
Nate Silver on the Leaked Global Warming Emails - byrneseyeview
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html
======
zzleeper
After reading a few dozen of emails, I've got a mixed feeling. On one hand,
some emails seemed to be from people doing science "in good faith". On the
other hand..

"Of course, if it does get published, maybe the resulting settlement would
shut down E&E and Benny and Sonja all together! We can only hope, anyway. So
maybe in an odd way its actually win-win for us, not them. Lets see how this
plays out..."

This says that Michael Mann hopes to have E&E shut down.. just because they
post papers opposing his views.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann> <http://www.multi-
science.co.uk/ee.htm>

~~~
jmtulloss
I joke about the unfortunate demise of my competitors all the time. It doesn't
mean I'm actively working to destroy them.

~~~
1gor

      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. 
      (From Tom Wigley).
    

Here "one of the world's foremost experts on climate change and one of the
most highly cited scientists in the discipline" is actively working to destroy
his opponents' careers.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wigley>

~~~
Locke1689
And if the AGU accepts his denial of climate change as a legitimate reason to
oust him there is nothing wrong with that. He didn't say "we're going to lie
about data and make up stuff and get my colleague fired," he said, "We're
going to present evidence of what my colleague believes is good science. If
this does not meet the standard of our scientific body, we will expel him from
it."

~~~
mattmcknight
He said skeptic, not denier. That's a wide gulf.

~~~
KirinDave
The line between reasonable and unreasonable skepticism is razor thin.

------
mnemonicsloth
This isn't the first time people have raised questiones about Philip Jones and
the Climate Research Unit. HN discussion here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=843517>

Obviously, an article in the National Review isn't worth much as evidence by
itself. But it quotes reputable scientists who have gone on record as saying
they believe he is stonewalling their requests to see his raw data.

The CRU has acknowledged that the files are genuine. In one of the emails,
Phil Jones brags how he unethically manipulated the presentation of his
results (Nate's words, not mine). And we might not be able to go back and
check his results against his measurements.

It seems to me that this would be a good time for an audit of the climate
change data. Our first priority should be maintaining the integrity of the
scientific process, and in this case that means getting rid of the appearance
of impropriety. It's wrong to hold back scientific criticism because of the
way we feel about whichever group is currently using the scientific consensus
to advantage in the infinite clown fight that is partisan politics.

EDIT: this post went through several versions, most of which were bad. Sorry
to those who replied to something that's gone now.

~~~
ajross
CRU's work hardly constitutes an "entire branch" of climate science or
meteorology, must less the whole tree (!) of human knowledge.

What happened here is that some players in a controversy were revealed (gasp)
to have strong opinions, and even an agenda. And other players, themselves no
less possessed of agenda, are using it to attack the subject via guilt by
association. Meh. Lots for Fox News to spit about. Not much really interesting
here.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_some players in a controversy were revealed (gasp) to have strong opinions_

Foul ball. This is not what was revealed.

They're shown to have acted on those opinions, at the very least, unethically
manipulating the presentation of study results to exaggerate the conclusion
they agreed with.

Any _maybe_ more than that. Depending on the context (which I don't know), it
may show that they actually manipulated the _data_ , which calls into question
all further research that uses the data coming out of that study.

------
miked
His post is pure strawman: say the "enemy's" entire argument centers around
one post, then downplay that, then announce that there's nothing to see here
folks, move along, move along. It's far more devstating than that. Excerpt:

 _At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything
better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never
know who is trawling them. The two MMs [ed- McIntyre and McKittrick, AGW
skeptics] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the
file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to
respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents,
so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I
will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about
it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired
officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here,
but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we
must adhere to it !_

[http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/hera...](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_damn_professor_jones/)

Update: Here's a summary of many of the emails. This gives an even stronger
sense of what a strawman argument Silver used. Interesting stuff:
[http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-
cu...](http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-
cuttings-33.html)

From that link: _Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating
themselves to resist FoI [Freedom of Information Act]. They got advice from
the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)_

and this:

 _Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre
requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will
hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by
creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to
release his model code._

~~~
Confusion
On first glance, it seems pretty bad, but on second thought I read more of a
kind of paranoia in it. Almost every set of data can be interpreted in
multiple ways, depending on the context in which the data is placed. People
can twist and subvert data in ways that are very hard to contradict. It's
often easier to sell lies than to sell truths and I sense an extreme fear that
they have to spend all of their time defending complicated truths against
simple falsehoods.

Edit: by which I do not mean they are right and the skeptics are the ones
subverting the data and convincing others with simple falsehoods. You may fear
your opponent doing that while doing it yourself. The above can be read with
the sides interchanged. I'm merely pointing out that reality is
underdetermined by data, that truths are sometimes hard to sell and that that
leads all sides to fear the other side undermining them in ways _they_
consider immoral.

Plain human psychology may be enough to explain this, without invoking all
kinds of conspiracies. Conspiracies are extremely unlikely, because there will
always be someone that blabs. A few people imploring others to do immoral
things does not a conspiracy make.

~~~
wjy
You make a good point. But I wonder, why would the scientists be paranoid? Why
aren't they releasing their data and analysis algorithms as part of the
package?

I mean, shouldn't the process be something like this:

1\. Gather data 2\. Analyze it 3\. Publish results. 4\. Make data and analysis
methods available for other to scrutinize. 5\. Others review data and methods.
6\. New insights from others are realized.

Carl Sagan, my hero, went on and on science's strength being being that
although mistakes are made, they can be corrected through the scrutiny of
others, and the picture of truth improves. That process hinges on data and
methods being available for others to review.

Of course, data will fall into the hands of idiots who will misrepresent, lie,
and deceive. Also, your data will fall into the hands of someone who will find
an error, or legitimately refute your claims. And that's a good thing.

Some years ago, some astronomers who had previously published evidence
supporting the existence of a new planet in another solar system, presented at
a conference that further analysis of their own data led them to reverse their
conclusion. Their presentation was about a minute long. They received a
standing ovation. (I believe I saw this on an episode of Nova - I can't cite a
source)

That's how it's supposed to work.

------
fauigerzigerk
Nate Silver is right. This says absolutely nothing about global warming
itself. It says something about how scientific research and academia work.

They are in a gold rush. As long as the climate change debate remains top of
the agenda the money will keep on coming. Securing continued funding for their
projects is the main and sometimes only concern of scientists. At least that
is what I conclude from many years of working with them.

They are funded by politicians and other sources that will dry up once the
global global warming hype ends. What politicians need is a clear and
unambiguous picture that speaks truth beyond reasonable doubt. That's what
politicians will pay climate scientists for and that's what they are
struggling so hard to deliver.

All this is completely without connection to the question of climate change
proper.

~~~
Locke1689
_Securing continued funding for their projects is the main and sometimes only
concern of scientists. At least that is what I conclude from many years of
working with them._

Data is not the plural of anecdote. In addition I find it insulting that you
would attempt to negatively characterize an entire field which you have no
knowledge of. In fact, this comment is so unbelievable that I would like to
know where and who you worked with.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I'm in europe. Maybe that gives you some peace of mind.

~~~
pradocchia
Ha! I doubt it's much different in the US.

------
patrickgzill
It is not a very good post.

Nate takes one email and creates a strawman argument around it, claiming that
the email is taken out of context and does not represent a smoking gun. He
then ignores all the other 1078 or so emails.

~~~
bendotc
I believe you're holding Nate Silver up to an unrealistic standard. This is
obviously not a complete refutation of all of the stolen data, nor does it
claim to be. He is instead taking an instance of what people are complaining
about -- a pretty standard example of the things that get pasted about this
story, from what I've seen -- and pointing out that people are blowing this
particular one out of proportion.

Maybe you're complaining that no one is really complaining about this specific
email, but to me, this one looks a lot like the others contained in the stolen
data that I've seen. From my perspective, it seems a lot of people are reading
what they want into the emails, though I'll readily admit I haven't spent my
day pouring through it, nor do I really intend to.

~~~
byrneseyeview
If nothing else, this will make people think twice -- if even the moral
crusader Nate Silver admits that it's common to fudge data to make things look
more compelling, they'll think about that next time someone tells them what
the temperature change over the next thirty years will be.

~~~
lutorm
True. Whichever way that temperature appears to be changing.

------
mynameishere
I'd rather see the emails between the guys at the Goldman Sachs carbon trading
desk. Also, these guys aren't stupid (see the one guy's interest in destroying
emails) and are going to be careful when communicating electronically.

------
cbryan
I'm really glad that he weighed in on the topic. While it wasn't a statistical
tour-de-force like some of his other writing, it was really nice to read a
well thought out piece on the topic. Everything else I'd found online was
really noisy and shouty.

------
jgamman
real climate is my goto for climate science - well written by scientists for
interested non-scientists (note: this doesn't mean it's dumbed down - be
prepared for some detail)
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-
cr...](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-
hack/#more-1853)

~~~
zzleeper
From here: [http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-
Examiner~y200...](http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-
Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-
documents-and-emails?cid=exrss-Climate-Change-Examiner)

"Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org
- A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be
helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen
through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any
extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post
replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about
whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so,
any comments you’d like us to include."

If the comments are modded like that (keeping only the "favorable ones"), I
wouldn't be so sure about RC's quality

~~~
jerf
That's not news, though, or at least it shouldn't be. RC's moderation policy
of deleting or not approving things they don't want to deal with is well-
known, at least to me. I believe it is within the rights of a site owner to do
that. If you don't like that, take it into account as you read the site. We
didn't need any leaked emails to tell us that comments can be deleted on RC.

(Though it probably is fair to point out that there is nothing neutral about
the site, any more than the talk.origins faq is neutral. Doesn't make it
wrong; does make it not neutral.)

~~~
camccann
Science isn't even _supposed_ to be neutral; leave that to Wikipedia. I don't
even know why anyone would expect a site presenting accurate scientific
information to be neutral, wouldn't that completely miss the point?

------
jonknee
Humorously conservatives (who somehow became anti-science) are cheering this
theft but were appalled by the theft of emails from Sarah Palin that showed
she was breaking the law (State business on personal email).

~~~
byrneseyeview
I'm sorry, don't you mean to make fun of _liberals_ for engaging in the Palin
email theft (the person who did it was the son of a Democratic politician) and
condemning this one?

Or maybe you mean to joke about how tribal humans are. That's probably it.

------
adriand
I'd love to see what kind of emails tend to go back and forth among the
climate change denial crew. If only we had some hackers around here - we might
be able to find out!

~~~
Locke1689
We have many hackers here (pen hackers, not "hacker" hackers). As far as I
know, my colleagues and I are unwilling to break the law and privacy to view
others' communications.

------
motters
It would be interesting to find out who performed this crack, and who was the
paymaster.

------
jdminhbg
You can tell Nate Silver's really definitely right, because he uses lots of
exclamation points when he's strawmanning his opponents.

