[ale] Disappointed in the recent climate research hack

Doug McNash dmcnash at charter.net
Wed Dec 2 13:40:11 EST 2009


It appears that the paradigm is shifting from the "consensus" of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to probing the depths of how deep the fraud goes and who stands to benefit.

For a somewhat complete summary of the current controversy read this:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf

Of course, the above will be dismissed a version of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy as most of the arguments for the "consensus" view of AGW are based on (Hat tip: James Taranto).

A simple rendition:

        Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
        Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
        Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

"This is an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy is employed to shift the definition of the original class to tautologically exclude the specific case or others like it." (Wikipedia)

Example here:

	You: All respectable scientists believe in AGW
	Me:  McKitrick doesn't believe in AGW
	You: McKitrick is not a respectable scientist.

(McKitrick is Canadian)

Similarly you argue:

Professor Lindzen does not believe in AGW. Lindzen does not believe smoking causes cancer.  Therefore, AGW must be true because Lindzen is obviously a kook since everybody know smoking causes cancer (another "consensus").  By the same logic it could be argued that the sun rises in the west because everything Lindzen asserts is false.

This is the Ad Hominem argument, attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. 

Here is another clever example:
   
        Turing thinks machines think.
        Turing lies with men.
        Therefore, machines don't think. 

Contrary to the consensus view here is a list of 450 peer reviewed papers that are skeptical of AGW.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/450_peer_reviewed_papers.pdf

None of them are by true Scotsmen.

I could go on but...Moving this back towards Linux,

Eric Raymond has some interesting comments on his blog starting with:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1431

Want to examine the leaked emails, documents and code yourself:

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206/Hadley_CRU_Files_%28FOI2009.zip%29

Most of it developed under linux.

(Sorry my mail agent seems to break the urls)
--
doug mcnash

---- Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com> wrote: 
> As far as I can tell the only consensus in the field is that CO2 and methane
> are "greenhouse gasses" and that an accumulation of them will cause a change
> in global average temperature. What is under hot debate, often with
> political and economic overtones and undercurrents, is how much change and
> how fast. It is well understood from analysis of Venus that a high CO2
> atmosphere will act like a thermal blanket.
> 
> Professor Lindzen is a very reasonable voice of opposition in some of the
> conclusions presented by committees of climate science paper reviewers. He
> also is an opponent of  linking smoking to lung cancer (he's a smoker). He
> does seem to have a particular dislike for the IPCC even though he has
> written substantially for the published IPCC reports.
> 
> >From my perspective the numbers of respectable scientists that disagree with
> the general trend of current climate science conclusions is a very tiny
> fraction of the number of scientists working in the field. Journalism is
> tasked with presenting "both sides" of complex issues and thus the contrary
> viewpoint gains equal attention even though the actual numbers of contrary
> advocates is minuscule compared to the whole group. It's quite difficult to
> find a contrary viewpoint to the general conclusions from within the field.
> So when one is found, they get a lot of media attention and that directly
> benefits their career. Notoriety can be of benefit in science as well as
> politics and religion.  :-)
> 
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer at gmail.com>wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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



More information about the Ale mailing list