Sunday, November 22, 2009

Something interesting comes this way


Ed Darrell has found something interesting in the CRU Emails (Ed has a nice bathtub to wash in after wading in so you don't have to)

Sure enough, with just a few minutes of searching the e-mails, I found references to ethical breaches in cooking of data, and a discussion about how to talk about the data and the issue in public.
The paper involved is this one:
David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearsona and S. Fred Singer, “A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, Int. J. Climatol. (2007). Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651
and the discussion of what to do about it

One of the e-mails is quite explicit:
I think the scientific fraud committed by Douglass needs to be exposed. His co-authors may be innocent bystanders, but I doubt it.
Fraud? Right there in front of everyone? In the climate debate?
In the end, the scientists in the discussion determined not to hold a press conference to announce a finding of fraud, but instead to hunker down and work on publishing datasets that would contradict the alleged fraudulent paper, and establish their case with data instead of invective and press conferences.
They even declined to rush to inform the public of the fraud after a lengthy series of attempts to duplicate the results with well-known, accurate methods on accepted data:
More at the link with links to the correspondence. Eli eagerly awaits comments from Douglass, Christy, Pearsona and Singer. Eli is a foolish, but ever hopeful bunny. You can pull the angora over his eyes.

29 comments:

No One said...

Await similar comments from Mann, Jones and Revkin.

Best,

No One

Ed Darrell said...

I think it likely that some of these databases will be taken from public view soon. I hope that people with better science chops than I have will take a look at some of the more controversial threads, and see if there is anything there that really embarrasses science and scientists, instead of confirming that scientists stick to the facts and operate ethically most of the time.

Connor said...

Hi Eli,

Just a quick question. How would one go about finding a submission for admission to the NAS?

I refer to this email:

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=903&filename=1213201481.txt

I want to know what h-index Mann ascribed to Jones in his submission on Jones' behalf?

In this email Jones say 52 but Mann says in his reply that he "will go with 62", I'm pretty sure it is a typo and he meant to say 52 but am having trouble proving it. Would something like this be publicly available, so I could show these denier nuts that there is nothing nefarious going on here?

Valgri said...

That had not been hackers, but insiders, as the entitled “FOIA.zip” came at Jeff Id’s blog  with a posting (from http://www.whatisclimate.com/ ) that asked 18 leading US scientific associations about their letter to the US Senate Oct.21,2009, Comment 10 at : http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/

Connor said...

I mean AGU, not NAS, whoops...

chris said...

Conner,

I've just done a quick Web of Science search of PD Jones specifying "clim"* in the address (for climate research unit and various abbreviations) to limit it to the correct PD Jones.

Without spending more than 10 minutes on this it's easy to determine that of the 235 papers in the data base, at least 61 have been cited at least 62 times.

So Dr. Jones's h-index is at least 61.

chris said...

It's worth pointing out, re the CRU email correspondence on the Douglass article, that the scientists did what scientists are supposed to do in time-honoured fashion, namely:

(i) feel pissed off that someone has published nonsense

(ii) bitch about it for a bit amongst themselves

(iii) get down and do the hard work of analyzing and reanalyzing data, preparing a paper and pushing this into press (none of which is easy), to set the record straight:

Santer BD, Thorne PW, Haimberger L, et al. (2008)Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere Int. J. Climatol. 28, 1703-1722

And thus science is rather quietly and rationally served....

Martin said...

At the moment at ISI Thomson, Jones is at 62. How old was that mail?

I searched for Jones P* and chose the one Distinct Author Set that looked right.

Connor said...

I guess the problem is that Jones ascribed himself a value of 52 after filtering out some papers of people with the same name, but then Mann says he will go with 62. Now, I see absolutely no problem here but we know what the deniers are like, they will latch onto ANYTHING that they think proves a conspiracy. As I said, I have a feeling Mann' reply was just a typo (and there are plenty of examples of typos in the emails, as you would expect from any private email correspondence so it is quite feasible).

The thing is though, I've invested a bit of my credibility capital on the forum I use in this particular issue, and I ballsed it up because I really don't understand exactly what they are talking about in a lot of these emails (as do the cranks I'm arguing with, the difference being that I can admit it but they will run hard with any little thing as evidence of the conspiracy) so I've come out of it looking a tad foolish in my attempted explanations.

Petty stuff I know but that's internet forums for you. If I could find Mann's submission (I've contacted the AGU to find out whether they are publicly available or not) it might just clear everything up.

Problem is though, I'm not an academic, so don't know where to start finding these sorts of things out, that's why Eli is such a valuable resource for me.

Connor said...

Martin - Only 2008. Is the ISI Thompson search publicly available?

But still, it won't allay the suspicions of these cranks because all they see is "Jones sez 52, Mann goes wiv 62, ergo Mann is a lying fraud and AGW is a hoax". It's most frustrating, especially - as I said above - I'm not in a position to explain away supposedly suspicious comments because I'm just a layman.

(BTW, the link I posted is from the html catalog of the emails, not the zip, it goes straight to the email in question, not the whole 64MB file if you want to have a brief look)

Martin said...

> Is the ISI Thompson search publicly available?

Connor, after you pay your fee :-( I'm on a university account.

Looks to me like a copying error by Mike... could have happened to me ;-)

Connor said...

Yeah, I figured it would be fee based. I'm but a layman and a pauper, I'll have to take your word for it ;)

What about AGU membership submissions? I suppose that even if they are publicly available it will be for a fee too, yeah?

I'd email Mann or Jones but I kind of suspect their inboxes would be bursting with much more important things than trying to stop me from looking foolish on a Football forum. Looks like I'm just going to have to eat humble pie in this case...

chris said...

Cooner,

not sure why you have to eat humble pie.

I've just redone an h-index analysis of Dr. Jones, using "Jones P*" (author) and "clim* (address) to limit the set to the correct Dr. Jones. There are a number of papers in which Dr. Jones left out his middle initial (a common occurence, which slightly complicates life re our modern tedious metric-based success measures!)

Dr. Jones' current h-factor is currently 65 or 66. None of the papers with 62 or more citations was published earlier than 2007 (not surprising, since citations accumulate with time, and it's rare for a paper to pick up 62 citations in 18 months). So we don't have to remove any of Dr. Jones' papers from the list that were published since the email you refer to.

Determining how many citations each paper was at in 2008 is more difficult since it requires opening up each citation list and subtracting 1 from the number of citations, from each paper from the list of citations that was published since mid 2008 (or whatever the exact 2008 date of the email).

Life's too short.....!

However an h-index of 62 in 2008 must be pretty close to the actual value.

If anyone is quibbling over that then they have a serious problem with their sense of proportion. I really don't think it's worth getting bogged down in argumenation of the sort you seem to be describing - I expect your "arguee" feels that being able to argue about this pretty fruitless issue makes the "controversy" seem "real"....

chris said...

whoops, that should read "Conner" of course....sorry!

chris said...

whoops 2

that should read:

"None of the papers with 62 or more citations was published later than 2007"

(my first time posting here, and I'm making a hash of it!). Moderator, please feel free to correct my earlier post and delete these sorry corrections...

Connor said...

ConnOr actually :p Everyone gets it wrong :D

Yeah, I definitely see your point, I doubt they will though. I wish I hadn't have argued such a petty point so hard. But like I just pointed out in my concession post, it would be pretty stupid to assume that you could scam your way through the AGU membership process by lying about something so easily and publicly accessible as a bloody h-index score.

But thanks for taking te time to check that for me, I do appreciate your effort.

EliRabett said...

Seriously, AGU asks for the h-index these days???

Chris, there is no moderation at Rabett Run as a number of people will tell you. The bunnies are extremists.

ike solem said...

API memo, 1998, quotes:

"Upon this tableau, the Global Climate Science Communications Team (GCSCT) developed an action plan to inform the American public that science does not support the precipitous actions Kyoto would dictate, thereby providing a climate for the right policy decisions to be made..."

Their tactics? Creating a vast propaganda machine consisting of tobacco scientists and compliant reporters...

"Tactics: As with the National Media Relations Program, these activities will be undertaken between now and the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in November 1998, and will continue thereafter..."

What are some key elements?

"Establish a Global Climate Science Data Center. The GCSDC will be established in Washington as a non-profit educational foundation with an advisory board of respected climate scientists. It will be staffed initially with professionals on loan from various companies and associations..."

"The GCSDC will be led by dynamic senior executive with a major personal commitment to the goals of the campaign and easy access to business leaders at the CEO level."

One major goal?

"Identifying and establishing cooperative relationships with all major scientists whose research in this field supports our position."

The budget for this latter project included $600,000, partially to "identify, recruit and train five independent scientists to participate in media outreach."

If you want to find out who those 5 media-oriented tobacco scientists are, just check Andy Revkin's blog at the NYT - he usually cites one or two of them in every post. That's an important point - the tobacco scientists need access to media, and guess who is there to provide it?

Of course, another major goal would be "identifying and smearing and discrediting all major scientists whose work in thie field does NOT support our position."

It looks a lot like Chevron's shady effort to discredit the Ecuadorian effort to recover damages from toxic dumping, doesn't it?

Sometimes you just have to go out there and lie through your teeth - Propaganda 101.

Ed Darrell said...

"Now, I see absolutely no problem here but we know what the deniers are like, they will latch onto ANYTHING that they think proves a conspiracy."

And why are they quibbling about citations to papers from a man with a helluva lot of papers? Because that man has beaten them badly at the game of science. They have no legitimate tools to use, and so turn to character assassination by dribs and drabs.

Why the hell doesn't your inquisitor go hang a thermometer and plant a palm tree, do something useful toward providing evidence?

Weather fact popped up on one of our local television stations last night: November 19 used to be the average first hard frost on Dallas. Now the date is mid-January, and in recent years we've gone entire winters without one hard frost.

Do these idiots suppose that the authors of these hacked e-mails talk to the clouds, and that the clouds obey?

Mark said...

"Do these idiots suppose that the authors of these hacked e-mails talk to the clouds, and that the clouds obey?"

Yes, they're in league with the devil, you see. That gives them super-powers.

Scientific Mania said...

Scientific Doomsday Mania
by
Amitakh Stanford
22nd November 2009

There is a doomsday message that is swiftly gaining global acceptance. The new wave is clothed in acceptable clichés and has won over the support of many of the respected scientific communities.

Unlike most other doomsday messages, this one is supposedly based upon scientific evidence. The scientific “doomsdayers” wear masks and pretend that they are predicting calamities based on hard evidence. This lulls the unsuspecting public into absolute belief and acceptance of the doomsdayers’ ravings.

If the same message were given in a spiritual setting, the adherents would probably be encouraged to turn to God in preparation for the final days. Generally, scientists have sneered at and mocked spiritual predictions regarding the end times, and the same scientists have convinced the general public to do likewise. Further, governments of the world use their police powers to suppress, restrict, or even eliminate these spiritual-based groups. Scientists have now one-upped the spiritual believers by supporting their dire predictions of calamity with supposed scientific evidence. Using their scientific clout, they have now convinced most of the world leaders to meet in Copenhagen. The stated agenda of the gathering is to halt global warming with a unified and urgent approach.

People may remember that there have been similar gatherings to solve the global economic crisis. In those meetings, every leader attending was told to boost their economies by stimulus spending. By and large, the world leaders have dutifully followed those dictates. One might ask: Is the global recession over due to this unified approach – or is it deepening? Many thinking economists have finally realized the latter to be the case.

[...]

Were the carbon traders truly concerned that global warming is a seriously urgent issue, they could perhaps justify following their untested carbon-trading notion. But if it were an urgent situation, why would they offer a solution that will take decades to take effect? If they have decades to work on the solution, by definition, it cannot be that urgent. And, if they have decades to implement their plan, could they not spend at least a few years or even a few months openly and transparently debating which course of action will save the planet from its imminent death?

To demonstrate the absurdity of the current “green” position, consider that they are proposing massive increases in nuclear power because it is supposed to be carbon friendly. The nuclear proponents do not seem to care about the disposal of nuclear waste from these sites. This means that they are presenting an extremely short-sighted solution, which is not really a solution at all. Besides, the proponents of expanding nuclear power want to tremendously restrict who can and who cannot use nuclear power. For instance, Iran and North Korea are presently being ostracized for, among other things, having nuclear-power programmes. This is a glaring instance where part of the real agenda of the ruling elite shows through; the nuclear proponents are not as concerned about global warming as they are with political dominance.

As indicated earlier, humans are only marginally responsible for global warming. The hotter sun is undeniable, and it is the main reason for global warming.

[...]

This would be all well and good if it could be believed that scientists are acting in the people’s best interests. But, since when have scientists been assumed to be altruistic? Why is it accepted that they will only act in the best interests of humans? And why should it be accepted that the scientists are correct about human causes of global warming?

[...]

The carbon-trading schemes, and other emissions-based solutions presented by the ruling elite’s scientific doomsdayers, will not solve global warming. But, if they get their way, they will change the lives of people for the worse.

Anonymous said...

"I guess the problem is that Jones ascribed himself a value of 52 after filtering out some papers of people with the same name, but then Mann says he will go with 62."

If people read anything other than a typo or misreading here, they're crazy. Mann's response is obviously a positive one to Jones' statement that apparently his real number is 52.

If they showed us the entire thread anyone wanna bet that Jones responded something like "you mean 52, right?" etc?

Anonymous said...

Sheesh, do these guys have any idea of what an h-index as high as 52 means?

Here's a few examples for context:

Paul Crutzen: h=80
Susan Solomon: h=70
Richard Lindzen: h=46
Mario Molina: h=43
Fred Singer: h=21
Pat Michaels: h=12

In this field, an h of 52 is *huge*.

Robert P.

Connor said...

LOL @ anonymouse.

No! I really don't, as I said I'm no academic, and that is why I was so flummoxed by this line of attack... Because I truly didn't understand the h-index or the implications of allegedly fudging it would b (ie, none).

turboblocke said...

Turboblocke said: The fact that the hacker used the term FOIA is telling. In the UK we normally use the term FIA or FOI request. In fact if you google in the UK on FOI and FOIA you find something like Million hits for FOI, 87,000 for FOIA. So either the insider was an American and should be easy enough to identify or it was an external hack.

Hank Roberts said...

> Turboblocke said: The fact that the
> hacker used the term FOIA is
> telling.

Ding. Yep, I noticed that too.

----
Ike Solem's point above about the establishment of big national panels to support industry's point of view is well worth rereading. Industry capture of regulatory agencies is the name of the game in the USA, is a major problem, and has been a big concern for public health people for a long time.

Of course you'll be seeing a push once again to take all the information and put it in one place where it can be cared for properly.

wingding said...

looks like the solar cycle is taking the opportunity to make a move while everyone is busy

pointer said...

Amitakh Stanford has opened my eyes to the conspiracy of the Lemurians over the Kyoto Proto Col.

"The latest “Protocol” signal was produced in the Kyoto Protocols, which are also a Reptilian scheme that makes the Reptilians the leading force – but not the only force – behind the environmental movement. The Kyoto Protocols and the limitation of CO2 emissions are part of the Reptilian agenda. The Reptilians already exercise almost total control of the world economic situation by dominating the banking industry and other aspects of the economy. The Reptilians have also built up the countries they want to have worldwide military, political, and economic influence. Under the Kyoto Protocols, other nations cannot emerge to effectively challenge those currently in place. "

How could I have been so blind?

Peter Sinclair said...

Ike-

Is there a link to the API memo you mention?

makes me think of the Global Climate Coalition's suppression of it's own expert findings.