Blev Climategate udløst af en whisttleblower?

Diverse — Drokles on January 15, 2010 at 7:53 am

I løbet af de kommende dage kan det være at en whisttle-blower i sagen om climategate bliver afsløret ifølge Steve Mosher på The Blackboard. Mosher var en af de første, der fik adgang til de mange e-mails, der har sat forskningen på East Anglias Climate Research Center i et dårligt lys. Hvis og såfremt i fald en whisttleblower bliver afsløret kan det kaste nyt lys over de arbejdsgange , som var normen i og omkring East Anglias Climate Research Unit og den udledte forskning. (Comment#29867)

Another piece in the puzzle, a piece which has been in PLAIN VIEW, will come out over the next couple
of days. The people who helped me have the chance to tell the story from their perspective. Hopefully, you’ll
hear from one of the guys I talked to, and then the person who gave me the CD. That person commented
long ago about getting the file. For people who like to do this investigative stuff, I’ll leave that out there, but
it’ll come clear before the book goes out. Finally, one clarification. I didnt seek information from CRU. It came
to me. I’ll let the people involved in that tell their view of things. The actual person inside CRU, had no clue
what his message meant to me. It meant the files were real. It meant the files were out there. Like deep throat
he passed me no information. he just told me what I needed to know. These were real. I could point to them
with confidence and let the community play the role of woodward and bernstein. You still can.

Assasination Science har en større gennemgang af de mange e-mails med løbende fortolkninger man kan hyggeforarges over. Taget ud af konstekst, som de er skal man være meget varsom med at bedømme deres egentlige indhold, men samlet set tegner de et billede af aktivisme, der trumfer forskning. Og mange emails ser for lægmand, som jeg selv ganske opsigtsvækkende ud. Der har været spekulationer om i hvor høj grad forskerne omkring CRU havde blandet aktivisme ind i deres forskning mere eller mindre ufrivilligt, men en egentlig konkret koordineret indsats virker konspiratorisk (e-mails er gengivet i lilla og kommentarerne er i sort)

We now encounter one of the most insidious red herrings in the climate debate: how many thousands of scientists “endorsed” the views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

With just months until the Kyoto Climate Conference, we find the germ of this idea fertilizing in an email from Joe Alcamo, Director of the Center for Environmental Systems Research in Germany, to Mike Hulme and Rob Swart:

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions—

Distribution for Endorsements—

I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.

Conclusion—Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you). Get those names!

This statement alone shows how ridiculous the “endorsement” process was from the very beginning. Signing a petition in support of an opinion—regardless of whether the signer has a PhD or not—is as scientifically meaningless as if these same people had voted Albert Einstein’s hairstyle as the most interesting in the history of science. It is nonsense, pure and simple.

Alcamo continues:

Timing—I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.

1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.

2.  If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear about it.

3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other Non-Governmental Organizations can further spread the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a different day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very different directions.

Conclusion I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17 November at the latest.

Alcamo demonstrates that this is a carefully crafted piece of political and ideological activism, not related to the scientific process at all. Indeed, the optimization of the timing—allowing just enough time for delegates to absorb the message, but not enough time for the scientists signing on to this petition to actually examine or criticize its contents—will return with a vengeance below.

(…)

The World Wildlife Fund’s Adam Markham writes to University of East Anglia climate scientists Mike Hulme and Nicola Sheard, about a paper that Hulme and Sheard had written about climate change in Australasia:

I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public splash on this they need something that will get good support from Australian scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).

Hi Mike,

I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in World Wildlife Fund Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so far.

They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from Australian scientists. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible.

Climategate takes on a new dimension with this revelation: political activists from an environmental lobby group are telling East Anglia climate scientists to rewrite sections of their paper, as it is less alarming than the message that Australian scientists have already presented for public consumption!

Disse tanker vækker intern bekymring den videnskabelige uhæderlighed.

Tom Wigley roundly criticises the eleven scientists seeking endorsement of their Statement.

Dear Eleven,

I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.”

This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.

Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science—when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with the IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject.

When scientists color the science with their own personal views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics . I find this extremely disturbing.

I couldn’t express it any better myself.

Heller ikke jeg. Der tegner sig i mange diskussioner et billede af stor intern tvivl om, hvad data egentlig viser og hvad man kan konkludere af det og hvorledes man forholder sig til sin forskerrolle. Og flere er ganske reflekterede og hæderlige forskere, som man kan se overfor og som også Cook udtrykker i et svar til Michael Mann i en anden sammenhæng

Unfortunately, this global change stuff is so politicized by both sides of the issue that it is difficult to do the science in a dispassionate environment. I ran into the same problem in the acid rain/forest decline debate that raged in the 1980s. At one point, I was simultaneous accused of being a raving tree hugger and in the pocket of the coal industry. I have always said that I don’t care what answer is found as long as it is the truth or at least bloody close to it.

Andre som Michael Mann og som her Kieth Briffa deler ikke den opfattelse

Keith Briffa, a referee of a paper submitted to Science by Ed Cook and Jan Esper, tells Cook:

I simply would not like to see you write a paper that puts out a confused message with regard to the global warming debate, leaving ambiguity as to your opinion on the validity of the Mann curve (“hockey stick”) .

Briffa is abusing his position of power as a reviewer of the paper, making it clear to Cook that he will block its publication if they deviate from the “party line”. He twists the knife, using personal intimidation:

I would not like this affair to ruin my Christmas, as it surely will if it is the cause of our falling out.

In other words, change the paper, or you are no longer a friend and colleague.

Finally, he lays down his expectations:

I am totally confident that after a day’s rephrasing this paper can go back and be publishable to my satisfaction by Science.

Den interne tvivl lagt sammen med den skråsikkerhed, der blev præsenteret udad til og den megen tale om, hvorledes man giver offentligheden den rette historie til fremme af sagen underbygger antagelsen om at de opsigtsvækkende formuleringer i f.eks ”Mikes Nature trick…to hide the decline” skal tolkes, som de allerede er blevet, som udtryk for regulær svindel. ”Mann-made global warming, indeed.” kommenterer John vittigt.

Med hensyn til MET, det engelske meterologiske institut og deres seneste års problemer med at forudsige om den kommende vinter eller sommer bliver varm eller kold henviste jeg her på Monokultur forleden ganske tilfældigt til et BBC interview med METs direktør (er hans titel vist på dansk).

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress