Global Comments

Over at SciBlogs, Gareth Renowden and Ken Perrott are commenting on my post Global Warping. As the comments are interesting and should not be missed, I have pasted them here. You are welcome to go over to SciBlogs and add your comments.

Gareth Renowden 1 day ago

Jim, I think you are giving far too much weight to the CRU email hack. Here’s a few reasons why:

1: The emails were stolen. Those released amount to under 2% (pers comm) of the total stolen, and have clearly been selected to support the storylines being run by the “right wing blogs” you mention. The editorial selection has been made by a bunch of crooks.

2: Many of the mails being talked about have perfectly innocent explanations (see RealClimate). They are the private conversations of a bunch of working scientists, not the science itself. We see that they can be rude about each other and their rivals — that only proves that scientists are human. However, the climate sceptic network is making all sorts of outrageous claims about what they say. Sadly you seem to have bought those interpretations, rather than the somewhat more mundane truth.

3: Our body of scientific knowledge is found in the peer-reviewed literature, not in a careful selection of emails. Not one peer-reviewed paper is called into question by these emails.

4: Timing is everything. These emails were “released” a couple of weeks before the Copenhagen conference, and while a major emissions reduction bill is before the US legislature. They were immediately trumpeted from the rooftops by the usual suspects – those campaigning against action on climate change. Coincidence, or part of a campaign?

If I was a climatologist, I would be very angry at this point, not because I have to go back and redo any work, but because those seeking to delay or prevent action on climate change are resorting to vicious personal attacks against my colleagues. After all, if you can only make a case by stealing and lying, what sort of case have you got?

Regards

Gareth

Ken Perrott 1 day ago

“Global Warmongers at NIWA. “

What can you possibly mean by that?

Sounds to me like an attack on the integrity of fellow NZ scientists – without any data presented in support!

Jim McVeagh 1 day ago

Gareth:
Those released amount to under 2% (pers comm) of the total stolen

No. You can access all the emails. The ones being discussed in blogs and the media amount to about 2%.

Many of the mails being talked about have perfectly innocent explanations

I’m sure you are right. However, many of the e-mails have meanings that cannot be interpreted in any way except that they reveal severe selection bias. Even Monbiot thinks that they show more politics than science.

Our body of scientific knowledge is found in the peer-reviewed literature

Apparently not, according to the emails. There appears to have been a concerted effort made to keep certain articles out of the peer reviewed literature. The smothering of dissenting views makes for a flawed, truncated science that is all but worthless.

Timing is everything

Indeed. CRU timed plenty of scary statistics to be brought forth just before the Copenhagen conference – now all suspect. The timing works both ways.

Jim McVeagh 1 day ago

Ken: It is no secret that the guys at NIWA are very definite supporters of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I am merely flippantly pointing out that Nick Smith is asking someone who will give him the advice he is looking for to justify the ETS in the face of the e-mail revelations.

However, if you are looking for actual data that may indicate that the NIWA guys are less than honest with their data presentation then look no further than here.

Gareth Renowden 1 day ago

Jim,

You are wrong about the 2%. My information is from the “horse’s mouth”, as it were. There is a huge amount of context missing.

Selection bias! In the cherry-picking of stuff to feed into right wing attack lines, yes.

The “concerted effort” was to deal with crap – papers that should never have got through peer review. Note that the perversion of peer review was actually being conducted by sceptics – notably Chris de Freitas, who as an editor at Climate Research was responsible for passing several papers from his sceptic mates for publication without proper peer review. Six editors resigned in protest. Full story here from one of the editors who resigned.

CRU “timed” no scary statistics for release, and none of their normal products are now suspect.

I must say I’m astonished that someone who (presumably) relies on evidence-based should be so partial when it comes to work in another field. Your choice. Your loss.

Regards

Gareth

Gareth Renowden 1 day ago

As for that NZ CSC “research”, you might do well to read my take, here at SciBlogs.

Ken Perrott 12 hours ago

Jim, I am surmised at you. It is a serious charge to accuse respected scientists of a local research institute of being “very definite supporters of Anthropogenic Global Warming” and “the NIWA guys are less than honest with their data presentation” As if we were dealing with support for a football team or a religion.You should be aware that that this is a challenge to their professional integrity and some people could be willing to take legal action.

Surely you should understand that scientists don’t decide to “support” a position and then look to “provf it.” They will adopt a position after considering the evidence. and going through the required scientific procedures. Now, we can question the evidence and anlayses – but to question the integrity of the people doing the (and the extensive checking and reviewing procedure adopted for that science) science is a serious matter.

Have a look at Gqareth’s post on this latest distortion by the local climate change deniers. I know this has been picked up and spread by Wishart (hardly a person to trust on this matter) – but why accept it uncritically. Look at the actual material Gareth and NIWA present. And realise that the guy who wrote the “report” you refer to is actually being quite equivocal about it now.

I think these distortions, while common, are a very serious matter. They involve slandering of colleagues’ integrity. So I don’t believe you should leave your reporting of it this way.

I think you should have a look at the material and then honestly assess where the deceptions are.

Personally, I feel you should apologise to our NIWA colleagues for uncritically rushing in with this sort of labelling and produce a post outlining the truth of this particular scandal.

Ken Perrott 11 hours ago

Sorry a slip – maybe even a freudian on.

I am suprised – of course. But I can’t help surmising!

Ken Perrott 10 hours ago

Try again.
I am surprised – not surmised. But of course one can’t help surmising. I just didn’t mean to say that.

Jim McVeagh 38 minutes ago

Ken: Relax. I don’t believe for one minute that the guys at NIWA actually give a rip about what I think of them. And you are misquoting me. I did not say that “the NIWA guys are less than honest with their data presentation”, I said “if you are looking for actual data that may indicate that the NIWA guys are less than honest with their data presentation then look no further than here.” That MAY is an important word to leave out!

Jim McVeagh 6 minutes ago

Gareth: My information is from the “horse’s mouth”

Not sure what GeeGee you are talking about, but if it is someone from the CRU that might be construed as a somewhat biased view…

I read your rebuttal of the NZ CSC observations and I must say, I think you missed the point. Regardless of how legitimate you reckon their data adjustment is, the fact remains that the raw data shows no warming trend and the adjusted data does. How do you think that looks to most people, in the light of the CRU e-mails?

In the scientific world perception may not be so important (although I think that is debatable), but in the political world where climate science is currently living, perception is everything. I think you will find that most lay people will be regarding anything to do with Global Warming with a great deal of skepticism at the moment.

For the record, I don’t really think of this blog as a “science blog”  and was somewhat surprised at being invited to participate in the SciBlogs syndication. However, I am happy to contribute some of my posts about health and science related subjects. I certainly do not regard myself as a hard-core scientist, so I find the reactions of Gareth and Ken to my observations to be fascinating.

Ken reacts with horror at my remark about the guys at NIWA and yet my comment was directed at Nick Smith’s self-serving attempt to get NIWA (who he knew would comply) to reassure the country that there was “nothing to see here, move along” (Boy, does that sound familiar). I only mentioned the CSC data because he challenged me to produce some. I’ve always liked a challenge.

Ken’s overreaction reminds me very much of the reaction of an orthopaedic surgeon whose judgement I called into question one time. He informed me haughtily that he was the specialist and who was I to question his judgement. I replied that I was the person who was right. Not that I think Ken is arrogant like that orthopaedic surgeon, but I do think that scientists seem to get very upset when non-scientists point out the flaws in their arguments and the obvious biases they have. Oddly, Ken would probably have every right to be as upset as this, if I was a climate scientist!

Gareth accuses me of being partial, which is extremely amusing considering he runs the main Global Warming site in New Zealand. The MacDoctor would like to point out that he has absolutely no vested interest in proving Global Warming true, or untrue. He just thinks it is unbelievably stupid to damage the New Zealand economy in the middle of a recession for absolutely no environmental gain of any significance. This, to me, is an eminently sensible position to take.

I do not profess to be intellectual, only sensible.

Related posts: