RealClimate responds to the CRU hack

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

by nollidge • 17 years ago

32 33 17 years ago

realclimate.org

randallsquared• 17 years ago

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.

gjm112• 17 years ago

Dunno about that. The single worst-looking one on the examiner.com page was the one about "adding in the real data to hide the decline", or whatever the exact wording was, and they explicitly discuss that one. (I am making no comment on whether what they say about it is convincing, nor about whether it's correct.)

robotrout2• 17 years ago

That's the worst you saw? Did you download them?

How about this, for a start, on their impartial 'scientific debate'

   If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics 
   camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, 
   we could go through official AGU channels to get him 
   ousted.

cwan2• 17 years ago

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• 17 years ago

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.

cakeface• 17 years ago

"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"

Isn't this sort of normal? Present a hypothesis and then set out to see if it is true.

nollidge• 17 years ago

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

cwan2• 17 years ago

The NYT coverage: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.ht...

triassic• 17 years ago

Best summary of the emails is here: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cu...

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

RealClimate responds to the CRU hack

Related Stories