[ale] Disappointed in the recent climate research hack

Tue Dec 8 10:26:52 EST 2009

Start here:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+research+peer+review+of+temperature+adjustment&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Oxg&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart

The vast majority of peer reviewed papers have published all their data
(with some exception based on licensing of data from commercial sources - I
think this is very bad form) as required for proper validation. Some, for
various reasons, have not. The stragglers lack of raw data however does not
impact the analysis performed on other data.

Just as the cold-fusion fraudsters were publicly and vehemently castigated
by the scientific community, so to will any one in the climate science realm
be dealt with. It is a matter of professional honor and conduct.

As someone who has taken scores of data and then had to only use parts of it
in my analysis, I had to provide an acceptable justification for why 90% of
my data set was not used (reason #1 - it was crap because of operator error,
reason #2 - equipment failure, reason #3 - sloppy process led to error
greater than outcome, etc). Sometimes a large data set is gathered but only
parts of it are relevant to the specific study. That is especially true when
demonstrating a model or theory is incomplete or incorrect. As is well know,
a theory can't be proven true it can only be proven false. A theory can be
shown to be supported by a body of evidence, however, and that is how most
science is done. When a theory is shown to have faults or anomalies, that is
where the focus of research tends in an attempt to complete or correct the
theory or perhaps lay the groundwork for a new, bigger model that
incorporates the older one and works with the outlyers better. Case in point
and new conceptual model of quantum physics that treats time differently has
demonstrated some outstanding promise for wrapping up some really thorny
issues in astrophysics (the need for "dark matter" disappears!). I get a
headache trying to read the math of string theory so I don't dabble there
much anymore :-)

One particular aspect of climate science I find particularly intriguing is
the uncertainty in cause/effect/feedback relationship between temperature
change (local/global) and cloud production/dissipation and how cloud
presence or absence influences local temperature and thus cloud status. It's
some truly fascinating science and it requires a level of data detail we
just don't have yet (Thanks in part to a particular satellite that was never
launched to study Earth allbedo - absolutely _essential_ data for good
climate science that has been a well publicized hole in the models causing
most models to have huge variances that are difficult, if not impossible, to
tighten;, i.e. politics causing science to do things improperly). To my
current knowledge, that satellite is _still_ not on a launch list and may
need to be reworked for fitness before a launch can occur.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer at gmail.com>wrote:

> Back to my fundamental issue:
>
> It still appears that specific individual temperature record
> adjustments have not been made generally available for peer review.
> That would never fly in other areas of science.
>
> I assume each adjustment should either be done manually or via an
> algorithm.  If manually, then the adjustments and specific
> justifications should be publicly available.  If via an algorithm,
> then the full algorithm and source code should be released as part of
> the scientific review process.  ie. The adjustment process should be
> repeatable by the outside world, not just in a cloistered lab.
>
> As an example of the difficult process involved understanding the
> sometimes significant amount of adjustment that goes into the
> temperature record, I just read:
>
> <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/>
>
> The author picks one of a very few Northern Australia stations,
> examines the raw temp record, then compares that to the adjusted data
> record.
>
> In the end he concludes (from real data in a well defined, repeatable
> analysis) that the stations temperature record has been adjusted
> significantly and for that station at least the entire "warming" of
> the last 100 years is caused by a series of adjustments.
>
> This is not a peer reviewed article, etc.  It is the work of a single
> person so it might certainly be wrong.
>
> Again my fundamental issue is:
>
> Why is the adjustment having to be recreated in the first place.  Why
> isn't the adjustment process well documented and available for
> critical peer review.  These adjusted temperature records are being
> used as the basis for trillion dollar decisions.  We need to get the
> science opened up.  In particular I'm very surprised that the basic
> temperature record over the last 100 to 150 years is being so
> significantly adjusted.
>
> If the history of all these adjustments has been lost (as seems to be
> the case at CRU), then the whole process should be started over from
> the raw data.
>
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM,  <mmillard1 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > I fear Jeff you are missing an important detail.  There is an enormous
> > incentive for "scientist" to produce results that support Man Made Global
> > Warming. Have you seen how many grants, documentaries and books they are
> > producing? There are billions being moved around and I assure you there
> are
> > politicians and companies making a ton of money because of changes to
> > policies based on Climate change.
> >
> >
> >
> > The AGW crowd say their models are perfect. I have to wonder how they can
> be
> > perfect since we do not currently truly understand weather patterns, air
> or
> > water currents. How can you create a reliable model with so much of what
> we
> > don't know not factored in?  Why is it if they are correct that the AGW
> > forces share so little of the complete unmodified data they use? The
> > Scientific method requires the scientific process to be verifiable and
> > repeatable.
> >
> >
> >
> > I also should remind you of the many scientific frauds of the past.
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't think anyone will argue that a great deal of this movement is a
> > grass roots effort by activists and school teachers who treat the idea as
> > fact.  If it is fact why is this a discussion? It's a discussion because
> > like Whales and trees it is an emotional issue.  We have a long history
> of
> > EcoExtremism and it is my opinion AGW is in the same ilk.  Would people
> lie
> > and make up facts? There are people who will sink ships with the crew on
> > board to save a whale so yes I am sure there are.
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyway I am trying to stay on topic. To suggest there is nothing to be
> > gained by supporting AGW and tons to be gained by fighting it is a
> massively
> > flawed thought process.  The scientists supporting AGW are getting fame,
> > wealth and influence for supporting it.  Al Gore turned into a world Icon
> by
> > supporting it. Inventing the Internet wasn't enough for him.  It's the
> > scientists saying there is no data to support AGW who are loosing out.
> They
> > are being blocked from publications and harrassed openly by "scientists"
> who
> > claim their work stands on it's own.  Provided you use the partial data
> and
> > confusing excuses they give you for why they haven't been able to
> accurately
> > predict anything at all.
> >
> >
> >
> > What do we know absolutely?
> >
> >
> >
> > We know the world has cooled a great deal in the recorded past. We know
> it
> > happened quickly and reverted to warming temps quickly.
> >
> >
> >
> > We know that in the earths past the Poles were not where they are now. In
> > fact they have changed many times.
> >
> >
> >
> > We know that contrary to many specials and documentaries by AGW
> supporters
> > the Arctic and Far North are not melting for the first time in history.
> >
> > We know that it is impossible to explain the planetary shifts with a few
> > years of wondering around Alaska making personal observations.
> >
> > We know there has never been a successfull prediction made by AGW
> > supporters. They say they lack proper tools.  How hard is it to measure
> > temperature? If it's supposed to be 3 degrees warmer and it isn't then
> the
> > formula predicting 3 or more degrees warmer is flawed. It is just that
> > simple.
> >
> >
> >
> > If someone will not let you see their data then there is a reason.
> >
> >
> >
> > We know some parts of the planet are actually colder.
> >
> > We know the charts and graphs produced by AGW supporters do not match the
> > actual results we are measuring using our pathetic technology that can
> only
> > measure temperature to thousands of a degree.
> >
> >
> >
> > We know the simple solutions are usually the most accurate.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is the earth the only planet in our solar system getting warmer? No it
> > isn't. Mars and Juniper appear to be heating up. There are indications
> > several moons in the solar system are warming.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is human activity capable of accounting for the other changes in the
> Solar
> > system? No it isn't. Unless you believe the there are secret military
> bases
> > on other planets.  It could happen.
> >
> >
> >
> > Are there Sunspot charts that map accurately with planetary temperature
> > changes? yes there are.
> >
> >
> >
> > Do the authors of the sunspot charts provide access to their complete
> data
> > sets? Yes they do.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is it real science if the supporting data is manipulated and secretive?
> No,
> > it's not.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you have a theory which is not supported by real world data can you
> call
> > it a fact? Sure you can but your going to be telling a lie. Facts are
> > quantifiable and reproducable.  Until AGW supporters can actually predict
> > the weather for a day or two in a row withing a half degree can we
> > really spend the trillions they are asking for?
> >
> >
> >
> > As to the original point, I am sure Trillions of dollars are being
> discussed
> > as numbers global warming supports are tossing around as the cost to fix
> the
> > problem they have to massage numbers to even remotely support.  That is a
> > huge reason to bend facts and out right manipulate data.  And that
> doesn't
> > touch on the fact that surely there are people who believe the hype with
> or
> > without facts. It is a religion in the same way Green Peace and Save the
> > Whales were in the day to the radicals who found it as a cause.  You can
> be
> > sure I'd do anything to get things done if I thought the world depended
> on
> > it.
> >
> >
> >
> > We should not trash our planet because it's just a silly thing to do.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Lightner" <jlightner at water.com>
> > To: "Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux!" <ale at ale.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2009 3:32:26 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> > Subject: Re: [ale] Disappointed in the recent climate research hack
> >
> > Ad hominem attacks are bad when one is simply changing the subject but
> > when one is talking about "scientific opinions" I'd say a person's other
> > "scientific opinions" may be relevant if they too fly in the face of
> > what reasonable people believe.   The argument that one can't directly
> > show cause and effect is specious - the argument is about correlation of
> > data.   If a "scientist" ignores such correlation in one argument then
> > it seems reasonable to suppose he is doing the same in another.
> >
> > There is a huge economic incentive to say global warming does not exist
> > and not much of one to say it does exist so my skepticism will always
> > fall against those who have gained or stand to gain from denying its
> > existence.  Where I earlier lauded W for his stance for the need to have
> > global standards I now mention that it was by and large his pro-business
> > at any cost administration that mainly challenged global warming as a
> > problem.   It is telling that at the very end of his Presidency he
> > changed positions on this and admitted it is something that needs to be
> > addressed.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of
> > david w. millians
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:38 PM
> > To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux!
> > Subject: Re: [ale] Disappointed in the recent climate research hack
> >
> > Doug McNash wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > To clarify:
> > You're right. I am using a bit of ad hominem. But, I feel it is
> > warranted.
> >
> > It is not a "consensus." It is a consensus. Indeed, it is a fact that if
> >
> > you smoke, you vastly increase negative effects on your body, and you
> > dramatically increase your odds of cancer.
> >
> > Now, me saying this does not mean that he is not wholly correct about
> > climate change. He might be. However, if you have a person who is
> > willing to pick nits to an infinite degree to be able to try to get
> > around the central concept that smoking is bad, and to assuage the fact
> > that he started a stupid behavior and is too addicted to quit, I find it
> >
> > wholly reasonable to use that lens to filter his other comments through.
> >
> > If he held similar views on "evolution" (quotes added for comparison) he
> >
> > would be under scrutiny just the same way. I find this a valid method of
> >
> > the process of evaluating a person's trustworthiness.
> >
> > I find this quite similar, actually, to the reports that come out from
> > orgs (paid by Microsoft) about the money that Windows saves vs. Linux
> > and about how all is rainbows and unicorns.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> > Proud partner. Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
> >
> > Please consider our environment before printing this e-mail or
> attachments.
> > ----------------------------------
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or
> confidential
> > information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you
> are
> > not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use
> of
> > the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If
> you
> > have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply
> > immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error,
> and
> > delete it. Thank you.
> > ----------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20091208/5475b43a/attachment-0001.html 