--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Pentagon Papers were also supposed to be kept secret. > > > > > > > > > > Some would say it is a good thing they were published. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You didn't even read what I posted, Tony. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why don't you write more of your own words, Bongo, instead of always > > > posting other people's words. > > > > > > Is it so difficult? > > > > > > > > > Irrelevant to the issue, Tony. Unless you have something better than the > > bullshit you've been posting on this issue, I'm finished with this > > discussion. > > > > > > > > Final point: > > Again, why are you so eager to have catastrophic man-made global warming be > real? > > Don't you hope that the deniers are right and you are wrong? > > Because that would mean that millions of people won't die! > > Isn't that a better outcome than if global warming were real? > > I simply don't understand why you aren't at least hoping against hope that > the deniers are right. >
Wishful thinking doesn't change factual reality, Tony. Perhaps you can now muster the courage to tell us about how wishful thinking worked for your 'inventions' that also failed miserably. > > > > > > > > Here's more: > > > > > > > > In the face of current warnings > > > > <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/21/2749469.htm> of > > > > "catastrophic fire danger" as New South Wales, Australia experiences its > > > > "hottest November on record," as well as stories > > > > <http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091120/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_floods> > > > > about "the heaviest rainfall ever recorded in Britain," attempts to use > > > > a few out-of-context quotes to paint climate change as a colossal fraud > > > > may meet with some degree of skepticism themselves. > > > > > > > > Scientists are also weighing in on the controversy. Brian Angliss at > > > > Scholars & Rogues, for example, finds > > > > <http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/11/20/climategate-not-likely/> > > > > the claims of fraud "highly unlikely." > > > > > > > > "I work in electrical engineering where I use words and phrases that, > > > > taken out of context, could be misinterpreted as nefarious by people who > > > > are ignorant of the context or who have an axe to grind," he explains. > > > > "For example, I regularly talk about 'fiddling with' or 'twiddling' the > > > > data, 'faking out' something, 'messing around with' testing, and so on. > > > > ... No matter how much the deniers scream, these emails aren't > > > > likely to reveal any evidence of scientific malfeasance. And even if > > > > they do, there's an entire globe of researchers whose independent > > > > research has bolstered the case that climate disruption is real and that > > > > it's predominantly caused by human civilization." > > > > > > > > Perhaps the final word on the matter has already been offered by a > > > > spokesperson for Greenpeace, who told the Guardian, "If you looked > > > > through any organisation's emails from the last 10 years you'd find > > > > something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics > > > > claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and > > > > the world's leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a > > > > clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive > > > > some web traffic, but so does David Icke." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" do.rflex@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's see how Bongo Brazil is going to explain THIS away: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/commen\ > > > > \ > > > > > > ts/hadley_hacked#63657 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The CRU hack Filed under: > > > > > > * Climate Science > > > > > > > > > > <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/\ > > > > \ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the > > > > > > University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently > > > > (Despite > > > > > > some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely > > > > nothing > > > > > > to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate > > > > > > institution). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and > > > > > > releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they > > > > > > were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is > > > > > > unethical. We therefore aren't going to post any of the emails here. > > > > > > We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday > > > > morning > > > > > > when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we > > > > notified > > > > > > CRU of their possible security breach later that day. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of > > > > (possibly > > > > > > edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov > > > > 12) > > > > > > are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first > > > > > > RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include > > > > > > discussions we've had with the CRU folk on topics related to the > > > > > > surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to > > > > > > ensure that posting were accurate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing > > > > them > > > > > > are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they > > > > > > would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as > > > > no > > > > > > shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in > > > > high > > > > > > regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and > > > > > > Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) > > > > papers > > > > > > were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been > > > > > > published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the > > > > > > literature (though possibly less bluntly). > > > > > > > > > > > > More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no > > > > > > evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros > > > > > > nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to `get rid of > > > > > > the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of > > > > > > the falsifying of data, and no `marching orders' from our > > > > > > socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in > > > > on > > > > > > the plot though. > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and > > > > the > > > > > > conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith > > > > that is > > > > > > sometimes imagined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People working constructively to improve joint publications; > > > > scientists > > > > > > who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, > > > > > > disagreeing at times about details and engaging in `robust' > > > > > > discussions; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their > > > > work > > > > > > in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it > > > > wrong; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their > > > > research to > > > > > > deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere > > > > > > will generate a lot of noise about this. but it's important to > > > > > > remember that science doesn't work because people are polite at all > > > > > > times. Gravity isn't a useful theory because Newton was a nice > > > > > > person. QED isn't powerful because Feynman was respectful of other > > > > > > people around him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Science works because different groups go about trying to find the > > > > best > > > > > > approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive > > > > about > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an > > > > IPCC > > > > > > chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable. > > > > > > > > > > > > No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" > > > > > > phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth > > > > mentioning > > > > > > quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature > > > > > > reconstructions stated that "I've just completed Mike's > > > > > > Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last > > > > 20 > > > > > > years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the > > > > > > decline." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature > > > > > > paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the > > > > > > `trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with > > > > > > reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good > > > > > > way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is > > > > > > "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for the `decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's > > > > > > maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the > > > > temperature > > > > > > records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence > > > > > > problem"–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper > > > > > > > > > > <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-mille\ > > > > \ > > > > > > nnial-reconstructions/> ) and has been discussed in the literature > > > > since > > > > > > Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of > > > > > > their reconstruction, and so while `hiding' is probably a poor > > > > > > choice of words (since it is `hidden' in plain sight), not using > > > > > > the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further > > > > research > > > > > > to understand why this happens. > > > > > > > > > > > > The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. > > > > But > > > > > > if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails > > > > is > > > > > > the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the > > > > human > > > > > > influence on climate change, then there probably isn't much to it. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are of course lessons to be learned. Clearly no-one would have > > > > > > gone to this trouble if the academic object of study was the mating > > > > > > habits of European butterflies. That community's internal > > > > > > discussions are probably safe from the public eye. But it is > > > > important > > > > > > to remember that emails do seem to exist forever, and that there is > > > > > > always a chance that they will be inadvertently released. Most > > > > people do > > > > > > not act as if this is true, but they probably should. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is tempting to point fingers and declare that people should not > > > > have > > > > > > been so open with their thoughts, but who amongst us would really be > > > > > > happy to have all of their email made public? > > > > > > > > > > > > Let he who is without PIN cast the the first stone. > > > > > > > > > > > > Update: The official UEA statement is as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > "We are aware that information from a server used for research > > > > > > information in one area of the university has been made available on > > > > > > public websites," the spokesman stated. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently > > > > > > confirm > > > > > > that all of this material is genuine." > > > > > > > > > > > > "This information has been obtained and published without our > > > > > > permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in > > > > question > > > > > > from operation." > > > > > > > > > > > > "We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have > > > > > > involved the police in this enquiry." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
