Has anyone seen my spork?

Rigging a Climate ‘Consensus’: About those emails and ‘peer review.’

I’m not going to quote from this one. Read the whole thing.

Regarding the “consensus science” we’re seeing in climate research:

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
–Galileo Galilei

Global Warming With the Lid Off: The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science.

That’s a damning headline If I’ve ever read one. Below are selected quotes.

On collaboration (in the negative sense):

Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a “unified” view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the “common cause”; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to “hide the decline” of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

On the types of personalities of the scientists:

Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the emails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and procedural debates.

On the right to know why we are spending lots of money:

Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn’t have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.

Frankly, I’m not surprised that these documents exist. I think that calling it a conspiracy among climate researchers–in the sense of a centrally managed organization with hidden goals–might be implying more organization than is there, or implying a more pervasive and broader organization. But that doesn’t change the fact that frequently an informal organization that looks like a conspiracy can emerge merely because a lot of people share the same opinion about something and share information. Compare Apartheid to racism–Apartheid was a centralized government policy where racism is a distributed belief held and shared voluntarily (!) by individuals. The end effect is similar even though the organization is different.

And the conclusion:

However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.

Many organizations have been built around the issues of global warming with some accepting the scientific conclusions as gospel and others not. All of these organizations are about to undergo a shift in power and influence as a result of the information revealed about how climate science is conducted. It’s time for the researchers to open up.

As I said before, I want to see all of the climate models, analysis and data voluntarily released to the public. I want an open source system created to process the existing data, collect and verify new data and do the analysis from the first data point on to current data. I believe that we would benefit from access to this information and I also believe that the climate researchers would benefit from having all of the extra eyes looking at what they are doing. After all, some programmers have already voluntarily examined and found errors in the model code.

This is one of many articles on the recent leak of emails and computer modeling code from an important center for climate analysis and global warming research:

Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails [edit: added link]

I see three scenarios here:

The first is that the model and data are bad because there is no inconsistent discipline in the methodology and practice behind the collection and analysis of the data. So much for precision and accuracy.

The second is that the data and the model are subject to intentional bias. So much for seeing what’s there rather than what you want to be there.

Third, both of the first two scenarios are true.

I believe that many of the scientists engaging in climate research have lost their objectivity and are pursuing their personal agendas over pursuing the scientific method. A friend once told me that when researching you must look at all the data–even the data that doesn’t support your hypothesis–and then figure out how to modify your hypothesis to fit the data rather than the other way around.

I believe that global warming has become as much religion as scientific research endeavor. People who object to the “inconvenient truth” that the earth is warming because of human influences are vilified and ostracized. The same applies to people who *agree* with the conclusion that the earth is warming but differ in their analysis of the causes (human-initiated vs. natural cycles). The worst treatment is reserved for people who question whether the earth is really warming or not. To draw a contentious parallel directly from religion: “I believe in Jesus but I do/don’t believe that the bread and wine become his literal body and blood during communion.”

We’re basing multi-billion–possibly multi-trillion–dollar economic policies on complex and buggy computer models that process data of questionable quality. I’m starting to think that scientists need to have something similar to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles that accountants and financial folk must abide by when writing reports and financial statements. Maybe they need a Sarbanes-Oxley-style requirement for signing their papers and pronouncements and being legally responsible for the accuracy of the contents. Perhaps climate researchers need to spend as much time, effort and money with auditors justifying their data, methodologies and conclusions as a bank does today with its financial information. After all, people are basing financial decisions on public policy driven by global warming research. Why shouldn’t the scientists take responsibility for the accuracy of their predictions.

I think we need an open solution–an open source climate analysis model with open source tools for collecting climate information. If it’s open then people can follow the logic and root out errors, inaccuracy and bias. If there is disagreement, the project can be forked and each group can pursue their vision of climate analysis, but all of it open to public analysis and comment. I would suggest that there be multiple projects from the start and that they compete via comparison of the accuracy of results.

At a minimum the researchers must disclose their all of their methods and data so that we can publicly review it. If the potential threat of global warming is as imminent as they contend and the consequences as dire, then they should be eager to completely reveal their analysis, models and data so that we can see the truth that they see. If they are not willing to reveal it, then we must ask ourselves why they are not.

[edit: added question mark at end of title]

Here’s a good article/obituary about Norman Borlaug.

From the article:

The day the award was announced, Dr. Borlaug, vigorous and slender at 56, was working in a wheat field outside Mexico City when his wife, Margaret, drove up to tell him the news. “Someone’s pulling your leg,” he replied, according to one of his biographers, Leon Hesser. Assured that it was true, he kept on working, saying he would celebrate later.

Humility is a good thing. I like people who’s primary purpose doesn’t include self-aggrandizement.

I’ve been distracted by Facebook (and Twitter) lately. I’ve been ignoring my blog. I need to get back in the saddle.

Lots of places for books…

It’s been over a decade since Michael Hedges was killed in a automobile accident. I’m still sad that he’s gone.

The common wisdom is that the ice at the poles is retreating faster than an Iraqi armored division. Yet strangely enough, maybe it’s not.
Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away

Put that in your computer model and process it.

I’ve written a few times before about what I see as irresponsible science–consensus science–around global warming. I think the backlash against global warming is…er…warming up.

Here’s a post from Slashdot about Freman Dyson opposing the “lousy science” behind much of what is being promulgated today.

The Slashdot article links to a NT Times article. It’s long but well worth the time. (I wish Oliver Sacks would say nice things about my brain!)