

McIntyre: The deleted data from the “Hide the Decline” trick - cwan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/

======
nfnaaron
I'll probably never know what the data supports (although I'm admittedly
skeptical), but I do know that discussing deleting emails and data to avoid
responding to an FOI request is probably illegal, and definitely casts a cloud
on everything else the participants have touched.

~~~
ionfish
The CRU have publicly asserted that they have not deleted emails or data.

"No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion
with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the
requested information."

[http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagen...](http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate)

~~~
yummyfajitas
Phil Jones, Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008: _About 2 months ago I deleted loads of
emails, so have very little - if anything at all._

[http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=940&filen...](http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=940&filename=1228330629.txt)

Hat tip: Steve McIntyre.

[http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/denying-email-
delet...](http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/denying-email-deletion/)

~~~
ionfish
Deleting emails is not the same as deleting emails to prevent disclosure. I
delete emails all the time; I presume everyone does. The email being quoted
here doesn't say anything about why Jones "deleted loads of emails". You are
inferring more than is warranted.

~~~
electromagnetic
I've never deleted a genuine email in my entire life. I've deleted thousands
of emails, sometimes in one go, but I've never mentioned 'deleting loads of
emails' it's "I deleted a shit load of spam today, it was a fucking boat load,
you could feed a third world country!"

Perhaps yes he deleted a lot of spam, but no one on the planet considers them
emails. Why would he be any different?

~~~
ahlatimer
I try to go through and regularly delete emails I don't feel to be important.
I archive the ones that I do want to keep, but the rest get deleted. I simply
don't need to hold on to things like old conversations with my advisors about
registration, emails from Facebook, Twitter, etc. containing updates, random
emails amongst friends, and many more. I don't consider those to be spam, and
some of them were definitely genuine email for the time, regardless of how you
define something ambiguous like "genuine email", but I just don't feel the
need to be a digital pack rat. There's a decent chance that I'm not the only
one that feels this way.

------
Tichy
From the email:

"The data are attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we
usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal
that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. "

So who of the discussing people is well versed enough in tree-ring data to
have an informed opinion on this? It sounds as if in recent times tree-ring
data has to be read differently (which seems possible, other factors could
affect growth, don't know).

~~~
waterlesscloud
This is interesting too-

"I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I
swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of
that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you said about my
possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions - he
laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but
there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be
productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already
have - they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll
have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I'd be optimistic if
someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples,
particularly at the upper elevations.

Yeah, I doubt I'll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I'd like to get
together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.

Cheers, Gary Gary Funkhouser Lab. of Tree-Ring Research The University of
Arizona"

[http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=12&filena...](http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=12&filename=843161829.txt)

There really does need to be a full and detailed explanation of all this,
immediately.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
Doesn't that message support the reading "drat, I can't filter out enough
noise to make it statistically significant, so I don't have anything to
publish"? (Genuine question.)

~~~
waterlesscloud
It's in response to the climatologist trying to get him to publish anyway. He
was being pressured to make his data fit.

~~~
Tichy
Publish or perish. This all sounds very normal to me. I don't see references
to making data fit, rather it sounds as if he is looking for a ways to extract
some useful information from it.

Anyway, you know what: people believe what they want to believe. This
discussion is completely pointless.

------
ewjordan
Here's my question, to anyone that knows: is the data set in question the only
data set that the (alleged, I suppose) warming trend is observable in?

Or is this merely a nitpick at one particular set of data, while other
independent ones exist that were generated in different ways?

I ask because in fight the over evolution, a lot of fuss has been made over a
few very minor results that are seen as vulnerable in order to try to get
people to ignore the big picture, which is clear as day (and doesn't depend at
all on the individual results being picked at). While I realize not all AGW
skeptics are anti-evolution, there's a big enough overlap to wonder if the
same tactics or delusions might translate over...perhaps that's a cynical
thought, but conservatives have earned no benefit of the doubt as regards
scientific matters, so please forgive my prior bias in favor of the mainstream
scientists - in every scientific field that I have personal experience in, the
mainstream scientists these days are generally solid and honest, and
_certainly_ never fraudulent.

If this is really the only data set that shows a warming trend, then that's a
lot more worrisome.

~~~
philipn
This is not the only data set that the warming trend is observable in.

[ In fact, some AGW skeptics don't deny a warming trend, but instead argue
against human impact causing this warming trend (the A). ]

Nevertheless, here is what Real Climate says regarding the "hide the decline"
bit (in more detail than their original post):

>>Declines” in the MXD record. This decline was hidden written up in Nature in
1998
([http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html))
where the authors suggested not using the post 1960 data. Their actual
programs (in IDL script), unsurprisingly warn against using post 1960 data.
Added: Note that the ‘hide the decline’ comment was made in 1999 – 10 years
ago, and has no connection whatsoever to more recent instrumental records.

So, every climate record produced in recent years has no connection to this
data. And there's lots of these.

Your evolution analogy is apt. Many (very smart) people would like to pretend
this simply isn't happening or isn't possible.

------
tlack
the real nightmare here is that this is going to cast a huge shadow on
legitimate climate research -- and science in general -- for many years to
come. these douchebags need to rot in jail for a long time.

~~~
fnid
It's a bit extreme to put them in jail. I too think their actions are
deplorable, but jail? We didn't even put the criminals behind the financial
collapse in jail, why put morally reprehensible scientists in jail? I'd say
the financial criminals caused more problems than the climate team.

~~~
tlack
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm not a British citizen so my understanding of
the nature of publicly funded work may be a bit different, but if they are
colluding to change the results of a study paid for with public monies and
destroy evidence requested by an official inquiry, isn't that sufficient cause
for criminal charges? The coordinated aspect of their fraud -- exemplified in
the leaked emails -- adds a damning, worrisome aspect to the whole affair.

On a sociological level, this is a very dangerous situation. The impact of
human endeavor and pollution on global climate is almost impossible to judge
on a local personal level, so the public must have faith in the scientists we
elect to study this problem.

Criminal charges would send a strong, immediate signal to scientists in all
areas of research: check your personal opinions at the door when processing
data. We are all human but if we allow this kind of thing to creep into all
areas of research we risk undermining the very scientific underpinnings of our
modern secular approach to public policy and, ultimately, the governance of
our natural resources.

Scientific research must remain balanced.

As an aside: the people behind the economic crisis are not in jail, but they
should be. Just because they have so far escaped the reach of justice doesn't
mean we should lower our standards for other blatant crimes just because they
are of the white collar variety.

~~~
Joeboy
> if they are colluding to change the results of a study paid for with public
> monies

What study? Are you referring to the fact that at some point they drew a graph
that updated data extrapolated from tree ring data with actual data from
thermometers, and that that graph may or may not have actually been published?
How long a jail term does that merit?

> destroy evidence requested by an official inquiry

What official inquiry? They talked about deleting emails they considered
private. How long in jail for that?

> Criminal charges would send a strong, immediate signal to scientists in all
> areas of research

On our backward little island we don't yet throw people in jail on the basis
of their academic research. I'm sure we'll get there soon.

------
psyklic
As someone who has done some experimental work, I can appreciate how emails
like this sound bad but may actually not be.

With every set of data, there is a lot of additional information necessary for
interpreting it. I'm sure that if someone is just given my raw data, for
example, it is open to interpretation -- however, ALSO given the "metadata"
(which is often in my lengthy, informal lab journal), the rationale behind my
interpretation is more clear ...

If I had to explain every little nuance to amateurs and explain why their
interpretations are incorrect, I would certainly not have much time left in my
day!

~~~
fauigerzigerk
And therefore you would start deleting emails, ask others to delete emails,
claim that original data has been lost when it has not in fact been lost, etc?

What would you do if you have a hypothesis and you see that from a particular
date onwards the data doesn't support your hypothesis? I think you would try
to find out why that is.

And if your work directly influences policy and taxes and living standards you
might have to provide an explanation that "amateurs" can understand because
"we the amateurs" are the same as "we the people" mentioned there:

<http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble>

~~~
Tichy
I could see myself starting emails if somebody hacked my accounted and started
publishing my private correspondence.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
Obviously it's not desirable to have email accounts hacked.

But what has emerged so far is work related correspondence of public employees
working on publicly funded projects. And the content of those emails is about
trying to hide data that is supposed to be subject to public scrutiny and peer
review.

Depending on what kind of organisation you work for, deleting that kind of
"private correspondence" may constitute a crime.

It has been suggested that some of the data these people were trying to hide
was subject to a FOI request
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_2000>). I don't know
if that's actually the case, but if it is we may see prosecutions in the
future.

~~~
Tichy
I didn't follow this in detail, so far I have mostly seen some words taken out
of context that can mean one thing or another. Personally I prefer not to
judge words that are taken out of context.

In that sense, I suppose an actual prosecution would be a good thing, to end
all the senseless speculation.

