

RealClimate responds to the CRU hack - nollidge
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

======
nollidge
FYI, the comments section has some more specific rebuttals from the author as
well.

------
cwan
The NYT coverage:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.ht...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&hp)

------
randallsquared
Hm.

 _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.

~~~
cwan
What I don't get is why some of these climate scientists have been so
antagonistic to those like Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre who question the
data and simply ask for the data sets to be made public. To the credit of
RealClimate they seem to be acknowledging the need for greater transparency
that would allay some of the allegations of collusion.

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?

~~~
chrisb
Just to comment on the often repeated claim of the unavailability of the data
- try visiting:

<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.

~~~
jacoblyles
When I have time and climateaudit is back up, I am going to reply to this
comment with specific instances of McIntyre being refused the data he would
like in order to replicate studies. I would like for you to tell me if you
think that behavior is befitting the scientific community or not.

~~~
antonovka
An ignorant, unqualified gadfly complaining about a lack of assistance and
collaboration from working scientists is not a compelling argument.

~~~
jacoblyles
The only people afraid of sunlight are those people with something to be
ashamed of.

I wasn't aware that you needed to be "qualified" to be allowed to reproduce
mathematical models.

~~~
potatolicious
_The only people afraid of sunlight are those people with something to be
ashamed of._

If you have nothing to hide, why won't you let me search your car?

~~~
jacoblyles
Reproducible results are supposed to be at the core of what science is about.
Kinda defeats the purpose if you hide your data.

I don't see what the fourth amendment has to do with this.

~~~
antonovka
Politicized science is not good science.

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.

------
triassic
Best summary of the emails is here:
[http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-
cu...](http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-
cuttings-33.html)

I've been reading through them -- no smoking gun but lots of unscientific
behaviour, and quiet admissions of weaknesses in the climate science.

