

UK Climategate Investigation Conclusion: Hiding the Decline was “Misleading” - cwan
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/08/uk-climategate-investigation-conclusion-hiding-the-decline-was-misleading/

======
gjm11
The linked article is dishonest. It does quote the investigation report
correctly, but then expands on what it allegedly means in a way that is
entirely inconsistent with what the explanatory text in the report (which they
don't quote) says.

So, after the text they quote ending "... the figure supplied for the WMO
Report was misleading", the investigation report says:

 _We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some
point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures
should have been made plain -- ideally in the figure but certainly clearly
described in either the caption or the text._

So the complaint is not that there's anything wrong with the results, but that
they should have said more about the procedure by which they were obtained.
The Heritage Foundation, on the other hand, says:

 _What they were trying to hide was the discrepancy between actual temperature
readings and the temperatures suggested by tree ring data. They have relied on
tree ring data to show that the earth was cooler in the past. If the tree ring
data is not reliable (as the discrepancy in recent years would suggest), then
maybe the earth was actually hotter in the past than these researchers would
have us believe -- and perhaps the hot temperatures of recent years do not
represent unprecedented global warming but just natural variation in climate._

So the Heritage Foundation's complaint is that the tree-ring reconstructions
might be just plain wrong, and that the CRU's material obscures that and
therefore suggests more confidence in AGW than is justified by the data. Note
first of all that none of that is supported by the material from the
investigation report. Secondly, it happens that the investigation report
_does_ comment on the issue of whether recent divergence between tree-ring
data and temperature shows what the Heritage Foundation suggest it shows.
Here's what the report says:

 _21\. We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is
described and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is
misleading. In particular, on the question of the composition of temperature
reconstructions, we found no evidence of exclusion of other published
temperature reconstructions that would show a very different picture. The
general discussion of sources of uncertainty in the text is extensive,
including reference to divergence. In this respect it represented a
significant advance on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR.)_

 _22\. On the allegation that the phenomenon of "divergence" may not have been
properly taken into account when expressing the uncertainty associated with
reconstructions, we are satisfied that it is not hidden and that the subject
is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers._

In other words: when you look at the bit of the investigation report that's
concerned with the _exact issue the Heritage Foundation is complaining about
here_ , it turns out that they think that complaint is invalid. But of course
that doesn't fit the Heritage Foundation's agenda, so instead they quote a
different portion of the report and pretend it says what they want it to say.

~~~
tbrownaw
>> So the complaint is not that there's anything wrong with the results, but
that they should have said more about the procedure by which they were
obtained.

Then we just would have had people screaming about the conspiracy basing
everythin on data they even admitted themselves was invalid. The "Broader
Issues" section is actually more interesting:

 _35\. Handling the blogosphere and non traditional scientific dialogue. One
of the most obvious features of the climate change debate is the influence of
the blogosphere. This provides an opportunity for unmoderated comment to stand
alongside peer reviewed publications; for presentations or lectures at learned
conferences to be challenged without inhibition; and for highly personalized
critiques of individuals and their work to be promulgated without hindrance.
This is a fact of life, and it would be foolish to challenge its existence.
>>The Review team would simply urge all scientists to learn to communicate
their work in ways that the public can access and understand. That said, a key
issue is how scientists should be supported to explain their position,<< and
how a public space can be created where these debates can be conducted on
appropriate terms, where what is and is not uncertain can be recognised._

The only people who (think they) have time to read scientific papers are (1)
other scientists, and (2) people with an agenda. I've tried to read a couple,
and keep getting lost and having to re-read parts, and maybe go look up what
things mean, and it generally takes forever.

 _36\. Openness and Reputation. An important feature of the blogosphere is the
extent to which it demands openness and access to data. A failure to recognise
this and to act appropriately, can lead to immense reputational damage by
feeding allegations of cover up. Being part of a like minded group may provide
no defence. Like it or not, >>this indicates a transformation in the way
science has to be conducted in this century<<._

They really can't be blamed too much, since what they did to make things worse
didn't _used_ to make things worse.

Also, _sufficient_ openness on issues that attract public attention is likely
_really hard_. Scientific papers are meant to be read by other scientists in
the same field, so they tend to be inaccessible to the general public. So you
need to publish everything twice, once in a standard in-group format, and once
in some sort of hypertext form that explains (or links to) all the details
that you don't have to care about inside your in-group because everybody
already knows them.

------
tbrownaw
_The researchers were not trying to hide evidence of a decline in global
temperatures over the last decade we have plenty of actual thermometer
readings to show temperatures in recent years. What they were trying to hide
was the discrepancy between actual temperature readings and the temperatures
suggested by tree ring data. They have relied on tree ring data to show that
the earth was cooler in the past. If the tree ring data is not reliable (as
the discrepancy in recent years would suggest), then maybe the earth was
actually hotter in the past than these researchers would have us believe and
perhaps the hot temperatures of recent years do not represent unprecedented
global warming but just natural variation in climate._

Sounds reasonable (unless there's some other very solid evidence that the
trees really are linked to temperature as the model says, and just nobody
talks about it because everyone who knows thinks everyone else is too stupid
to bother with).

 _Now let’s see if the media can report the result in a way that is not itself
misleading._

It's the media, their "core competency" is writing to attract eyeballs for
advertisers. I'd take that to mean they'll be (accidentally, even) misleading
by default, and since they don't know more than the rest of us they won't know
to correct for that.

~~~
jacoblyles
As far as I can gleen, this line of thinking is considered completely
unreasonable by right-thinking people. As for explaining why this is so, I
will need to leave that in the hands of one of those right-thinking people.

------
pierrefar
These guys definitely have a political agenda to push, so take their
conclusions with a healthy dose of salt. The Wikipedia entry has more:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation>

~~~
hugh3
_These guys definitely have a political agenda to push, so take their
conclusions with a healthy dose of salt._

Good advice. Could be usefully applied to just about everything ever written
on the subject of global warming, unfortunately.

(...except this comment. I am untainted.)

~~~
william-newman
Good advice would be "so be particularly careful to check whether their
arguments are logically sound and properly documented;" the original advice to
skip past the quality of arguments and data to "so take their conclusions with
a healthy grain of salt" is bad advice. The ad hominem fallacy isn't just
unsound in principle, it tends to be pretty useless in practice. It can look
reasonable at the time if there's enough groupthink, but would anyone like to
nominate some cases where with two or more generations of hindsight we can
agree that ad hominem arguments were a better guide to truth than simply
addressing the technical arguments? And it can be wrong no matter how
impressively much circumstantial evidence suggests that there could easily be
a political motive: see, e.g., <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Conquest>
.

~~~
pierrefar
I wasn't saying their conclusions are automatically wrong, but merely pointing
out that this one requires a little bit more scrutiny given the obvious
political leanings.

It's like reading a science paper that questions something with a ton of
evidence behind it. You just have to ask "really?" of all their claims before
accepting it or rejecting it.

------
alextingle
It's 2010, and there are _still_ people pushing this tired old "climate change
is all a made up conspiracy" crap?? I despair.

~~~
ax0n
I'm more disappointed that it's 2010 and people are still talking about
Climategate on HN.

~~~
sesqu
You're disappointed that someone posted a followup article to something that
received a lot of attention? On the contrary, that's exactly what I like to
see (although perhaps not this particular spin). Followups may not be as
interesting as the original debacles, but they are more informative.

