Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey

Posted on 23 November 2011 by Rob Painting, dana1981

Not satisfied with the fake scandal that was Climategate 1.0, climate denialists have returned with another collection of quote-mined excerpts from the same batch of e-mails hacked from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) two years ago.

The original release of quote-mined stolen e-mails coincided with the lead-up to Denmark's Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009, where world leaders met to discuss and agree on actions to address man-made climate change (so much for that). Once again, this new batch of e-mails just so happen to surface before the gathering of world leaders for the climate conference in Durban, South Africa, which is to start next week.

Given that the quote-mined excerpts from the stolen e-mails contain nothing that challenges the robustness and validity of the veritable mountain of scientific evidence that underpins man-made global warming, its timing and content (or more accurately, lack thereof) strongly suggest this is yet another desperate attempt to influence public opinion and distract the policymakers attending the Durban conference. This is, no doubt, why prominent climate modeler Gavin Schmidt labels the new e-mail release "Two-year old turkey."

Another Climate Conspiracy

Perhaps the most charitable way to characterize Climategate 1.0 is that at its heart is the preposterous notion that climate scientists are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy.  Of course we at Skeptical Science could point out the many ways in which this notion is wrong, but then we'd just be part of the conspiracy in the eyes of the conspiracy theorists, wouldn't we?

Despite the stolen e-mails being nothing more than private discussions being taken out of context and misrepresented by denialist blogs and mainstream media, a number of investigations were conducted to ascertain any wrongdoing on the part of the climate scientists whose e-mails had been hacked. Hardly surprising then, that every single one of the 9 separate Climategate investigations has exonerated the climate scientists.  Despite the fact that the Climategate 1.0 e-mails contained no damning evidence, and the Climategate 2.0 e-mails contain even less (as Barry Bickmore put it, they're the B-list, benchwarmer e-mails), the climate denialists, seeing chum in the water, are once again predictably having a feeding frenzy over these stolen emails.  In contrast, Media Matters demonstrates how innocuous these e-mails become once their context is taken into account.  As Stephan Lewandowsky put it,

"The scandal isn’t the emails, it’s the hacking"

The theft and release of private email correspondence between climate scientists represented the best imaginable opportunity to expose a 'conspiracy' in the climate science community.  That none was found further exposes the emptiness of the conspiracy argument.  Nothing in the Climategate leftovers served up this time around offers anything more in this regard.  It's leftover two-year-old turkey; there's just no beef.

Why Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey?

Although more of these stolen e-mails will be drip-fed by the skeptic blogs and journalists over the coming weeks, it's likely they will continue in the same vein as Climategate 1.0 - an attempt to frame climate science as some sort of conspiracy.

Clearly the majority of the public won't have the foggiest idea of what these e-mails refer to, even when context is provided, which is undoubtedly the reason why they are trotted out to a scientifically naive audience.  But this begs the obvious question: why resort to stealing, quote-mining, and distorting decade-old e-mails if there is evidence that the climate "skeptics" are right?

Well, that question answers itself. Climate change "skeptics," including the handful of skeptical climate scientists, such as Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, etc., have no substantive evidence that undermines the scientific evidence behind man-made global warming.  None. Which doesn't mean that the consensus is a done deal, or 100% certain. Of course it isn't, but to move the science forward requires evidence, something not accomplished by trotting out quote-mined out-of-context statements stolen from e-mails written a decade ago.

The (Skeptic) Emperor Has No Clothes

So let's just point out, for the sake of clarity, how many "skeptic" hypotheses explain the observations in the figure below. Unlike the mainstream view, that would be Zero. Zip. Nada. There is no coherent consistent hypothesis presented by skeptics that can explain the observations that are 'fingerprints' of greenhouse gases warming our planet.  That's right, climate "skeptics," including those few "skeptics" who are actual climate scientists, would have you accept what they say on the basis of faith, not evidence.     

fingers

 

Indeed, what we've found at Skeptical Scence is that virtually every single "skeptic" scientific paper falls apart upon close examination, rather like a vampire exposed to direct sunlight (for example see here and here and here and here, to list a few). Yet in spite of this serial wrongness and lack of an overarching hypothesis, the "skeptics" are unable to accept they are wrong. In a scientific sense it's difficult to take them seriously, even though they do enormous damage by misinforming the public.

Facing Up to Reality

Any rational reader of climate blogs will be aware that the evidence-based case for climate change/global warming grows ever stronger with each passing year.  Indeed, many of the extreme weather events of the last 18 months are entirely consistent with expectations outlined in earlier IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports. 

We also have recent studies which indicate that the current warming of both hemispheres, at the same time, is unique within the last 20,000 years. A finding which is supported by a just-published paper showing the polar ice sheets are retreating in a synchronous manner for the first time, which puts the current warming into context.

And, in the more bad news department, we have a recent paper of regional warming trend projections, which indicates that all of the contiguous United States will experience 2°C of warming (above pre-industrial) within 20-30 years.  And this at a time when southern US states are struggling with record drought.

 

What the evidence shows us is that rather than retreating from reality as the climate denialists would have us do, humanity must ignore these empty distractions and confront our new reality.

The Earth's climate, and the universe at large, are unerringly mathematical and follow physical laws, they will not be fooled by "skeptic" distractions, and neither should we.  As John Cook pointed out during Climategate 1.0, the question the denialists failed to ask was:

Has 'Climategate' changed our scientific understanding of global warming?

This question was never asked because of the answer:

The evidence for human-caused global warming is as solid as ever.

The answer to this question during Climategate 2.0 remains the same; in fact, in the meantime we have discovered that CRU has actually underestimated global warming!  The only real difference is that two years have passed, and time is running out to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.  The longer we wait to take serious action, the worse the consequences and the more expensive adaptation and mitigation will be.

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page | Repost this Article Repost This

Comments

Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 96 out of 96:

  1. Sphaerica @49,

    Like the refuted and Delingpole, most "skeptics" and those who deny the theory of AGW are no more than "interpreters of interpretations". Anything to help them deal with their cognitive dissonance I suppose.

    And they also seem to very much enjoy misrepresenting and distorting stolen emails. Nice hobby. Not.

    History will not look favourably on the hackers and people like Watts and McIntyre. Quite the partnership they have going-- Watts and McIntyre were amongst the first recipients of the second release of stolen emails. So Watts and McIntyre and the hackers make quite the misinformation team. I wonder if Norfolk police have spoken with Watts and McIntyre yet and if so, if they are cooperating?
    0 0
  2. @DB

    I was talking about the World Bank connection not Watson (yes I know his connection with the IPCC and the World Bank etc)
    0 0
  3. Mango, just a quick question, how much rubbish on WUWT would have to be debunked before you gave up reading it? 1, 5, 50, 100 articles?
    0 0
  4. Scaddenp @53,

    Probably no amount of rubbish and refutation will convince some people that WUWT is not credible.

    Even if the conspiracy theories were true, they would have no bearing whatsoever on the theory of AGW (i.e., the physics, the chemistry et cetera). The planet does not give one iota about "the emails", and the theory of AGW is not "threatened" by any of this nonsense. All the climate system will do is continue warm (with ups and downs) in response to the cumulative effect of humans pumping gigatonnes of tonnes of CO2 (and other GHGs) into the atmosphere each year.

    Sadly people like Mango appear to believe that the Two-Year-Old Turkey magically makes AGW a non issue. I wish. Actually, they probably think from the outset that it is a non issue and are using Two-Year-Old Turkey to rationalize their misguided beliefs.
    0 0
  5. 53 - scaddenp
    Mango has already posted that the wuwt article looks iffy in post 45... Probably he/she knows the rest of the site is iffy as well.
    0 0
  6. So if I understand Mango-Chutney' precious WUWT article correctly, a climate scientist who was chair of the IPCC consulted with other members of the IPCC about the contents of an IPCC assessment report, and this is considered proof of a conspiracy by the World Bank?

    The two most absurd things about this whole manufactured controversy is the absolute refusal by deniers to all any context to effect their interpretation of the emails; and the shere paucity of the results.

    If you have access to a data base of 22,000 emails from a small group of people involved in a conspiracy, you would expect that conspiracy to receive frequent mention. Your proof of conspiracy would not be limited to 20 or 30 vaguely worded emails that could possibly be considered proof of conspiracy if you remove all context, look at them from the right angle, squint and make sure your tongue is in the right position. In this case, if the World Bank was co-ordinating the IPCC response to global warming (surely a complicated excercise if it where to be undertaken), they would have needed far more than 32 emails and far more than three of those emails would have contained information related to that effort.

    But for Mango-Chutney and WUWT, innuendo is an adequate substitute for evidence so long as they get to confirm their bias against the IPCC.
    0 0
  7. #56 Tom : I’m afraid your point will not convince conspiracy theorists. They interpret the world with paranoid circular reasoning – ‘the better proof of the malign influence of the Devil is that we cannot prove nor disprove its existence’ –, so if the ‘conspiracy’ doesn’t appear clearly, it implies surely that the conspiracy is even more powerful than all we can imagine!
    0 0
  8. The question to Mango was just to judge his/her sincerity in search for truth - I've asked it of other posters and about other misinformation sites. If the answer is that no about amount of debunking would stop someone from hopefully trawling the garbage rather than looking at the published science, then little point in getting into a discussion.

    On the other hand, if say 10-20 articles of garbage that can be shown unequivocally to be wrong when referenced to published fact is enough, well perhap SkS could create such a resource for that pretty easily along line of "Monckton Myths". For WUFT, Wotts up with that is already something a headstart, and Tamino has also regularly taken stuff apart.
    0 0
  9. skept.fr @57, I believed a conspiracy theory once. Then I turned 13 and learned how to think ;)
    0 0
  10. More seriously, one thing I've noted about Climategate the squeakquel is how closed is the loop of information deniers allow themselves. FOIA 2011 links only to denier takes on the information, while there are almost no deniers bringing up emails in places where people know, or might try to find out the context. Despite all the noise they are trying to make, it is clear that they have no confidence in this release of emails as evidence of anything much.
    0 0
  11. MangoChutney, is that really all that you and Watts have anymore? Watson had an illustrious career as an environmental scientist (with a chemistry PhD background), and became Senior Scientific adviser in the Environment Department of the World Bank, a position he was amply qualified for based on his background. Having also held the chairmanship of the IPCC before Pachauri, he had the temerity to ffer some advice by email to the IPCC, something he was utterly, amply qualified to do. That Watts is having a hissy fit about this is not surprise - he's still desperately trying to cover for being proven completely, utterly wrong by the BEST project. That you trust Watts as a source of information is rather sad - debunking WUWT articles is really like shooting fish in a barrel with an AK-47.

    MangoChutney, in among the conspiracy theorising, I wonder if you have had the opportunity to come up with any scientific arguments for your claim that the Tropospheric Hot Spot is a fingerprint of AGW, discussed by Albatross and myself on this thread (please respond there), or responded to Albatross' scientific challenge on this thread (please respond there)? After all, I would hate to think that skeptics such as yourself would be lacking in scientific arguments and resort to innuendo, slander and conspiracy theory. From your posting here, that would appear to be the case. So ... do you actually have any science to back up your viewpoints?
    0 0
  12. Skywatcher @61, not only had Watson been a chairman of the IPCC, the supposedly damning email was written in January of 2001, ie, while he was chairman of the IPCC. This highlights the desperation of the deniers on two points-

    That they would consider it untoward that a highly qualified chairman of the IPCC should have input into the writing of the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers; and

    That they are dredging up eleven year old emails to prosecute their case.

    Seriously, where it not for the fact that there is a "sucker born every minute" and that those suckers get to vote, the only suitable response to WUWT would be gales of laughter.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [Albatross] Fixed hyperlink tag.
  13. Is there any site dedicated to legal matters that discusses the legal issues raised by the content of these emails?

    (this should not be construed as a criticism of the discussion here but I would like to separate out the legal from the scientific.)
    0 0
  14. 63, Mikel,

    What legal issues are you suggesting? Stealing private e-mails is a crime. Hacking into a computer system for any purpose is a crime. You can read about that anywhere.

    Otherwise, there is no evidence whatsoever of anything remotely close to criminal activity in the content of the e-mails, so even asking a question about it is a slight-of-hand insult. It's like asking someone "Do you still beat your wife?" Asking the question is the crime itself.
    0 0
  15. 64, Sphaerica

    Wow! I tried asking a polite question. Definitely did not expect such a response.

    I can answer your question, but I'll take the Moderator's advice before getting into a whole range of legal issues here.

    Perhaps someone else can answer my question.
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] Your original question:

    "Is there any site dedicated to legal matters that discusses the legal issues raised by the content of these emails?"

    You are ignoring the extremely large pink mamuk in the room: The theft of the emails was a crime currently under investigation.  Your continued focus on the content of the stolen emails is misplaced.

    Given that, Sphaerica's answer:

    "there is no evidence whatsoever of anything remotely close to criminal activity in the content of the e-mails"

    Is spot-on.


    Edit:  As is this quote from dhogaza over at RC:

    "Stealing private e-mail discussions and publicizing them is akin to bugging the supreme court during their private deliberations and releasing the recording"

  16. What legal issues, Mikel ?
    0 0
  17. I'm not sure anyone can without more specifics Mikel. What are these "issues"?
    For a start, why don't you look in details at the various investigations that have already been conducted on these e-mails? The leftovers that are being served up now to attempt to derail the Durban talks have absolutely nothing new, so whatever "issues" are there were already there 2 years ago, I presume.
    0 0
  18. 66, JMurphy
    67, Philippe Chantreau

    OK, I'll keep it brief and, yes, I have read the Muir Russell investigation report, the UEA undertaking to the ICO and seen the guidance from the ICO on research information.

    1) Offence committed: Yes, but likely to be an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 not the Theft Act. Although unlikely, a leak could be an offence under Section 55 Data Protection Act. Ultimately, a decision for the CPS;
    2) Privacy, in particular privacy at work and the difference between privacy and confidentiality. Privacy in the UK derives from the Human Rights Act. Confidentiality can derive from common law, contract law, commercial/trade secrets, need to protect free/frank exchange of views, to name but a few;
    3) Status of the IPCC with regard to rights of access to information. IPCC Secretariat is based in Switzerland and subject to Swiss law?;
    4) Records retention policy, in particular with respect to email;
    5) Ownership of research information. The academic or the institution?
    6) Definition of 'holding' information. Use of personal accounts on external systems;
    7) Anonymising personal data to remove that data from being covered by the Data Protection Act. Tension between absolute anonymity and highly probable anonymity in the DPA.
    0 0
  19. @Mikel #68:

    Why whould SkS provide a forum to discuss the "legal" issues that you have raised?
    0 0
  20. 69 John Hartz

    SkS provided a very good series of articles about twelve months ago reviewing the furore over the CRU emails, including an article on FOI requests. I was hoping SkS or others viewing this site might know of some other site that looked at the legal issues arising from the release of the CRU emails.

    I am not expecting SkS to provide a forum but I was asked to set out what I consider to be some of the legal issues.
    0 0
  21. @Mikel #70:

    If someone reading this comment thread knows of such a site, he/she will likely post it. In the meantime, I suggest that you engage in some serious surfing of the web on your own.
    0 0
  22. Does anyone else find it odd that Phil Jones doesn't know how to plot data in Excel? Or more importantly, how he makes claimes about trends without doing the plotting and while knowingly stating that the data is statistically insignificant? Sounds odd. It's in email #1885 and here is a link.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119495/climategate-2-0-the-not-nice-and-clueless-phil-jones/#disqus_thread
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] "Does anyone else find it odd that Phil Jones doesn't know how to plot data in Excel?"

    Many scientists do not, as Excel isn't the best platform for their work (R, or one of several other packages, are better suited for their work). 

    "while knowingly stating that the data is statistically insignificant?"

    PRATT.  Jones knows it's statistically insignificant because the time series length is too short for the trend to have risen to the typical level of significance.

    Please show the original email in its context, not Delingpole's odd-sounding, served-up-on-a-platter, version.

    That's what a real skeptic would do.

  23. #72, it's also interesting that you demonstrate your own ignorance on the subject, taking interpretations from the self-confessed "Interpreter of Interpretations", Delingpole. If you follow the link back to the source, you'll see that Jones was explaining how to do a simple plot and least-squares regression in Excel, but cannot be faffed to do it at that monent (hence the keyword "now"). That he claims modesty on the speed of his computer skills is nothing new - many brilliant people do exactly the same thing, but only a fool would take that completely literally. He was complaining about a junk article by David Whitehouse, who clearly has no idea about how to determine if global warming has stopped, and provided a nice explanation for the guy who answered the question. If Jones couldn't work a spreadsheet, why is it that the second quoted paragraph is a perfectly reasonable explanation of how to plot and do a simple LS regression in Excel?

    Or do you just swallow whole every bit of misinformation from "the Interpreter of Interpretations"?
    0 0
  24. I have 2 problems with email #1885.

    First, It shows Mr. Jones doesn't have a basic grasp of data analysis that should be routine for any scientist-let alone one that requires this type of analysis to prove his hypothesis. Forget about Excel, he says that he can't graph 2 columns of data and no one at the office knows how to do it either! Do they hire any scientists at CRU? According to the email he had someone do this for him in 2006. Again, he can't do it himself? Many people in the world can't do this type of work but they don't call themselves scientists. I can't hit top spin on a tennis ball but I am not a professional tennis player. A scientist who can't do this simple data analysis would be equivalent to a plumber who can't use a pipe wrench, an electrician who can't read wiring diagrams, an auto mechanic who can't change the oil in a car or an astronomer who can't understand the celestian coordinate system. Pretty simple stuff and Jones appears to lack it.

    Second, Jones makes claims about trends when he hasn't plotted the data and when he knows it is not statistically significant. He says the "trend is up" even though he also says the data isn't statistically significant and he hasn't plotted the data to verify this. So it is now ok to eyeball the data, come to conclusions based on prior bias and not worry about statistical significance? ok, got it.

    Think how the AGW team would feel if they realized these types of comments came from a prominent skeptic. How would you be reacting?

    (-Snip-)
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] First, as noted earlier, Dr. Jones expresses an unfamiliarity with Excel, laments that no one who is familiar with Excel is currently available there at that time, and then proceeds to walk his correspondent through the methodology on how to calculate significance.

    Scientists have email corespondences like this all of the time, many more caustic.  Those who hacked the servers to steal these emails who have then selectively released a cherry-picked, minute portion are counting on fake-skeptics to overlook that loss of context.

    It doesn't say what you imply that it does.  The skeptical thing to do would be to acknowledge that and get over it.

    Second, Jones makes claims about trends when he hasn't plotted the data because he knows it is not statistically significant because the time series length is too short for any trend to rise to the level of significance (so no need to plot the data and then test for significance).

    He says the "trend is up" even though he also says the data isn't statistically significant and he hasn't plotted the data to verify this, because he knows it is not statistically significant (as defined above). So in this case it is now ok to eyeball the data and say that the "trend is up" even though he also says the data isn't statistically significant.  Because the time series length in question is too short.

    And how does he know that a trend since 1998 is too short?  Because he has already tested for significance in temperature trend time series analysis often enough to know that such a length of trend is far too short for it to be significant.  Got it?

    Third, your focus on "teams" is misplaced.  Science is not performed by "teams" (or "tribes").  There is no "us versus them".  There are scientists doing science.  Period.  Anything else is ideology.

    Copy of stolen property snipped.  A link to it would have been sufficient.

  25. 74, garythompson,

    I've known tons of very high paid CEOs that also could not even start Excel, let alone create a graph... yet they do presentations for multi million dollar deals all the time. How do they do it? Oh, that's right, they have other people to handle the trivial details like creating graphs. They do the hard part, the thinking.

    Similarly, scientists have legions of grad students. Can many scientists do this? Yes, probably. Does it mean he's incompetent? Not remotely.

    Get off of your high horse.
    0 0
  26. 74, garythompson,

    I'd also suggest that he's probably more used to working with the actual numbers and a stats package and could care less himself about graphs. He deals with other (numerical) aspects of the data. He could well have other people create graphs for the people that need them.

    Graphs are for amateurs.

    He pretty much says this in his e-mail, when he says "This is a linear trend - least squares. This is how statisticians work out trends. They don't just look at the series. The simpler way is to just look at the data...".
    0 0
  27. Dan Bailey,

    I would suggest deleting the e-mails from Gary Thompson's comment. I personally don't think SkS should be a party to publishing private e-mail correspondence, no matter how prevalent such a transgression may be across the rest of the Internet.
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] Agreed and done.

  28. So we should judge the experties of a scientist from his ability to use a spreadsheet? I bet most would let a student do the dirty job.
    This email is telling for another reason. Jones is well aware of what trends and statistical significance are, unlike other skeptical scientists; Pielke Sr. and Curry come to mind.
    0 0
  29. With regard to Gary Thompson's efforts to start a fake controversy over whether Phil Jones uses Excel, Fortran, or Matlab for his statistical analyses; clearly that is no more grounds for controversy than whether he uses an IBM, HP or Acorn computer in his office. Frankly, who cares.

    But he is correct that email 1885 is evidence of a genuinely controversial act which reflects very poorly on the person involved.

    I refer, of course, to David Whitehouse's attempt to argue that global warming has stopped because over a six year period with a warming trend, that trend was not statistically significant. In Phil Jones' words,

    "Quickly re-reading this it sounds as though I'm getting at you. I'm not - just at the idiots who continue to spout this nonsense. ...
    I would have thought that this writer would have know better! I keep on seeing people saying this same stupid thing."


    Indeed, stupid nonsense is right. Arguing that evidence of continued warming is evidence of a cessation of warming because the evidence of warming is not statistically significant (Whitehouse's argument) is beyond absurd.

    You would think denier's would be more wary about drawing attention to such examples of ... stupidity(?), dishonesty(?) ... I'm not sure how to categorize it. Perhaps the deniers are to used to people staring fixedly at the Great and Powerful Oz, rather than looking at the small man behind the curtain.
    0 0
  30. @garythompson

    gary,

    I'm sceptical of the whole AGW thing, but I think the inability to use Excel isn't a sackable offence, even if Jones meant the comment seriously.

    When making this remark Jones was refering to Scott Rutherford's mistake when providing data to M&M - Rutherford transposed data wrongly because he didn't realise the limitations of Excel. Again a genuine error
    0 0
  31. sorry, i was referring to the wrong email. Inability to use excel is still not a sackable offence
    0 0
  32. #80,81 Mango - thanks for your honest assessment of this particular non-controversy.
    0 0
  33. 81 - Mango - just who are you to dictate that?

    I was once speaking with a MS engineer who told me he had learned that people where using Excel in an operating theater (something to do with anesthetics or something) - he almost hit the roof as, in his opinion, it was dangerous to depend on Excel in that context.

    Excel does some things well but a lot of the add-ons (not least of all graphing) are decidedly dodgy and it's often not possible to know or control what it does. If you are producing assured results, you should use a tool which is built to do the job (R, matlab, etc.).
    Maybe, maybe not 'sackable'; but arguably - by those who know the domain - unprofessional.
    So, again, who are you to make decide how appropriate this is?
    0 0
  34. les @83, MangoChutney said that inability to use Excel was not a sackable offence. While it may be that the Vice-Chancelor of the University of East Anglia disagrees, it seems very implausible, so I do not see your problem with his comment.
    0 0
  35. My last house mate is a post doc Researcher and generally tries to avoid using any Microsoft software. Instead he mainly uses Linux based computers running R for stats analysis and for producing graphs. All his publications are written using LaTeX instead of Word. His background is Theoretical Physics, which may explain why, however his current research is in carbon capture and storage.

    My point is that scientists may not know how to do simple functions on excel because they use other packages to perform that same function. These other software maybe more suitable for there general needs. I think most people will agree excel isn't very useful for more than general applications such as simple personal accounting.
    0 0
  36. @les #83

    Like most people in the world, I'm a nobody.

    However, I strongly believe the use of a particular software package doesn't stop people from doing their job properly. I used to work at a university in the UK and I know of a professor, who held in high regard, but he didn't know the SI unit for something in his own speciality and, I heard, he had to be told by one of his students.

    Didn't stop him from doing his job and being bloody good at it.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Correction: Every person in the world is a somebody.
  37. 84/86 - Tom Curtis, Mango:
    Apologies, I think I read and reacted to quickly, not having read the original text in the Torygraph.

    IMHO using excel, in the casual point-and-click way alluded to in the email, is almost a 'sackable' offence for any serious, reproducible, work! It is not only bizarre to read that people think this a key skill; but indicative of how many people are clued out as to how science is actually done in real life.

    Anyway, sorry again for a poor post.
    0 0
  38. Suggested reading:

    “The Truth Behind the Emails of ClimateGate Parts 1 and 2” by John Austin., Decoded Science, Nov 26, 2011

    Click here to access this article.
    0 0
  39. To follow John H's post @88. I would highly recommend that people read Dr. Bickmore's superb post (Bickmore is a former AGW skeptic):

    "Contrarians File for Intellectual Bankruptcy"

    You can find it here.
    0 0
  40. I used the word "team" in comment #74 because in emails 810, 3115 and 3904 Mann criticizes those who don't support "the cause." If there is a cause, then there appears to be those who are on the team and those who are not. It's obvious who is not on the team and Mann clearly states that they are not "helping the cause." Why are climate scientists supporting causes? Is getting the science right not enough?

    ( -snip- )
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] Getting the science right IS the cause.

    Trolling snipped.


  41. Based on Dr. Jones' example, It's good to know that AGW skeptics will no longer be required to use a particular software package, back up trend claims with statistically significant data or even do the actual data analysis. All in the name of science.

    And when did skeptics ever do any of that in the first place?

    Several months ago, the CRU made all of the raw temperature data that skeptics had been demanding freely available to them. Can you point to any actual analysis that skeptics have done with that CRU data? Remember that skeptics have had access to that data for about 4 months. Also remember that the Muir Russel commission was able to produce preliminary analysis results from the CRU data in just a couple of days.
    0 0
  42. "If there is a cause, then there appears to be those who are on the team and those who are not."
    The logic behind this claim is beyond me.

    "Is getting the science right not enough?"
    It used to, untill big-something lobbies decided to intervene on scientific issue. I'm sure you know very well that getting the science right is not enough when it touches "special interests".

    Overall, it appers that your idea of fighting for a cause means some sort of conspiracy or politically organized group, money, written documents and such. It ain't necessarily so.
    0 0
  43. The "cause" would honest science and fighting misinformation from vested interest. Same way lawyers support the cause of justice; doctors support the cause of best medical practise; and with the same kind of funding.

    "It's good to know that AGW skeptics will no longer be required to use a particular software package, back up trend claims with statistically significant data or even do the actual data analysis. "

    At that sir is a wilful and dishonest extrapolation of what you read, utterly unsupported in the way that science has actually proceeded as shown by the publications produced, which of course back their claims with data analysis and statistical methods that others can reproduce.

    As to excel, I also am pretty much a non-user. Can you even calculate significance bounds properly with it in time-series with auto-correlation? The top experimentalist in this building is also pretty much handicapped in the excel department, wisely leaving the detailed statistical analysis to other but no one is suggesting he has no place in science - quite the reverse.

    And Gary, looking at other commentary you have made, perhaps you might like to take the challenge here to convince us that your skepticism is rooted in science rather than political concerns.
    0 0
  44. Gary@90:
    "Why are climate scientists supporting causes? Is getting the science right not enough?"

    Why do you automatically assume that getting the science right isn't the cause he means? Mann did after all say
    (email 0071)
    "So please let me know if that would be ok ... As noted above, I want to get the science right, and if you think appropriate, go ahead."
    (ellipses in original)
    He's on record as wanting to get the science right. Is that not a cause worth defending?

    "back up trend claims with statistically significant data"
    "Skeptics" never do. That's why they obsess over very small sample sizes with trends they know are not going to be statistically significant and pretend they mean something.
    0 0
  45. Thankyou, Robert Murphy @94. I believe the inference that "getting the science right" is Michael Mann's "cause" is certainly justified. What is distressing is not that he should have that cause, but that there are those (Curry, Spencer, Christy, Pielke Snr) who have forsaken that cause.
    0 0
  46. #93 Scaddenp, I read that post and (-snip-)
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] Please put your reply to that post on that postNot here, where it is OT (OT portion snipped).

  47. Can anyone please put all this in context, please?

    (only the third e-mail is from climategate 1.0, the others are from climatgate 2.0).
    I know I'm asking for a lot but I really need your help in order to get rid of an annoying friend...

    (stolen correspondence snipped)

    Thank you.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Nice try. Skeptical Science does not exist to allow you to disseminate nonsense by pretending to ask for help.

Prev  1  2  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us