Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

As I said before, the purpose of the IPCC is to provide information so leaders can make informed decisions, not to mislead them into making the decisions that IPCC members/contributors think best. If those individuals wish to push their agenda, they should get out of science and get into politics so they can be elected to positions that will allow them to do so. Even going by your choice of quotes from the individual in question, there is a plain effort to "encourage" a particular type of behavior, not to provide an impartial overview. The "grey literature" comment just shows an attitude, "we knew we shouldn't but, hey...our intentions are good, right?" "Grey literature" was the man's way of saying he knew it shouldn't have been included, but it was anyway.
I've reference more than just "one error" in the IPCC report. I don't consider something that is admittedly done on purpose to be an "error," either. It's an unethical falsehood. This, in combination with the contents of the Climategate memos, which show a willingness to discredit/punish those who disagree with the "consensus," the illegal refusal of East Anglia researchers to release their work, and their subsequent destruction of some requested data, show a pattern of condescending "we know better than the rest of you so we have to steer you the way we want you to go" falsehood and chicanery.
If the science were as "settled" as you'd have me believe, there'd be no reason for any of these people to distort the truth, target data/researchers that support differing conclusions, or obscure and/or destroy their own work.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

You're naive if you think the scientists who put together the IPCC reports don't have specific views on what should be done to prevent the things they're forecasting. That's irrelevant to whether the science itself is strong.

As for the "grey literature" comment, that's the term the IPCC uses for non-peer reviewed reports. You have absolutely no evidence that the authors who included the WWF report thought it was incorrect at the time, and in light of that there is no reason other than your political ideology to assume there was deliberate dishonesty. By continuing to impugn the attitudes of those involved without actually tackling the overwhelming bulk of the evidence that's uncontroversial, you're just showing the depth of your hypocrisy.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

Like I said, if the science were "settled" there'd be no reason for any of these people to distort the truth, target data/researchers that support differing conclusions, or obscure and/or destroy their own work.

Casting aspersions on something just because it comes from someone with a view opposed to your own (or because you think pie-charts in newspapers is stupid) is not the same as doubting people who have shown a tendency to be a bunch of shady motherfuckers. If you don't wish to acknowledge that difference, and the whole point of this exercise is to just say I'm a hypocrite, I'm good with that.

Personally, I'd have gone with, "OK, those guys are a little out there, here's something from people who aren't distorting facts and hiding their data."

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I've already explained the error in the IPCC report, and 3 separate commissions on the CRU emails have found no evidence of deception:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
"We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit"

http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
"On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf
"We are content that the phrases such as “trick” or “hiding the decline” were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process."

Both of these controversies referred to a few researchers responsible for a tiny fraction of the body of scientific knowledge on climate change, and there's no evidence that even in these cases was there any deception going on. I've pointed out repeatedly that there is a ton of research on climate change completely unconnected with these fake controversies, which you seem to be entirely uninterested in. Simply insisting that climate scientists are liars is not the same as evaluating the evidence on it's merits, and yet you're insisting on doing only the former, despite your earlier statements in this thread.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

As previously stated, I don’t have the time available to read entire reports…

I made the time anyway since I had too much caffeine today, and read the report from the UK Parliament. Let’s review what I found.

Ten of the fourteen members of the panel were members of liberal parties, with three conservative members and one independent. If I were some of the other people who frequent this forum, I would immediately laugh off any of the conclusions…but I chose not to do that, and kept reading. Despite there being ample evidence that there were, at the very least, some irregularities with the actions of the individuals in question, the summary oddly lacks any reference to any of the more unflattering findings of fact.

In response to accusations that Professor Jones had not provided data for peer review, there were perfectly legitimate reasons for not providing some of his data for peer review, including legal obligations not to share some parts of the data sets involved because they were the property of commercial interests. However, Professor Jones refused to share other relevant data that was not under such restrictions because, in his own words, “Why should I make the data available to you, when
your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” A colleague of Professor Jones, Professor Acton, argued that East Anglia University’s (EAU) Climate Research Unit (CRU) shouldn’t be under any obligation to provide data because it wasn’t an archive or a library. So while it is clear that there was information the CRU could not share, it is equally clear that Professor Jones and his colleagues were less than interested in full disclosure of the information upon which their findings were based.

The panel concluded that despite the refusal by Professor Jones to share data, the conditions for replication and verification in accordance with accepted scientific method were met because the outcomes Professor Jones and his group produced matched findings from other groups in the same field. It did not occur to the panel to suggest that perhaps this close match in findings, given the refusal of CRU to release data for review, may indicate that not only were the results developed by CRU flawed, but the close match might indicate flaws in the results by which they were gauging the work of CRU. The panel also failed to examine the possibility that while the other findings were accurate, CRU may have come by their conclusions through dumb luck.

The notion that the entire field is in error seemed implausible to me until I read further and discovered that previous conclusions from CRU were developed using defective code. John Graham-Cumming, a computer programmer who informed the panel, was of the opinion that “the organization writing the [other] code did not adhere to standards one might find in professional software engineering. The code had easily identified bugs, no visible test mechanism, was not apparently under version control and was poorly documented. It would not be surprising to find that other code written at the same organization was of similar quality. And given that I subsequently found a bug in the actual CRUTEM3 code only reinforces my opinion.” CRUTEM3 was the most recent program used by CRU at the time. If there were bugs in the CRUTEM3 code, as Mr. Graham-Cumming states, there is a possibility that the results derived using it were in error.

The flawed CRUTEM3 code generating results matching other findings should call those results into question. In particular, is the program code used to derive results at the other institutes the same as that used by CRU? If not, is the program code used by the other institutes developed by the same organization that developed the code used by CRU? Personally, I find it is doubtful that the other institutes have produced flawed results, given that they have actually made their data and methodology available in advance, and the results of these institutes have not, so far as I know, been called into question.

Lord Lawson of Blaby, one party that contributed to the panel’s findings, came to the conclusion that “trick” was merely a colloquial term (a conclusion I agree with since “trick” was not being used as a synonym for “ruse”), but disagreed with the assertion that Professor Jones wasn’t attempting to hide the warming decline. According to the report: Lord Lawson did, however, describe CRU’s treatment of the data as “reprehensible” because, in his view, Professor Jones deliberately hid data that demonstrated a decline in temperatures. This was a subject only briefly touched upon because, according to the report, the panel “expect[ed] that this is a matter the Scientific Appraisal Panel [would] address.”

As to the claim that Professor Jones was subverting the peer review process, the panel somehow concludes that his testimony that he was “just commenting that I did not think those papers were very good,” is an accurate reflection of the facts, despite his own damning words, contained in the relevant e-mails, that paint a completely different picture. In reference to two papers that disagreed with CRU’s findings, Professor Jones writes, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC Report (I can see this being an opinion of “not good,” yet the professor continues…). Kevin and I will keep Them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !” Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a former peer reviewer for the IPCC, editor of the journal, Energy & Environment, and Reader Emeritus at Hull University, who stated in her memorandum that she and her journal became the focus of attacks from CRU scientists:
As editor of a journal which remained open to scientists who challenged the orthodoxy, I became the target of a number of CRU manoeuvres. The hacked emails revealed attempts to manipulate peer review to E&E’s disadvantage, and showed that libel threats were considered against its editorial team. Dr Jones even tried to put pressure on my university department. The emailers expressed anger over my publication of several papers that questioned the ‘hockey stick’ graph and the reliability of CRU temperature data. The desire to control the peer review process in their favour is expressed several times. [...] CRU clearly disliked my journal and believed that “good” climate scientists do not read it. Professor Jones responded to that accusation with a very familiar “I was just sharing an opinion” answer, one that I personally don’t put much stock in based on the previous example of what he regards as “sharing an opinion.”

How about some choice phrases from Professor Jones regarding FOIA requests?

Mike,[...]Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

[...] CRU has had numerous FOI requests since the beginning of 2007. The Met Office, Reading, NCDC and GISS have had as well – many related to IPCC involvement. I know the world changes and the way we do things changes, but these requests and the sorts of simple mistakes, should not have an influence on the way things have been adequately dealt with for over a century.—in other words, why should I be subject to scrutiny now when I haven’t been in the past?

You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4.113 We think we’ve found a way around this .

According to the report: “The FOI Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information. Mr Holland’s FOI requests were submitted in 2007/8, but it has only recently come to light that they were not dealt with in accordance with the Act. The legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place, so by the time the action came to light the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone.” Despite this, and ample evidence that Professor Jones was doing as much as possible to avoid his obligations under the act, the panel declines to come to any conclusions on the matter and instead places responsibility for addressing these complaints on the Independent Climate Change E-Mail Review.

I think this has taken up enough space already.

Despite the conclusions of the panel, and despite your selective choice of quote (not surprisingly from the summary), it is clear that Professor Jones was avoiding reasonable requests for information necessary for replication of CRU’s results, that he was attempting to discredit potential detractors and/or harm them professionally, and was illegally withholding or destroying information requested under FOIA. Once again, I have to ask, if the science is settled and reliable, why all this?

I’m almost curious enough now that I may review the other two. I also think I want to make the Professor Jones my drinking buddy. He’s obviously a cantankerous old fuck, and I like that he signs all his e-mails “cheers.” It kind of reminds me of…

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

TBH, I didn't read most of what you wrote, but the quotes I used showed that 3 separate review panels found no evidence of dishonesty in the science. Clearly Phil Jones didn't like responding to the FOI requests, which was a bad idea on his part. That has nothing to do with the quality of the science he was doing, and again this is one guy, of hundreds of researchers working in the field. It's pointless to debate this single issue of one scientist not responding properly to FOI requests when you still haven't raised any serious objections to the remainder of the body of evidence. If it makes you happy, ignore every contribution Phil Jones made to the field - it won't change the conclusions in any substantial way.



You're still arguing about sources, and ignoring the reality that there is overwhelming evidence that global warming is real, and that it's caused by human emissions.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

Yet what I wrote that you didn't read, based on the evidence contained in the report by one of those panels, calls into question how the panel could come to the conclusion that there is "no evidence of dishonesty." The report itself is full of such evidence, yet the panel either dismisses it based on testimony from Professor Jones in which he says, "well, I really didn't mean that," or concludes that the panel shouldn't address the issue directly and instead allow other panels to address those issues.



Not acting in accordance with the law is more than just a "bad idea," it's criminal behavior. It's also unethical.



It has a lot to do with the quality of his work. I've never discouraged anyone from double-checking my work, if for no other reason than I try to do the things I do in a manner that would be an example for others. Professor Jones obviously doesn't share my outlook, since he is adamantly opposed to any review of his work other than that which is done by parties he feels will agree with his conclusions. Why is that? What is in the CRU work that Professor Jones doesn't want anyone to see? I mean, other than, as Lord Lawson put it, the "reprehensible" hiding of data that demonstrated a decline in temperatures? Hiding data seems like something that would be related to the quality of the science.

Professor Jones is more than "just one researcher." He is the head of EAU's CRU and was (is?) one of the parties responsible for peer-review for the IPCC reports. Saying that Professor Jones is "just one researcher" is like saying that Michael Jordan was just part of the Chicago Bulls. I'd happily ignore the work from the CRU...but as the report states, it mirrors work done elsewhere.



There is a vast difference between laughing off sources out-of-hand and dismissing them after you've reviewed them. You see "overwhelming evidence," I don't. I see clusters of research that having very similar results, with one section of research in that cluster which is highly questionable, which calls the results which match it into question.

Never mind that this "overwhelming evidence" is still in question, and is questioned in journals like Energy & Environment that Professor Jones attempted to discredit and harm because the editor(s) had the temerity to print papers that did not agree with his assertions.

Never mind that even among those in the scientific community that agree that there is global warming/climate change taking place that there are divergent views regarding man's contribution to it.

You cannot complain that I am laughing off your sources. I have taken them quite seriously. Enough so that I spent more than an hour of my time reviewing one of the linked reports you presented. The reality I seem to be dealing with here is that you cannot accept that I can find error in the conclusions of the panel based on the actual report, especially given that I detailed where I felt there were errors and questions of judgment. I think that shows that this isn't about addressing or laughing off sources. It's about your adherence to, as Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen called it, "the orthodoxy" of global warming/climate change and your disbelief that anyone would be so bold as to commit the heresy of questioning it.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

You should've read everything he wrote. He's giving your side and opinion a lot of consideration; so much so that he spent the time researching and writing that lengthy post. The least you could do is respect that, read it, and respond accordingly.

If Laelia's already explained his point and Jubber's running around in circles, why should Laelia get suckered into running around in circles too?

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

So while it is clear that there was information the CRU could not share, it is equally clear that Professor Jones and his colleagues were less than interested in full disclosure of the information upon which their findings were based.


Because people that are hiding something for no reason are lying.

If the scientists are so right, they should not fear scrutiny. Which, to me, signals that they either are flat wrong, or don't know nearly as much as they want us to think they do, which would lump them in with politicians, shitty professors and shady lawyers.

No one is "running around in circles." Laelia posted links to three separate reports, I took the time to read and respond to one of them. The conclusions drawn by the panel don't mesh with what I found in the report. Laelia says the panel didn't find any evidence of wrongdoing, which is questionable since the report is full of it. The panel merely brushed away those bits based on the offending party saying, "well, I didn't really mean it like that," or pushed the responsibility for addressing the wrongs in question onto other panels.
Hell, one of the contributors even went so far as to say Professor Jones hid data, and that his doing so was reprehensible...but there's no evidence of wrongdoing? I may only be a Mexican Forklift Artiste, but that doesn't make me gullible.
How does CRU come up with the same conclusions as everyone else in their field if, among other things, they're using faulty computer models and they're hiding/excluding data? I'll grant the benefit of the doubt and suggest that it's only through dumb luck, or because they copied the results they liked and arranged their methodology to support it. The doubts I have that are of no benefit to anyone, however, makes me wonder how much of this kind of chicanery is rampant in the field.
If the evidence is so "overwhelming," why are/were there still papers being written and published in peer-reviewed journals that disagree with "the orthodoxy" (I've come to like that phrase in this context) to which so many of you are blindly attached?

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

How many of the papers cited in the IPCC report have you read? Have you even read the summary of the IPCC report? All you've done in this thread is try to assert, against all reason, that the entire body of science is discredited by a few errors and an ethical lapse by a single researcher. It's not. If you want to discuss the state of the science seriously I'm willing to do so, but I have no interest in debating this particular red herring.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

That's funny, because earlier you were defending this red herring by telling me that it was obvious and apparent that this "single researcher," and I hope you realize how little referring to him this way does to dilute his importance in this issue, was completely blameless and I was being paranoid because a couple of boards of people said he wasn't.

Someone said he wasn't, but when you peruse the evidence those people based their conclusions on, it becomes quite clear those people were either completely retarded or just a little disingenuous. Which is why I have no interest in any more of your fucking summaries, especially when the goddamn conclusions in them don't reflect what's in the body of what they're supposed to be summarizing.

Every time you say "overwhelming evidence," I hear "consensus," which is the little buzz phrase the Al Gore types start screaming when anyone dares to question what the Holy Church of the Warming Globe cites as scripture. If you really want to consider the "entire body of science," I really have to wonder if you've actually taken more than a cursory glance (or someone's word) at everything given that there are more than a few papers and researchers who dissent from consensus...I mean "overwhelming evidence."

Of course, we know those people are all crazy, especially that fucking Copernicus, how dare he suggest that the Earth revolves around the sun?

Oh, sorry, wrong heresy...

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

So you're unwilling to discuss the actual issue at hand, which is the state of the science, if you can't continue to attack the sources it comes from?



Yep.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

I guess so, since it's apparent that the state of science is such that you can lie, fudge your figures, deny skeptical parties any sort of review of your work, and attempt to besmirch the reputation parties presenting opposing views and still be judged blameless of any wrongdoing.

Just because your "sources" don't stand up under even the rudimentary scrutiny of a half-educated forklift artiste doesn't mean they're being "attacked," it just means they fucking suck, and you need better sources.

No one is "laughing off" your sources. I think I was fairly concise about what was wrong with the one I reviewed. If anyone here is laughing anything off, it's you, since you couldn't even be bothered to read my objections. For pity's fucking sake, I presented how the summary on that report was utter bullshit, and your response is to suggest I need to read some more summaries? If that's your answer, you don't need to concern yourself with how any of the rest of us are dealing with reality because you're sure as hell not in touch with it.

The reality here is that there is still debate about this subject in the scientific community, and that debate would probably be more pronounced if not for individuals like Professor Jones who attempt to professionally damage people who do so much as allow dissenting views to be presented.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste