BPSDB Potholer54 does a wonderful job of pointing out some of the most glaring contradictions and outright Denier stupidities in the claims being made about the CRU emails.
Share it … often!
This comment by MoellerPlesset2 at Slashdot is worth reading (and sharing) in it’s entirety:
“The fact that these climate-skeptics were prepared to take these e-mails, pore over them for some choice quotes (which didn’t even look incriminating to me out of context), blatantly misinterpret them without making any kind of good-faith effort to understand the context or the science behind it, and trumpet it all out as some kind of ‘disproval’ of global warming (which wouldn’t have been the case even if they were right), just goes to show that they’re simply not interested in either learning the science, or engaging in a real debate. And it’s in itself pseudo-scientific behavior in action: Decide there’s a big conspiracy of fraud behind climate change, and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.”
also posted by Stoat as Talking to the layfolk and quoted by Mind of Dan
The Bread with Circus podcast talks about why the CRU hack and climate generally have proven to be such a good fit for the “Truthers” and other paranoid conspiracy crowd, from someone who was a Truther insider.
No Moods, Ads or Cutesy Fucking Icons (Re-reloaded) has a rather jaundiced take on how science works and how it applies to the CRU hack issue. I’m not sure I entirely agree or that it’s the whole story, but there’s a lot of truth to it all the same:
“Science doesn’t work despite scientists being asses. Science works, to at least some extent, because scientists are asses. Bickering and backstabbing are essential elements of the process. Haven’t any of these guys ever heard of “peer review”?
There’s this myth in wide circulation: rational, emotionless Vulcans in white coats, plumbing the secrets of the universe, their Scientific Methods unsullied by bias or emotionalism. Most people know it’s a myth, of course; they subscribe to a more nuanced view in which scientists are as petty and vain and human as anyone (and as egotistical as any therapist or financier), people who use scientific methodology to tamp down their human imperfections and manage some approximation of objectivity.”
“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.” Earth GaugeWe give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Greenfyre's 
[…] author is a YouTube person named PotHoler54. Thanks to Greenfyre for the […]
Take a single line out of context, same trick new material. Does the flat earth society have any conscience? Why do they hate their children?
Google “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” and it’s exactly the same story: approaching 200,000 hits, all parroting this one quote as proof that climate science is fraudulent. I’ve trawled through a couple of hundred of those, and not one thus far does anything as simple as wonder, hmm – is that quote genuine? If it is, what’s the context? Maybe we should ask Deming for the full email? Discussing something similar at realclimate I wondered:
Imagine the reverse situation: Al Gore claims he received an email from a prominent AGW critic. Someone asks, “was it McIntyre?” – Gore merely replies, “you might say that, I couldn’t possibly comment.” Gore tells us the email said: “we have to get rid of the hockey stick.” How would the denialosphere react? Lies! Slander! Show us the email or shut up! We’re being persecuted!
We shouldn’t be surprised at this double standard, but it’s worth pointing it out to people making claims about swifthack. Why are you being so credulous, when for anything pro-AGW related you suddenly become all “show us the files?”
Dan,
I really like your astute blog and especially the post ‘Climate Science and the Political Compass’ for observations and analysis of scientific literacy and the political spectrum: cuckoo sicence, confusion and AGW, and in no particular order on the continuum. 🙂
Dan,
I’ve only found hits for “get rid of” in one file:-
I’d seems that once someone unscrupulous misquotes someone like that, the lie never dies.
There are 2 hits for “contain” and “WMP”:-
I think it’s clear what is meant!
From Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary
CONTAIN
transitive verb
1 : to keep within limits: as a : restrain, control b : check, halt c : to follow successfully a policy of containment toward d : to prevent (as an enemy or opponent) from advancing or from making a successful attack
2 a : to have within : hold b : comprise, include
3 a : to be divisible by usually without a remainder b : enclose, bound
So the denialists interpret “contain” in the first sense above, and ignore the second sense.
In the future, all climate scientists have to make sure that whenever they use the word “contain” they should explain exactly what they mean, like “The paper contains (i.e. includes) several references … “. And of course they have to do the same with any word with more than one meaning….
The tinfoil-hatters’ claim that Mann was trying to suppress the MWP because he said that he needed data going back 2,000 years instead of just 1,000 years to “contain” the MWP is beyond stupid.
Data going back 1,000 years gets you roughly half a MWP. Data going back 2,000 years gets it all (and then some). But that, apparently, is too complicated a concept for tinfoil-hatters to understand.
My response to that idiocy is to ask if it is possible for a 1 gallon bottle to “contain” 2 gallons of milk.
The only quote I’m aware of is Mann’s saying they need to *contain* the MWP, i.e. in the context of pushing reconstructions backwards in time sufficiently that the MWP is contained in that time span.
“contained” as related to “container”.
dhogaza: I was just making a comparison between the much earlier “get rid of the MWP” story started by Deming and the current, credulous readings of the CRU mails. That quote isn’t from the CRU emails – though I believe there is one from the guy who Deming implied made the statement, saying he had no memory of ever making it.
Ah, OK. However, the “contains” remark *is* being misrepresented as “get rid of” by the fraud-screaming denialsphere. I’m sure those who started the misrepresentation are entirely aware of the fact that they’re lying …
—-
Yip. And as Potholer54 points out in his video:
1. Do a web of science search for “trick” and it turns up in the titles of many articles, from many disciplines. If a ‘trick’ is underhand manipulation, it seems somewhat counterproductive to advertise you were doing it in your article title…
2. The film also points out that the “we can’t account for the lack of warming” was actually a position taken by Trenberth in a published paper – which he actually cited and linked to in the email. Hardly hidden, then – it’s been in the literature for anyone to check. Yet suddenly it’s all over the media as an example of some kind of subterfuge. Huh?
—–
[…] contradictions and outright Denier stupidities in the claims being made about the CRU emails. https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/…ead/#more-7476 __________________ He's Watching! At the sign of the unholy three […]
“why can’t Johnny Denier read?”
Because he’s a fxxxtard? Sorry but we really should start with the obvious answer first and only move on *if* required.
—-
More is coming to light about how and why the CRU emails were hacked – see this story from the UK’s Mail on Sunday (a right-wing conservative newspaper):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233562/Emails-rocked-climate-change-campaign-leaked-Siberian-closed-city-university-built-KGB.html
There is a bitter irony here. It looks as if all those good folks so eager to expose a grand conspiracy on the part of climate scientists have in fact been playing the part of (very willing, albeit unwitting) accomplices in one of the cleverest pieces of black propaganda of recent years. It seems increasingly probable that the whole exercise has been masterminded by the Russian security services – formerly known as the KGB – who have a proud track record in this respect.
Vladimir Putin, a former KGB man himself, must be chuckling at the ease with which effective action to place curbs on fossil fuel use has been sabotaged. His oil industry cronies must be equally delighted. Fortunately for them, there has been no shortage of what the KGB used to call ‘useful idiots’ ready to do their work for them.
In the spirit of the OP, I’ve done a search for the string “fraud” in the hack and found these.
/documents/ipcc-tar-master.rtf
(Vincent Gray)
Gray claims fraud but WoodForTrees gives me
#Selected data from 1967
#Selected data up to 2000
#Least squares trend line; slope = 1.43436 per year
1967.04 319.862
2000.04 367.196
So, Gray is not only making a false accusation; he makes a false claim himself.
In the following, I’ve just taken what I consider sufficient to show the topic. Please read the email files in full to get the full context. How much fraud do you see? How much frustration do you see in dealing with the activities of McIntyre & co?
/mail/1067596623.txt
Mann discussing a response to MM03.
/mail/1068239573.txt
This is part of an email from McIntyre, where he asserts that engineers have higher standards for data than do academics.
/mail/1104855751.txt
Mann discussing a complaint from McIntyre
/mail/1107899057.txt
Mann again.
./mail/1169050678.txt
Mann again
/mail/1182342470.txt
From Doug Keenan, This about the data used in a 1990 paper by Jones & Wang.
./mail/1188412866.txt
From Benny Peiser, as E&E editor.
/mail/1188478901.txt
/mail/1188508827.txt
/mail/1188557698.txt
/mail/1189515774.txt
/mail/1189536059.txt
The above all discuss Keenan’s allegations about Wang.
/mail/1197325034.txt
From Tom Wigley, about a press release from SEPP.
/mail/1199303943.txt
Mentions the Wang case in passing.
/mail/1213387146.txt
From Ben Santer
/mail/1241415427.txt
Lots more about the Keenan-Wang case.
/mail/1242132884.txt
From Peter Thorne.
/mail/1242136391.txt
Mentions the behaviour of Mr. Fraudit and his cronies.
/mail/1254746802.txt
This is about Neil Craig’s accusations of fraud by Briffa and Mann.
/mail/1254754536.txt
More about the above plus the Yamal business.
/mail/1254832684.txt
From Phil Jones
/mail/1256214796.txt
From Trevor Davies, about McIntyre’s attack on Briffa.
/mail/1256765544.txt
More about the above.
I made a stupid mistake in the bit about Vincent Gray. I misread his % as ppm so ignore that for know.
367/320 is indeed an average yearly increase of 0.4%. Does anyone know what increase the models *do* assume, or rather did in 2000?
Looking at it… I see that 1% is mentioned as the compound rate of CO2 increase for defining transient climate sensitivity (see Glossary: “Climate sensitivity” or Section 8.6.2.1). But that’s just conventional… was Gray fooled by this?
The really used CO2 ppmv values for projections out to 2100 can be found in Figure 10.26. Doesn’t look to me like there’s any discontinuity between historical and the various projection scenarios.
Thanks. It is the claim that 47/91 models assume 1%. Is there some way of checking that, and remember this was in 2000?
OK so I looked at the TAR. It seems that this comes indeed from Vincent Gray:
http://www.john-daly.com/tar-gray/tar-spm.htm
who refers to Table 9.1 on page 538 of
Click to access TAR-09.PDF
Remarks:
1) I don’t know how Gray arrives at his numbers 47 and 91… help
2) It is clear later on that those model runs having 1% compound interest (the CMIP2 scenarios) are only used to study the geographical patterns of warming and precipitation (Figures 9.10 and 9.11) and not the absolute magnitude of warming. And these scenarios, ensemble averaged, give us only one in four of the figures.
3) For describing the absolute magnitude of projected warming, we have Section 9.3.3 and figures therein, esp. 9.14.
So it seems the situation is no different for the TAR than for the AR4, and is as I suspected: just a computational device for characterizing and comparing models.
Excellent piece! However one objection I would make as a non-expert is that you haven’t discussed the other popular message that refers to a request to delete data. Maybe in the next video? To me that was the only email that seems sketchy.
I second dwight’s point: none of the emails the media has hooked onto mean a thing (“tricks”, “declines” etc) – but I am worried by requests to delete emails and apparent attempts to evade FOI requests. I’ve yet to see something convincing on this. Of course, if it turns out there was naughty behaviour re FOI, that’ll be all anyone remembers: scientists trying to hide stuff.
Do we really know anything about the context of those FOIA requests?
We don’t know if the deletions fall under an available exemption (as discussed by Marco on another thread).
Also, as someone else has pointed out, some of the emails are from a period when the research team was apparently receiving alot of harassment requests. As we know, FOIA requests can be legally and ethically complicated., and depending on the request, the response (what is provided) can and does vary.
It seems the context is presently unknown.
What we do know is that the emails span a long period and have been dogmatically cherry-picked.
One can only hope that a student of Foucault will do the genealogy of climate science denial.
I like to see somebody do a solid piece on the FOI issue.
From what I’ve read, it seems that scientists have been maliciously “mail bombed” with spurious FOI requests from deniers that tie up valuable time and resources.
My understanding is that the FOI requests either ask for data that is already publically available or is copyrighted to other groups and cannot be released without express permission and filling out the required paperwork.
I have never read of a case where actual working scientists were denied data from their collegues via normal channels.
It’s always the denierbots that are jumping up and down claiming that their FOI requests are being ignored.
The FOI meme is going to be bandied around for a long time by the deniers and it would be good to have a vidoe/article to slap them down with one easy shot.
Never heard of such a case?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007078
9 out of 10 failing to share data! And this wasn’t even a request by known distorters like Willis Eschenbach, Steven McIntyre, and other Climateaudit cronies.
Cedric raises an excellent point — but hard to address with a single shot.
In my experience (PhD, >25 years in research ecology) I have seen how FOIA requests are recieved by some government or academic researchers. Frankly it drives some scientists crazy, because even if one replies “hey here’s my complete publication history, all the pdfs, and the data have been available for years”, it means a lot of additional paper work.
Most working scientists, again in my humble experience, merely pick up the phone, or send an email, to the effect that “Dear Bob your data are interesting to me and I would like to explore them further — would you be willing to share? Or be a co-author? My new idea is _____. And of course none of your data would be disseminated to third parties or published without your written consent.”
This is standard collaborative practice in science.
So what is Climategate? Merely a story of common theft. And an insight into how some scientists (i.e., humans) became angry when poor science got published, or were confused about divergence among data sets, or who wondered what a good “trick” might be to perform a certain type of analysis.
My latest “trick” was to paste this from an MS Word file.
—-
Never heard of such a case?
Well, yes.
Your link was sorta interesting but doesn’t focus on anything to do with global warming or FOI requests.
It examines data sharing policies in some medical journals.
Not really on topic.
—-
Sorry, Cedric, but you said:
“I have never read of a case where actual working scientists were denied data from their collegues via normal channels.”
As you can see, the little research by PLoS One shows that even *with* required data sharing, many scientists don’t want to. Some because of reasonable objections: it takes too much time to prepare the data in a shareable format, others simply do not respond, period.
I realise that it is a different field of research, but you will find, without doubt, similar issues in just about any field of science. If I were asked to share my data, my first question would be “why do you want it?”, and my second “what do I get out of it?”. I’m sure many others will have the same approach.
FOI requests are a whole different ballgame. In my opinion, the FoI act was never intended for the (ab)use that is now taking place in the field of global warming.
Yes. Marco’s example illustrates that there is nothing peculiar to climate science regarding the ins and outs of the activity of producing science.
There are elements of meritocracy and competition: they keep their data to get papers out of it, among other things, just like other scientists (including medical professionals, as shown).
In the end, while one may be expected to release the data to someone who asks, that probably assumes it is someone who is sincere, or has published something, or otherwise demonstrates that the work is of value to them and they are knowledgeable about the topic.
That’s apart from the FOIA thing. FOIA requests can be of a nuisance or bad faith variety. The scientists were dragging their heals to resist providing information to hacks. Perfectly legal and ethical aspects of the FOIA makes this this possible.
The motive of the hackers is the big story, not all this other stuff. And yet, who’s talking about it? Practically no one.
How bizarre is that? Every major scientific organization officially supports the overwhelming findings of climate scientists. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, there is nothing more to discuss regarding this scandal other than the question of the hackers and why they did it (not that the motivations, whatever their specificity, are any big political mystery.) 😉
McIntyre & co. submitted 58 FOI requests to the UEA CRU in 6 days. That is not about openness: it is vexatious and harrowing behaviour.
Indeed.
I realise that it is a different field of research, but you will find, without doubt, similar issues in just about any field of science.
I didn’t mean to come across as sounding unreasonable.
Apologies.
It just that I’m concerned that FOI requests are going to be the new meme that deniers are going to yammer endlessly on about.
McIntyre & co. submitted 58 FOI requests to the UEA CRU in 6 days.
Now, THAT’S a good start. Short, dramatic and (even if you have no idea how FOI’s work) demonstrates malicious behaviour.
Reference please?
FOIA requests can be of a nuisance or bad faith variety. The scientists were dragging their heals to resist providing information to hacks. Perfectly legal and ethical aspects of the FOIA makes this this possible.
It would be good if somebody who’s personally been on the receiving end of this behaviour could clearly demonstrate how much of a bother it is.
When the FOI stick is being waved about, the average guy thinks that it’s just a matter of a scientist jumping up and sending an attached file to anybody who demands it.
Point, click and that’s it.
How hard can it be? Right?
If theres any foot dragging, then clearly that’s criminal behaviour and and the shifty scientist should be locked up.
Proof of a conspiracy!!!
Of course it’s bound to be more complex than that but I’m not at all sure of my own ability to convince deniers and lurkers that that really is the case. It’s all too easy to be accused of fabricating excuses and hand-waving.
😦
The full article is behind a paywall but is quoted at Stoat.
Are you suggesting that these requests were reasonable in any way?
Hi Cedric. You sound frustrated. 😦
“It would be good if somebody who’s personally been on the receiving end of this behaviour could clearly demonstrate how much of a bother it is”
Somebody has – that’s what we’re looking at in some of those emails. The stress of such excessive harassment shows.
“I’m concerned that FOI requests are going to be the new meme that deniers are going to yammer endlessly on about.”
It’s not really too complicated to explain to them: the person requesting information can be refused the information under claims of exemption and if there is an explanation for why withholding the information outweighs providing it, in the interests of the public good; then, the person refused can challenge the refusal; then, they can make a complaint; then, their matter can be pursued via a tribunal. Etc. It’s a legal framework with a process of delay built right into it in recognition of multiple interests.
We already know that this or any other explanation of the ins and outs of the FOIA’s legal and ethical framework is not going to satisfy deniers any more than the facts of the science have prevented their other distortions, frauds, lies and talking points. We know they ignore facts. They have to: it’s the only way to sustain their delusions and dogmatic perspective.
“If theres any foot dragging, then clearly that’s criminal behaviour”
So we can point out the above FOIA process and the fact that foot-dragging is allowed, in the public interest. If there has been any unlawful behaviour then someone will be charged. In the meantime, there is an independent review underway and we await the results.
Of course we can add that we only hope that the hackers will soon be identified and prosecuted since clearly their actions are clearly criminal.
… and if ever you’re arguing with someone who’s complaining about climate scientist’s lack of transparency, the hidden data, etc – just check if they happen to be libertarian or committed to privatising everything. If they are, I’d love to find out how they’re actually proposing science be done.
Because, AFAIK, any privately produced research belongs the whoever produced it: that’s the case now. The FOI doesn’t cover it – commercial confidentiality. (This was used to great effect when people tried to get hold of info on private finance initiative schemes in the UK – being part-private, and despite the large amounts of public money, they were covered by commercial confidentiality.)
In a fully free market, isn’t it the case that all knowledge is private property? So how exactly would transparency work in that situation?
Actually, that does present a problem now: it is a little tricky to bang on about how AGW opponents should check the peer-reviewed literature. Unless they’re safely esconced behind a university paywall, mostly they can’t. My uni doesn’t subscribe to the journal that Trenberth paper was in, so I couldn’t check if he’d said what the video above claimed he had.
Perhaps there’s a good free market answer to how you solve this problem – but what would it be, except “you want the information, you pay for it.”
Are you suggesting that these requests were reasonable in any way?
No, certainly not. There is indeed nothing reasonable about them. Thx for the link.
We already know that this or any other explanation of the ins and outs of the FOIA’s legal and ethical framework is not going to satisfy deniers any more than the facts of the science have prevented their other distortions, frauds, lies and talking points. We know they ignore facts.
True it that.
just check if they happen to be libertarian or committed to privatising everything. If they are, I’d love to find out how they’re actually proposing science be done.
Oh yes.
(weary sigh)
I usually try and focus on one denier community at a time over the internet. My regular denier is VERY libertarian. The only ray of hope in there is that he fully accepts some aspects of science such as Evolution.
Yet he has this odd tweek in that he doesn’t come out and say there’s no actual “conspiracy”. He shys away from the “conspiracy” word.
He seem to think that there’s no need for any organisation or co-ordination to perpetuate the “hoax of global warming”. He reckons that it’s just individuals driven by grants and that it’s all “natural”.
No details on how it actually works. It’s just all “natural”.
Weird.
I don’t have a legal background and I have never had anything to do with a FOI.
The same goes for science in general.
I never had much time for it at school. Then, a few years back, I got wrapped up in the “Intelligent Design” flap and started lurking the science blogs that picked it apart.
It was fascinating.
I was astounded that there were brilliant, articulate and entertaining scientists that devoted time and effort to enlighten layman such as myself.
For the last four years or so, I have classified myself as a late-bloomer amateur science geek.
Now, my focus has shifted from ID to climate change denialism.
The parallels are striking.
On the science resources side of things, I am spoilt for choice.
There are a host of “go to” places I can use in an argument.
The NASA website, youtube videos by Sinclair and Potholer54, realclimate, this blog etc.
Yet the legal aspects escape me completely. I look around and I keep hoping that a Sinclair or a Potholer will do an “Idiot’s guide to FOI requests” or something like that.
Hopefully, one will pop up.
Yes, good one. It would be excellent if one of them would do a video for easy explanation and comprehensive debunking. It could happen. 🙂
The ‘dodging’, if someone wants to call it that, doesn’t change anyone’s access to the data or the facts of climate change, in the least.
And as we know from a basic understanding of the FOIA, anyone has the right to resist an FOIA request for a variety of reasons, some of them good.
I may be mistaken, but one of the more specific features of the discussion as it applies to the climate issue is that people who apply as a non-government science institution don’t pay the fee. So, the excessive harassment of climate scientists by grandstanding deniers has essentially been fully paid for by the public in more ways than one!
And of course a further irony is that climate scientists have no doubt themselves been frustrated in the past by government stonewalling on their own FOIA requests to further crucial work on climate change.
We await a video. 🙂
The bread with circus podcast cited is now available as a youtube presentation.
worth checking out
[…] out: Potholer54 explains in his video how “trick” is a term regularly used in this sense even in the peer reviewed […]