Climate-gate
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
Complaints about the misrepresentation and malicious misuse of stolen emails should be directed at the thieves and liars who slandered the scientists they robbed. It's hardly the scientists' fault that someone hacked into their computer, stole stuff, and lied about it.
Yet it was the actual content of the letters that were published that caused the climate scientists the most damage to their credibility.
When Phil Jones wrote of two controversial papers that "Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!", he wasn't enhancing his reputataion for being fair and balanced.
And when he wrote: "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." he admitted that he had come up with a method that allowed tree ring proxy data to be spliced to instrumental data in a way that HID the fact that modern tree ring proxy data diverged from the instrumental record.
Now if you can explain how coming up with a graphical method for "hiding the decline" is a GOOD Scientific practice, I'm all ears.
When Phil Jones wrote of two controversial papers that "Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!", he wasn't enhancing his reputataion for being fair and balanced.
And when he wrote: "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." he admitted that he had come up with a method that allowed tree ring proxy data to be spliced to instrumental data in a way that HID the fact that modern tree ring proxy data diverged from the instrumental record.
Now if you can explain how coming up with a graphical method for "hiding the decline" is a GOOD Scientific practice, I'm all ears.
@adoucette
For those of us with short attention span can you relate your remarks to these, from the Wikipedia entry on Climatic Research Unit email controversy:
For those of us with short attention span can you relate your remarks to these, from the Wikipedia entry on Climatic Research Unit email controversy:
Sure,
Tree rings were used as a proxy for global temperature, the wider the ring, supposedly the greater the growth because of warmer temps.
So looking at tree rings from very old trees (they take cores) they could estimate the temps in the past.
The problem was, in modern times at least, they found that the width of tree rings didn't track with the instrumental record. Using tree ring data alone they predicted a modern decline in temperature.
By this "Trick" they superimposed a rising graph of instrumental temps over this tree width proxy data and did it in a way that "hid the decline".
Of course a number of skeptics used these emails to bolster their claim that what this meant was that "hiding the decline" indicated that the modern instrumental record was wrong (for instance that the thermometers could be affected by UHI and other effects that don't affect the trees, and that the trees are more reliable) and suggested that they were hiding a decline in actual global temps.
There remains lots of issues with our ability to measure the average global temperature, but I tend to believe that the modern Satellite record is likely reasonably accurate and thus the decline in the rings does not indicate that the temp record is that wrong.
The problem with the decline in the tree rings in modern times was well known as the "Divergence Problem" and is not fully understood, but until it is, use of ancient tree rings as a temp proxy will always be controversial (if it's happening now, why should we think it hasn't happened before?) which is why paleoclimatologists were happy to come up with a way to hide this embarrassing decline in the modern record because it calls into question the validity of many years of their work.
Which is a shame for them, but the data is what it is.
See:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf
See Figure 1 A to see a graphical representation of what was HID by "the trick".
Tree rings were used as a proxy for global temperature, the wider the ring, supposedly the greater the growth because of warmer temps.
So looking at tree rings from very old trees (they take cores) they could estimate the temps in the past.
The problem was, in modern times at least, they found that the width of tree rings didn't track with the instrumental record. Using tree ring data alone they predicted a modern decline in temperature.
By this "Trick" they superimposed a rising graph of instrumental temps over this tree width proxy data and did it in a way that "hid the decline".
Of course a number of skeptics used these emails to bolster their claim that what this meant was that "hiding the decline" indicated that the modern instrumental record was wrong (for instance that the thermometers could be affected by UHI and other effects that don't affect the trees, and that the trees are more reliable) and suggested that they were hiding a decline in actual global temps.
There remains lots of issues with our ability to measure the average global temperature, but I tend to believe that the modern Satellite record is likely reasonably accurate and thus the decline in the rings does not indicate that the temp record is that wrong.
The problem with the decline in the tree rings in modern times was well known as the "Divergence Problem" and is not fully understood, but until it is, use of ancient tree rings as a temp proxy will always be controversial (if it's happening now, why should we think it hasn't happened before?) which is why paleoclimatologists were happy to come up with a way to hide this embarrassing decline in the modern record because it calls into question the validity of many years of their work.
Which is a shame for them, but the data is what it is.
See:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf
See Figure 1 A to see a graphical representation of what was HID by "the trick".
Last edited:
I only vaguely remember this, and I don't think I ever bothered to run it down. I remember a defense was given, and that it satisfied me and I moved on. But you piqued my curiosity so I'm looking at it fresh.
To hide something doesn't necessarily mean it's been done by way of deception. It can also be done to avoid deception. And that's my gut level reaction after looking at the link you provided. These plots can be hard to understand. My initial impression is that what was hidden was an issue concerning correlation. I'll explain below.
Yes I agree. A lot of these picky questions and the backbiting will give way to the bigger picture, once we are all on the same page, agreeing that we know how to measure global temperature .
My understanding is: the reason for studying trends from centuries ago is to account for the other causes of warming, i.e., the ones that ended the last Ice Age.
Yes, I see that, but right below it is the correlation problem, and I already had this question in my mind as I was clicking on the link: would fractional temps affect tree rings that much; isn't precipitation crucial? So I was surprised to notice that temp becomes less correlated as we approach the end of the plot, where the fudging was done, while precip becomes more correlated. This reminds me of the difficulty of squeezing several dimensions into one when trying to plot something. So right away I was left with the impression that Jones was adding truth to the data by showing that it decorrelates as you move to the right. What else can be plugged in to right as the fidelity falls off? Actual temps. That would be a logical choice, since later temp data is the most reliable of any of the information at their disposal.
I'm wondering if I'm on the right track, whether the issue of correlation was what led the other scientists (mentioned in the Wiki article) to conclude that Jones wasn't being sneaky in a bad way, that what he was hiding was the fact that tree ring data becomes uncorrelated as you move from left to right. And not hiding it in a deceptive sense, but merely as a calibration.
This would conceivably have avoided the problem of trying to explain the meaning of correlation--or, God forbid, covariance--to a hot tempered evangelist, pounding his fists on the pulpit, demanding explanations understandable at a high school level of math. After all, Jones had to be feeling the heat long before the hackers broke in and changed his life.
Am I close? Is correlation the underlying issue?
Let me put it this way.
The Paleoclimatoligists were well aware of the Divergence problem (or as you say, lack of modern day correlation of tree ring width with temperature), but they were coming up with a way of sharing this info with a general climatology group, the IPCC Scientific working group that was developing the "scientific basis" report, that would not likely be aware of this lack of modern day correlation.
In that light, read the quotes again, the first about their preparation of this Graph that got used in the IPCC report:
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
Now just by itself, maybe....
But consider the other quote where they stated desire to surpress other scientific reports that called into question the robustness of the data correlation and the use of a statistical method that was not appropriate for the data:
"Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
And for me, that desire to suppress a report that explained this lack of correlation and errors in the statistics they were using takes away any benefit of the doubt about the nature of the first quote.
Was it being truthful and scientific to "hide the decline" from other scientists who would not likely be aware of the "divergence problem"?
I'd say not.
Was the divergence problem mentioned in the explanation of the data that was supporting this graph?
No, it was not. (which is why I don't agree with you that Jones was "adding truth to the data", you know, full disclosure and all)
When this manipulation of the data in graphical format was discovered was it then taken out of context and used against these Climate Scientists implying even more sinister motives and data manipulation?
Yes, I'd say so.
But, had they not resorted to hiding the decline in the first place, it wouldn't have come back and bit them on the ass either.
The Paleoclimatoligists were well aware of the Divergence problem (or as you say, lack of modern day correlation of tree ring width with temperature), but they were coming up with a way of sharing this info with a general climatology group, the IPCC Scientific working group that was developing the "scientific basis" report, that would not likely be aware of this lack of modern day correlation.
In that light, read the quotes again, the first about their preparation of this Graph that got used in the IPCC report:
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
Now just by itself, maybe....
But consider the other quote where they stated desire to surpress other scientific reports that called into question the robustness of the data correlation and the use of a statistical method that was not appropriate for the data:
"Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
And for me, that desire to suppress a report that explained this lack of correlation and errors in the statistics they were using takes away any benefit of the doubt about the nature of the first quote.
Was it being truthful and scientific to "hide the decline" from other scientists who would not likely be aware of the "divergence problem"?
I'd say not.
Was the divergence problem mentioned in the explanation of the data that was supporting this graph?
No, it was not. (which is why I don't agree with you that Jones was "adding truth to the data", you know, full disclosure and all)
When this manipulation of the data in graphical format was discovered was it then taken out of context and used against these Climate Scientists implying even more sinister motives and data manipulation?
Yes, I'd say so.
But, had they not resorted to hiding the decline in the first place, it wouldn't have come back and bit them on the ass either.
Last edited:
Restoring missing context to ancient quote from someone's stolen private correspondence: "I’ve just completed [for the cover illustration of the glossy informational bulletin "WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999" (2000)] [paleoclimate leading expert Michael Mann]’s ["Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries", Nature (1998)] [technique of making paleoclimate graphs relevant to today] of [substituting] in the real temps to each series [of temperatures reconstructed from proxies] for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for [dendrochronology expert Keith Briffa]’s to hide the [distracting and off-topic, but known and discussed in scientific literature] decline [in correlation between proxies and real temperatures for certain northern and high altitude forests]."
The decline in correlation is particular to certain dendrochronology temperature proxies and not seen in the many other types of temperature proxies we have. If anything, dendrochronology depends on stationarity of climate for stationarity of correlation coefficient and it is now, when the climate is changing fastest, that one would expect its reliability as a pure temperature proxy signal to break down.
Later, in 2001, instead of appending real temperatures, actual temperatures are plotted as a separate element on the same graph as paleoclimate proxies ending in 1980 and tree ring proxies ending in 1960. Everything is properly labeled and nothing is hidden. (See figure 2.21 of IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change: 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis)
From the Mann paper: "the training interval is terminated at 1980 because many of the proxy series terminate at or shortly after 1980"
Briffa on maximum-latewood density temperature proxy: http://www.fp.arizona.edu/kkh/nats101gc/PDFs-09/Nature-Briffa-et-al-1998.pdf
Also, see figure 5 of http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379199000566
Of course it doesn't help when Richard Muller goes even further down this route of contextomy to the distortions "Let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline" or "How can we hide the decline". But his BEST project showed what we knew all along: there was and is no decline in global temperatures to hide.
Thanks to video presentation at: http://climatecrocks.com/2011/04/28/unwinding-hide-the-decline/
The decline in correlation is particular to certain dendrochronology temperature proxies and not seen in the many other types of temperature proxies we have. If anything, dendrochronology depends on stationarity of climate for stationarity of correlation coefficient and it is now, when the climate is changing fastest, that one would expect its reliability as a pure temperature proxy signal to break down.
Later, in 2001, instead of appending real temperatures, actual temperatures are plotted as a separate element on the same graph as paleoclimate proxies ending in 1980 and tree ring proxies ending in 1960. Everything is properly labeled and nothing is hidden. (See figure 2.21 of IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change: 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis)
From the Mann paper: "the training interval is terminated at 1980 because many of the proxy series terminate at or shortly after 1980"
Briffa on maximum-latewood density temperature proxy: http://www.fp.arizona.edu/kkh/nats101gc/PDFs-09/Nature-Briffa-et-al-1998.pdf
Also, see figure 5 of http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379199000566
Of course it doesn't help when Richard Muller goes even further down this route of contextomy to the distortions "Let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline" or "How can we hide the decline". But his BEST project showed what we knew all along: there was and is no decline in global temperatures to hide.
Thanks to video presentation at: http://climatecrocks.com/2011/04/28/unwinding-hide-the-decline/
This is also unreliable.
So it is the climate change deniers who can't be trusted to go to primary sources.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/04/when_to_doubt_a_doubt.php
//Edit.
That inclusion is in section 3.2.2.2 and is also contradicted by Richard Muller's BEST group.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2-2-2.html
Last edited:
Just because the papers that Phil was referring to, Kalnay and Cai (2003) and McKitrick and Michaels (2004), were cited in the working group reports for the 2007 IPCC report, doesn't mean the email doesn't represent their desire to suppress data they don't agree with, which is what I've been discussing, there is no question that these emails did hurt their credibility.
But I guess if you want to support this sort of BS: "Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!", then that's up to you.
As to your BS slur about me being a "Climate Science Denier", all that shows is that in this forum, as well as the one you moderate, you simply jump to conclusions without bothering to read the thread you are responding to.
But I guess if you want to support this sort of BS: "Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!", then that's up to you.
As to your BS slur about me being a "Climate Science Denier", all that shows is that in this forum, as well as the one you moderate, you simply jump to conclusions without bothering to read the thread you are responding to.
Last edited:
Except, in an internal e-mail, among an inside group that understands what correlation means, and understands that the public rarely understands it, one might take all kinds of license to say things even if it amounts to nothing more than colorful speech. The question is (was) intent. It appears he merely intended to introduce a spline. (Imagine trying to explain that to a Bible thumper). Even if he were guilty of bad faith, I would reserve judgment unless it could be shown he intended to fake the data. Words alone, in a case where there is actual evidence of good faith, wouldn't push me across that line where you stand. I think I would have to have a smoking gun.
One question, adoucette: before the story broke, do you remember having a predisposition to speak for or against the notion of anthropogenic global warming? I'd had the notion for decades that greenhouse gasses were continuously rising, and my cursory look at it gave me a predisposition to think that there probably is an anthopogenic cause. So I admit some bias. And when this story broke, it was in an era of intense (what I would call) Republican propaganda. In fact, that pushed me harder than anything. I assumed from the get-go the hackers were making fraudulent claims.
I'm just wondering: if you were in his shoes, how would you have handled it? They needed a simple plot for common folks to understand. I think I would have done the same thing, and my language in interoffice emails would have been as colorful as decorum would allow.
I just feel like the guy had is heart in the right place, and got crucified out of meanness and stupidity. The damage is pretty deep, and I don't fault any of the scientists for that, as many folks do ("they should have explained it better"). A mob vigilante sentiment got started, and all their angst against Gore et al just went viral.
It's really a sad statement on the state of the American collective mind (whatever that is) that people get convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, without a trial of the facts, and when the motive appeared honest and should have at least constituted reasonable doubt. It also seemed inordinately mean to crucify do-gooders.
You're obviously in a different category, you're certainly not stupid, so in a sense the mob may have diluted your position somewhat. Had this never happened, you might still have had a very similar opinion today. In that case I wouldn't even wonder if you felt a bias or not. We would just be discussing your discovery about this divergence and how it grates against the IPCC plot. It would just be a more objective discussion.
Well I don't think it was just colorful speech.
But then I had followed the long drawn out, and ultimately unsupportable, saga of trying to get data and statistical methods out of Mann and Santer.
As to the all too typical personal slur one gets from someone like rpenner when one objects to anything to do with Climate Science, let me refer you to a post I made just two pages ago in this thread:
Does that help?
But then I had followed the long drawn out, and ultimately unsupportable, saga of trying to get data and statistical methods out of Mann and Santer.
As to the all too typical personal slur one gets from someone like rpenner when one objects to anything to do with Climate Science, let me refer you to a post I made just two pages ago in this thread:
adoucette said:
Does that help?
Last edited:
Sure. I think I already had this impression, that you are coming from an entirely different position than the "typical" (conservative?). Your prior remarks show a kind of temperate objectivity which is admirable.
I understand you regard Jones' language as more than colorful. I'm guessing you feel that he and his coworkers were running a political game. I'm of a mind that he could have been as political as hell, and still had the tenacity for scrupulous treatment of data, just because that's what scientists usually do for a living.
As for rpenner, all I can say is brilliant, feisty, and... brilliant. My hat's off to you both, you exemplify the better side of human nature. If all Republicans were adoucettes, and all Democrats were rpenners, GAWD. We'd be levitating or something. At least we'd be on the same page about a lot of stuff that matters.
I understand you regard Jones' language as more than colorful. I'm guessing you feel that he and his coworkers were running a political game. I'm of a mind that he could have been as political as hell, and still had the tenacity for scrupulous treatment of data, just because that's what scientists usually do for a living.
As for rpenner, all I can say is brilliant, feisty, and... brilliant. My hat's off to you both, you exemplify the better side of human nature. If all Republicans were adoucettes, and all Democrats were rpenners, GAWD. We'd be levitating or something. At least we'd be on the same page about a lot of stuff that matters.
The papers weren't data -- they were arguments based on correlations that did not say what the papers said that they meant. Noone is discarding data. It is fair to critique arguments based on correlations that don't demonstrate causation. Here what causation was sought was a demonstration that industrialization heat island effects swamp any signal of global climate change, but what the correlation shows is that the newly industrialized parts of the world are largely in the hotter and historically poorer parts of the world.
No. The heavily-financed anti-science PR campaign hurt their credibility, unfairly.
I would prefer that you start earlier in that same mail to learn from the existing context who "them" is and that their paper is "garbage."
Perhaps this is what you meant with the unexplained "Untrue." in the earlier version of this post.
But, I don't think I said you were a "Climate Science Denier", however strongly I implied that you repeat uncritically the frequent repeated slurs of their PR department.
Another recent post in this thread kind of sums up my position on Jones et al:
Someone posted this from a Forbes Article about these emails:
Forbes said:
To which I responded:
adoucette said:
Who else were you supposedly referring to since you were quoting my post?
And since you now say that I "repeat uncritically the frequent repeated slurs of their (climate deniers) PR department", you've just done it again.
Which anyone reading this thread would easily see is a lie.
The collective persona that swallows such reports, from dubious sources such as Faux News, is a phenomenon until itself.
I couldn't help but mention, since it came up in another thread, this bill which passed the Tennessee house a few days ago:
That should draw in the hardliner voting block in time for the upcoming elections.
Some propaganda just won't die.