"Climategate" two years later

[thaumaturgy]

Let's talk about that, Thaumaturgy. "Play fair"?

Starting when? And ... what are the definitions of fair? Seriously.

In that repeated investigations of the allegations stemming directly from Climategate have CONTINUOUSLY FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION OF THE DATA it is irrational and incorrect to use "climategate" to impugn the value of the science.

The only thing any review of Climategate has found is that some of the researchers failed to follow FOIA rules strictly.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with scientific bias or anything else like that.

What it does relate to is that you have a group of researchers who, over the past several years, have been under constant attack from "skeptics" who have inundated the researchers with non-stop requests for raw data only to turn around misinterpret it or otherwise take up the researchers time.

As you know, few researchers have to show their raw data every single day to the public. Not because they are exempt from it, but because few people actually care to see the raw data from things like "granular activated carbon research" or "solar neutrino flux research".

Are we talking morality?

No.

Scientific ethics?

Yes. The scientists have provided you with as much or more of their background data than just about any other research group I've ever seen in my nearly 30 years in the sciences.

When I was investigating CFC's in sea water I don't recall anyone approaching my boss for his raw data or our computer programs for integrating the chromatograms. When it was published we gave a full accounting of what was done and how the data was measured.

And the same is done for almost all of climate science.

Help me out, Thaumaturgy. Personally, I kinda favor "truth". Whatever do you mean by "play fair"?

I mean play fair by establishing that when there is a repeated failure to find fraud that you guys let go of that line of approach unless and until such information is found.

How 'bout this. Let's say that I think Climate Skeptics are guilty of fraudulently manipulating data, like in THIS case:

Monckton graphs data and then claims it is IPCC projections (it wasn't how IPCC interpretted the data but Monckton makes it sound like it is)

or how about:

Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends

or

New Zealand Climate Science Coalition caught lying about temperature trends

Now personally I don't think any of these folks were "lying", I rather take the approach that people are generally honest, but no always correct.

BUT if I were to take the skeptoid approach I would then be able to say there's more "evidence" to support the idea that climate skeptics are prone to fraudulent manipulation of data and interpretations than climate scientists who are not skeptics.

Am I playing fair? Can I basically impugn all of the climate skeptic community because of this? Would it be propert to then simply "ignore" Richard Lindzen because some other skeptics have shown a tendency toward fraudulent manipulation of data and interpretation? Did I use that excuse when addressing your points about Roy Spencer?

Nope. That's because it wouldn't be fair to suggest that because a few people who happen to be skeptics have done some questionable things with graphs that the science is broken and I should ignore all skeptics because of this.

Truth has no agenda.

Correct. So supply us some evidence (at least 3 cases if you will) that show as much tendency of agw-believing scientists to comport themselves as "questionably" as I've shown here for the agw "skeptics".

Then we will know truth has no agenda.

 

[DaisyDay]

Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real - Houston Chronicle

Richard Muller, Koch brothers-funded scientist, declares global warming is real - NY Daily News

One of the most prominent global warming skeptics is changing is his tune.

Richard Muller, a physicist who spent two years trying to see if mainstream climate scientists were wrong about the earth's climate changes, determined that they were right, the Associated Press reported.

His findings showed the temperature had risen about 1.6 degrees since the 1950s.

Well, that is one hurdle, that global warming is happening. The next is for him to theorize why.

What is significant about this is that the study was Koch-funded.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Thank you, Thaumaturgy. Good, honest post.

In that repeated investigations of the allegations stemming directly from Climategate have CONTINUOUSLY FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION OF THE DATA it is irrational and incorrect to use "climategate" to impugn the value of the science.

Agreed. Pure science is impartial. Science necessarily deals with underlying fundamental truths.

Scientists have always been held to a higher personal standard. Fair or not, that's just the way it is. Some fields of science, perhaps even most fields of science, could not survive if that were not the case. Being on a pedastal though means that the fall to ground hurts a little more.

The climate researchers aren't the first group of scientists subjected to public scrutiny. Some fields have endured near-constant scrutiny ... take archaeology, evolution, paleontology, smoking researchers, etc. It's a long list. The good news is that better climate research should come out of this. Already, there's greater transparency.

What it does relate to is that you have a group of researchers who, over the past several years, have been under constant attack from "skeptics" who have inundated the researchers with non-stop requests for raw data only to turn around misinterpret it or otherwise take up the researchers time.

As you know, few researchers have to show their raw data every single day to the public. Not because they are exempt from it, but because few people actually care to see the raw data from things like "granular activated carbon research" or "solar neutrino flux research".

One can argue that the climate researchers are impartial, but the fact remains that "big money" hinges on the outcomes of climate research. Just look at smoking/tobacco research to see how money affects that debate.

Yes. The scientists have provided you with as much or more of their background data than just about any other research group I've ever seen in my nearly 30 years in the sciences.

Only the investigation freed up much of the data.

I mean play fair by establishing that when there is a repeated failure to find fraud that you guys let go of that line of approach unless and until such information is found.

I would ask that you quit referring to me as "you guys", or somesuch. I'm just trying to have a conversation with you, Thaumaturgy. I told you earlier I agree that global warming has occurred. In most regards I agree with the APS statement I quoted yesterday, too. Why do you keep making this personal?

How 'bout this. Let's say that I think Climate Skeptics are guilty of fraudulently manipulating data ...

When I reference one of the ding-bats, please let me know.

BUT if I were to take the skeptoid approach I would then be able to say there's more "evidence" to support the idea that climate skeptics are prone to fraudulent manipulation of data and interpretations than climate scientists who are not skeptics.

Agreed. Many are not scientists. Again, there is considerable money chasing after specific results.

Am I playing fair? Can I basically impugn all of the climate skeptic community because of this? Would it be propert to then simply "ignore" Richard Lindzen because some other skeptics have shown a tendency toward fraudulent manipulation of data and interpretation? Did I use that excuse when addressing your points about Roy Spencer?

LOL ... until I talked to you in your own language ... you made a number of erroneous assumptions about me, which I have chosen to correct as necessary for the discussion.

Then we will know truth has no agenda.

LOL ... in any case, truth has no agenda.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Scientists have always been held to a higher personal standard.

I don't agree with this. Would you hold a banker to a lower personal standard than you would a scientist? Would you hold a surgeon to a lower personal standard than a scientist?

I think it is a flaw to differentiate the personal standards one holds different careers to.

Fair or not, that's just the way it is.

I fundamentally disagree with this statement.

Some fields of science, perhaps even most fields of science, could not survive if that were not the case. Being on a pedastal though means that the fall to ground hurts a little more.

No field of endeavor could survive if they are allowed to act in a more dishonest fashion than anyone else.

The climate researchers aren't the first group of scientists subjected to public scrutiny. Some fields have endured near-constant scrutiny ... take archaeology, evolution, paleontology, smoking researchers, etc. It's a long list.

Paleontology and Evolution: These are held up to more scrutiny than other sciences because creationists wish to destroy the science for religious reasons.

Smoking: This became politicized because tobacco companies were throwing lots of money to "generate controversy" around the findings of legitimate research (cf "Merchants of Doubt" by Oreskes and Conway)

Archaeology: the only excessive skepticism I am aware in relation to archaeology over other sciences is when a particular group for cultural or religious reasons does not like the implications of the findings of the legitimate science

Climate Change Research is largely "controversial" because it has been made controversial. The amount of agreement within the science is a good indication that the science is relatively solid due to repeated independent analysis of data across the globe for the past 50 years.

The only "controversy" that currently exists amounts to a small number of skeptics within the science (about 3% of the scientists studying this topic) coupled with a very loud and largely uninformed public debate mostly leveraged around the politics of the potential "fixes" that have been proposed.

One can argue that the climate researchers are impartial, but the fact remains that "big money" hinges on the outcomes of climate research. Just look at smoking/tobacco research to see how money affects that debate.

Excellent example. The tobacco companies funded various research positions in order, specifically, to generate controversy around the legitimate medical science.

There is almost no "big money" in shutting down the petroleum industry, but one can certainly imagine that coal and petroleum companies (which command almost unheard of amounts of money) would be far more capable of throwing vast sums of money to certain activities.

Not that they necessarily do (ExxonMobil obviously funds a few big name climate skeptics already mentioned), but I'm not willing to debate science based on funding resources.

I would ask that you quit referring to me as "you guys"

So you do not consider yourself among those who would leverage the appearance of impropriety with regards to the data based on climategate e-mails? Then can I ask why you originally said:

Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails - Taking Liberties - CBS News

...
​

Translation ... Science? Not so much ... instead, a hidden agenda over-ruling the data when necessary.

The key phrase being "overruling the data when necessary" indicates that data was treated secondary to agenda, which would amount to fraudulent data manipulation, despite the fact that no one has yet proven any such thing in regards to agw.

That is why I say "you guys" because your statement (vide supra) right up there indicates you are one of the people who think that data was secondary to agenda despite there being no evidence to that point.

, or somesuch. I'm just trying to have a conversation with you, Thaumaturgy.

Yes, a "conversation". Conversation often involves laughing at people's posts:

LOL ...

LOL ...
... sigh ...
LOL ...
...
.

LOL ...
LOL^2 .

ROTFL ...

.

LOL ... .

ROTFL ... Is that the only tool you've got in your arsenal, Thaumaturgy?

ROTFL ... you guys always go for low-hanging fruit ...

With all your "laughing" whether out loud or rolling on the floor I'm surprised you can manipulate the keyboard.

Yes these are all the hallmarks of a "discussion".

I told you earlier I agree that global warming has occurred. In most regards I agree with the APS statement I quoted yesterday, too. Why do you keep making this personal?

So you agree global warming has occurred, got it. I don't recall you posting the APS position statement yesterday. Do you think humanity is a large forcing mechanism in the current warming?

Can I also ask a quick question?

You hounded me to address the point you made about the graphs I posted earlier (which I did), but I note that you never respond to any questions I have asked about statistics. You didn't answer anything about the Rasmussen report you posted, you didn't provide any information about time-series analyses as I requested, so I'm curious why you don't address these but you won't let me move on beyond a point you want answered.

Just curious. Again, it's nothing new for skeptics on this board or other boards to do this. They rain down all manner of things and won't discuss many further, even when asked, but woe be unto you if you ignore one jot or tittle of their points.

Guess that's part of the "discussion", isn't it?

LOL.