RealClimate responds to the CRU hack
realclimate.org
realclimate.org
no evidence of the falsifying of data
That suggests that they got a different set of emails than examiner.com did, assuming the best of them.
How about this, for a start, on their impartial 'scientific debate'
If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics
camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this,
we could go through official AGU channels to get him
ousted.(I do think it is pushing the boat, though, to make any serious accusations from the mails. Although the few I read did feel a bit, well, distasteful. The scientific nature in me didn't approve of the language being used - however I dont think it is in the least bit unique)
As mcantelon said, that (while certainly unpleasant and possibly unethical or illegal or both -- but it's hard to be sure in the absence of context; ousted from what? The proposal to go "through official AGU channels" suggests that what's being proposed is unlikely to be too nefarious) has nothing to do with falsifying data.
What is a bit troubling though is RealClimate could be interpreted as defending the status quo and the monopoly on data in their response to comments. They seem to suggest we should simply accept the studies if they are peer reviewed. They create something of a straw man in saying that there is no evidence of a global conspiracy (I'm really not sure how many serious people think that one really exists nor is it necessary to believe that there is one in order to question the data and the policy responses being crafted).
They also don't address the allegation of whether some of these scientists have started with the conclusions and searched for data to show that it exists - particularly given some of the substance in some of these emails. Surely, given how heated and politicized the debate has become there should be some acknowledgment that there could be confirmation bias. Is (more) empiricism too much to ask for?
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php - contains all the models used in the IPCC AR4.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/ - contains a huge amount of climate data.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/CODES_MBH.html - An independend re-evaluation of a climate reconstruction.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html - Full data for a late 2008 reconstruction.
Data is available - maybe part of the problem is the complexity and quantity of the data.
Read your post, and then perhaps do a little soul searching about what science is really about.
I wasn't aware that you needed to be "qualified" to be allowed to reproduce mathematical models.
There are plenty of reasons to be afraid of exposing internal communications due to the vagaries of political processes and vendettas.
To claim otherwise is naive, disingenuous, or both.
I wasn't aware that you needed to be "qualified" to be allowed to reproduce mathematical models.
I'm sure that if he just wasn't being kept down by those evil climate scientists, he'd prove them all wrong.
If you have nothing to hide, why won't you let me search your car?
I don't see what the fourth amendment has to do with this.
Please support the claim that they "hid" their data. Note that citing an unqualified politically biased source is not adequate support for such a serious scientific claim.
Think of this from their perspective: they're sick and tired of crackpots and conspiracy theorists taking their data, running ludicrous analyses on them, and misinforming the public. They don't have the time to shoot down every single terrible interpretation of the data there is, so the best action is to hide it.
Not saying this was the right move, but entirely understandable given their situation. The fact that they were not volunteering their data around is certainly not by itself damning evidence of any sort.
PS: Call up a research assistant and say I will pay you 200$ an hour to help me, and they will fall all over themselves to help you out. Although buying the computer time to actually run some of these simulations would get real expensive really quick.
As a programmer I wouldn't certainly not waste my time assisting someone who merely intended to smear my project in his blog to meet his own political ends.
Isn't this sort of normal? Present a hypothesis and then set out to see if it is true.
Actually, it does.
More to the point, you're cherry-picking the skeptics. The skeptics found that all of the ocean-rising data is due to a single measurement station. The skeptics found that the "hottest year in the US" data was wrong. The skeptics found that the hockey stick wasn't. And so on.
And no, motivation doesn't actually matter. Only facts and interpretation do.
You don't have to be a "skeptic" to look for faults in scientific papers. That's how the process is supposed to work.
And no, motivation doesn't actually matter. Only facts and interpretation do.
Of course it matters. Ulterior motives in science have reliably blinded people from facts for hundreds of years. Just look at how long it took people to agree that tobacco was harmful--and how much money was being paid by the tobacco companies to try to avoid that conclusion.
Even if every single thing that someone says is factual, they may have committed dishonesty by omission of relevant information. Merely validating the words of someone with ulterior motives cannot ensure that you have not been misled. If you cannot trust someone's motivations, you cannot trust them at all.
> Of course it matters. Ulterior motives in science have reliably blinded people from facts for hundreds of years.
The ulterior motives in question are not blinding people to data. They're exposing data.
"I want to see all the data to prove them wrong" is valid no matter why the person wants to prove them wrong. If they're wrong, they're wrong, regardless of why the person went to the effort.
I've been reading through them -- no smoking gun but lots of unscientific behaviour, and quiet admissions of weaknesses in the climate science.