collected is held in an embargo for a
>> >>>> period of time. This time period varies but is often for 6 months to
>> >>>> one year. This is done to allow time for the research team who did
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> work to collect it to also do the work to to write it up and present
>> >>>> it. It's pretty much a "geek cred" thing. It also allows time to do a
>> >>>> proper analysis to make sure that the data is not flawed in some way
>> >>>> _before_ it's made public.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> During the embargo time, the researches with access to the data are
>> >>>> not allowed to discuss the initial findings or disperse data copies.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Once the embargo period is over, the data is made fully available
>> >>>> along with the research findings and all the supporting papers.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Science does not (and probably should not) work on a release early,
>> >>>> release often process.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So the unauthorized data access was of embargo'ed data. Without
>> >>>> having
>> >>>> the details of the collection methodology, it is not possible to draw
>> >>>> any valid conclusions from. That's why the researchers spend so long
>> >>>> to do the writeups. They have to explain why certain data is not
>> >>>> valid
>> >>>> (hard) and other data is valid (very hard) and why their conclusion
>> >>>> is
>> >>>> what it is (extremely hard).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The schmuck who broke in had an agenda. He (most likely "he") has an
>> >>>> axe to grind and no understanding of the research process or why it
>> >>>> is
>> >>>> done the way it is. So now that incomplete data set will be "outed"
>> >>>> and be used to "justify" his cause. It will have little impact on the
>> >>>> actual research but will likely have great influence on the
>> >>>> scientifically illiterate congress critters.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Greg Freemyer
>> >>>> <greg.freemyer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> All,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Not sure everyone knows but a major climate research center was
>> >>>>> hacked
>> >>>>> recently and in addition to 1000 emails or so, some of their source
>> >>>>> code was published!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> In this age of OPEN research and government funding, why wasn't that
>> >>>>> code OPEN in the first place?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I don't care which side of the Global Warming debate you sit on, we
>> >>>>> should all feel it is to important to have the modeling code be
>> >>>>> published under a GPL (or similar license) and available for peer
>> >>>>> review.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> If one of you knows of the "best' license for this kind of use I
>> >>>>> want
>> >>>>> to contact my senator and congressman and tell them we need
>> >>>>> legislation that all federally funded climate change research should
>> >>>>> have both the data and the software models released to the public!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I encourage all OSS advocates to do the same.  This seems like an
>> >>>>> issue the requires a OSS philosophy more that any other I can think
>> >>>>> of.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> After all, if the government thinks climate change is worth
>> >>>>> implementing cap and trade over, then it is important enough to let
>> >>>>> the public know how the models work.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks
>> >>>>> Greg
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> Ale mailing list
>> >>>>> Ale at ale.org
>> >>>>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> >>>>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> >>>>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> James P. Kinney III
>> >>>> Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Ale mailing list
>> >>>> Ale at ale.org
>> >>>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> >>>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> >>>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Greg Freemyer
>> >>> Head of EDD Tape Extraction and Processing team
>> >>> Litigation Triage Solutions Specialist
>> >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregfreemyer
>> >>> Preservation and Forensic processing of Exchange Repositories White
>> >>> Paper -
>> >>>
>> >>> <http://www.norcrossgroup.com/forms/whitepapers/tng_whitepaper_fpe.html>
>> >>>
>> >>> The Norcross Group
>> >>> The Intersection of Evidence & Technology
>> >>> http://www.norcrossgroup.com
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Greg Freemyer
>> >> Head of EDD Tape Extraction and Processing team
>> >> Litigation Triage Solutions Specialist
>> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregfreemyer
>> >> Preservation and Forensic processing of Exchange Repositories White
>> >> Paper -
>> >>
>> >> <http://www.norcrossgroup.com/forms/whitepapers/tng_whitepaper_fpe.html>
>> >>
>> >> The Norcross Group
>> >> The Intersection of Evidence & Technology
>> >> http://www.norcrossgroup.com
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Ale mailing list
>> >> Ale at ale.org
>> >> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> >> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> >> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > No sig.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Ale mailing list
>> > Ale at ale.org
>> > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> > See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
>
> --
> --
> James P. Kinney III
> Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>

-- 
Greg Freemyer
Head of EDD Tape Extraction and Processing team
Litigation Triage Solutions Specialist
http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregfreemyer
Preservation and Forensic processing of Exchange Repositories White Paper -
<http://www.norcrossgroup.com/forms/whitepapers/tng_whitepaper_fpe.html>

The Norcross Group
The Intersection of Evidence & Technology
http://www.norcrossgroup.com