CRU
illconsidered | July 20, 2012Hopping down the bunny trail comes the (not) surprising news that law enforcement investigating the CRU email scandal (aka Climategate, aka Swifthack) have concluded that the email servers were hacked and this is not the imagined whistle blower the WUWT and Curry crowd like to pretend. Though they can not identify the perp, they do conclude that:
“However, as a result of our enquiries, we can say that the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet. The offenders used methods common in unlawful…
illconsidered | November 28, 2011(not an original moniker in the title, someone remind me where it came from so I can give credit where credit is due!)
While I think the approriate response to ClimateGate 2.0 is to ignore it, I also think the mainstream media is doing mostly just that so it is safer to bring your attention to this good rebuttal to the whole affair from potholer54 on YouTube:
I think the most telling quote echoing around the denialosphere right now is this one from Jonathan Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid what's included and what is left out.
It's supposed to…
stoat | November 22, 2011 Dunno yet. I'll expand on this if I do. For the moment, CRU themselves are not excited.
Update: it looks very much like this is nothing new, just those mails deemed to dull to release last time. So, as Deltoid points out, and claims to being doing this for "information transparency" is a clear lie. Pic ripped off from Bart who presumably ripped it off someone else...
More update: I forgot that the most exciting thing is to look for my name - doh. And I find:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Caspar Ammann wrote:
> check figure A9, there the 17th century is cold, and this is probably
> the curve…
illconsidered | November 7, 2010[Update: I am closing this thread as it is now over 500 comments long. However, because the discussion is still ongoing it will continue on this post. There is also the possibility of Chris S coming back with his own analysis of Richard's data.
This is a quick summary of what we can conclude thus far.
Richard thinks he is a sceptic. I am sorry to say that he is not. A sceptic considers all available material and evaluates evidence objectively. We know Richard does not do this because he has several times cited material that he admits himself he has not read. A sceptic will consider all…
illconsidered | November 5, 2010Judith Curry has become quite a blog sensation, and did so long before starting her own. I have expressed my frustration with her in the past for a seemingly reckless affinity for "hit and run" postings. I will appreciatively grant that she comments alot, and engages many conversants extensively, but she has posted many very inflammatory or technically flawed diatribes in the past, the kind sorely needing defending or ammending, and left the clear and substantive rebuttals unanswered or inadequately answered. Frequently interested readers were left with only vague promises of "more on that…
illconsidered | August 23, 2010Via a new blog started up this summer, Fool me Once (sounds like wishful thinking ;-), proprieter Alden has graciously permitted me to embed a most excellent video he has produced on arctic sea ice.
He is covering a standard denialist talking point, that arctic sea ice has/is recovering, so the concepts will not be unfamiliar to any regulars here, but the very clear trains of argument and great use of data and graphics make this well worth watching.
The original posting is here.
His other post from about a month ago, is similarily clear and compelling. (Warning: video starts automatically,…
hrynyshyn | July 7, 2010Yet another vindication for climatology. The Muir Russel inquiry into the behavioral ethics of the climatologists at the heart of the CRU email nonsense has found...
...nothing to substantiate the complaints. Except to say that the researchers should in the future exhibit "the proper degree of openness."
"We find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt." There. Can we move on now? I'm losing count of the number of inquiries that come to such a conclusion.
stoat | July 7, 2010'Rigour and honesty' of scientists not in doubt but Sir Muir Russell says UEA's Climatic Research Unit was not sufficiently open. I'd quibble the latter but we have to take what we can get; probably they needed a sop for the ranters.
Here is the thing itself and here are some quotes (bold in the original):
13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
14…
illconsidered | May 7, 2010Science has published a letter with 250 signatories protesting the recent and extreme attacks on scientists, climate scientists in particular. I agree with Michael, this letter should not be behind a paywall. I think the fact that it is, is disturbingly revealing of the disadvantage science has in the PR arenas.
It is very well done, though to be honest I wish they had not pushed the creationist button and had instead used an entirely different example of well established science to make their point. As scientifically non-controvesial as the age of the earth is, we need to reach even those…
stoat | April 26, 2010My general feeling about Judith Curry's stuff over at Collide-a-scape was that it was all tolerably vague. But there was one specfic.
Over there, she copied Bishop Hill and proposed "Jones 1998 and Osborn and Briffa 2006" as key neglected papers.
More directly she has proposed:
1. The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years
Timothy J. Osborn* and Keith R. Briffa (Science 10 February 2006:â¨Vol. 311. no. 5762, pp. 841 - 844â¨DOI: 10.1126/science.1120514)
2. Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia Michael E. Mann and Philip D. Jones,…
tlambert | April 18, 2010Andrew Bolt comes up a killer argument to refute the findings of Oxburgh's committee: Oxburgh's "choice of transport to the press conference". You see, Oxburgh drove there in an enormous SUV, so obviously he doesn't really believe that the CRU scientists' work is sound, else he would have come on a bicycle or something. Oh wait, Oxburgh did arrive on a bicycle, so Bolt deploys a slightly different argument:
Surely Oxburgh's choice of transport to the press conference on his Climategate findings should have made some journalists there wonder about his impartiality: ... You see ...
Lord…
tlambert | April 14, 2010The International Panel set up to examine the work of the Climate Research Unit has cleared the CRU of all charges of misconduct:
We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work
of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely
that we would have detected it.
They also point the finger at who is to blame for the failure to release all the weather station data. The UK government:
It was not the immediate concern of the Panel, but we observed that there were
important and unresolved questions that related to the availability of…
stoat | April 14, 2010Scientists cleared of malpractice in UEA's hacked emails inquiry says the IOP, which isn't quite the headline I chose, but once again you'll have to forgive a little poetic licence on my part. The Grauniad says much the same, as does Aunty. Perhaps more tellingly, The Torygraph and Times have ignored it entirely.
The report itself is here. Thankfully, it is quite short.
[Update: other views:
* Eli
* TL
* Keith Kloor - for the "opposition"
* HT
* mt - this is well worth reading for mt's thoughtful take on what is and what is not worth noting about the report.
* CA - McI is deeply miffed that…
stoat | April 13, 2010Hacked climate science emails: were requests for information vexatious? asks Monbiot, and then proceeds to get the wrong answer (though it isn't as bad as his previous nonsense). "Framing" all this in terms of FOI is silly and wrong. Monbiot loves FOI 'cos he is a journo and it is a one-way street for him: more info, formerly hidden, equals stories. Reality isn't so important to him it would seem.
In terms of science, this is all just wrong. In my experience, and it seems to be true in this case too, the restrictions on revealing info are imposed by govts and their agencies. The UKMO was very…
illconsidered | April 8, 2010Here is a fascinating exchange between George Monbiot and Steve Easterbrook exploring the larger issues behind the recent Swifthacking of CRU email (aka ClimateGate).
Steve makes an excellent presentation of the case for what happens to be my personal view on this mess, namely that the media has failed in a major and tragic way and that this is a tale of a successful propaganda campaign not scientific corruption. In my opinion, Monbiot seems to understand Steve's points but still does not get the real story.
Have a read:
The computer scientist Steve Easterbrook wrote an interesting critique…
illconsidered | April 2, 2010One thing the blogosphere is good for is spirited discussion and fast dissemination of news stories. One thing it is not good for is the old addage "where there's smoke, there's fire".
The recent "swifthacking" of CRU email (aka "climategate") is a great example of tremendous amounts of smoke being created out of something statistically indistinguishable from bupkus.
The UK's House of Commons has released a report after weeks of careful investigation into the details and implications of the illegally obtained and distributed emails to and from a handful of East Anglia University climate…
stoat | March 6, 2010[This post got extensively re-written (you can tell that, cos it has a title that doesn't fit its URL :-) after I realised that I, too, had been fooled by the septic FUD. Oh dear. I've stopped now: you can read on without fear that the words will change under you.]
The septics are trying to pretend that there is a spat between the Swedes (SMHI) and CRU, but this is just smoke-n-mirrors. Lets quote the final letter first:
With reference to the current debate regarding, amongst other things, access to climate data we have found that our letter to you dated 21 December 2009 unfortunately have…
catdynamics | February 4, 2010Penn State has released the preliminary conclusions of its inquiry into the purloined e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
Dr Free-Ride provides an excellent discussion
PSU story on the internal inquiry
Full report (pdf)
In the meantime, the Grauniad reports police questioned a UEA scientist about the original cracking of the CRU e-mail archive
There has been considerable external pressure on PSU on this issue, with protests planned by conservative student groups this friday on campus, weather prermitting...
The Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy…
illconsidered | January 15, 2010Just in case anyone out there has10 more minutes they are prepared to throw down the bottomless CRU Email hack hole, I found this YouTube video rather thourough and amusing:
One happy data point about this affair is that it clearly did not have much impact outside of the Denial-o-sphere. Copenhagen need no such aid to end in tatters all on its own.
On that note, have a good weekend!
illconsidered | December 1, 2009Well, I see no one takes my advice on anything!
The Associated Press
LONDON -- Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.
The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S.…