Comments for RealClimate

Comment on Muddying the peer-reviewed literature by Ray Ladbury

Ray Ladbury — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:03:17 +0000

Simon, that was very gracious, and I appreciate it. FWIW, I apologize for the snark. It probably came across as more vitriolic than it was intended.

As to anthropogenic causation, I’ve been over the science in as much detail as I can, given that I am only a physicist and not an expert. I really don’t see any way to avoid the conclusion that we are seriously altering the climate. The consensus model has too much explanatory and predictive power to be seriously wrong–and the same forcings and feedbacks that drive anthropogenic warming are indispensible in that model. The theory and all the evidence say we’ve got a serious poblem.

We agree on the East Anglia hacking. The hackers, and those using the private communications to smear science and scientists are lower than snakesh*t. It is just another reminder of caliber of the anti-science camp.

Comment on The CRU hack by WAG

WAG — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:51:20 +0000

Does anyone think it’s a little suspicious that just hours before this story broke on Thursday, Sen. Inhofe made these remarks (on Wednesday)?

“I proudly declare 2009 as the ‘Year of the Skeptic,’ the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard…

“Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked…

“Today, I have been vindicated.”

http://akwag.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 11/ is-jim-inhofe-behind-hacking-into.html

Why was he so confident he would be vindicated? Not saying Inhofe was involved – I just ask questions! (Pulling out my Glenn Beck hat)

Comment on The CRU hack by Reg Rets

Reg Rets — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:49:22 +0000

In a shouting match between rational science and feral politics, science has no chance. If you believe as I do that runaway climate change is unavoidable due to the prevailing political climate, then you should do as I am doing. Move north of 56 degrees, buy some arable land, learn to grow perennial crops on that land and prepare to defend it.

Comment on The CRU hack by Eric (skeptic)

Eric (skeptic) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:47:13 +0000

People who are interested only need to google for realclimate and censored to see large numbers of censored comments duplicated elsewhere. Many of these asked about the origins and processing of data, including what may be untrue allegations. Rather than continue that tradition, RC has a chance with the inadvertent release of the data to explain what data was used and how, what data was not used, and reasons why. A good start would be the yamal directories.

Comment on The CRU hack by sarath

sarath — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:46:19 +0000

Those of us with actual experience in modeling know how tenuous these models actually are. These are the same sorts of folks who claimed AGW in the early 20th century. It’s all speculation built on bias. Many of them don’t even recognize the bias.

Comment on The CRU hack by Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:43:22 +0000

Aside: I poked around a bit being naturally nosy.
I found several people saying they did get and read the stuff.
I also found what were identified as links to the whole multi-gigabyte file, either as ZIP or RAR format. At one time they might have been that.

So far each time what’s been at the link has been a 35K (yes, K) file that Mac OS identified as an application; it shouldn’t have been one.

I did not open it.
Be careful out there.
This stuff could, by now, just be very tempting bait.

Catch a little fish, put it on a bigger hook, put it back in the water.

Comment on The CRU hack by Brian Dodge

Brian Dodge — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:39:57 +0000

“It’s a shame it wasnt the Heartland Institute’s email server that got hacked – that would have been FAR more interesting…”

Now that WUWT, CA, Blackboard, WSJ, and others have defined the “rules of engagement”(or lack thereof), I don’t think it will be long before Watts, McIntyres, Exxons, DCIs, FOS, and Heartlands mail servers will be targeted as “fair game” and appear online. Anybody wanna bet on what the hackersphere is doing right now?

[Response: Surprising as this might appear. I don't think this should be encouraged at all. Private communications picked over by a hostile audience can make a saint look like a sinner, and so while there might be some karmic justice to that, I would not wish it on my worst enemy. - gavin]

Comment on The CRU hack by Karl

Karl — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:33:54 +0000

One of the most amusing aspects of this circus is the folks who suggest that maybe we all ought to agree to just ignore the content in all of these emails because they were revealed by an illegal action. From what Ivory tower do these wise monkeys come from?

This is not a legal court where evidence can be kept away from the jury. This is not the scientific debate, where publications not peer reviewed can be studiously ignored. This is now in the court of public opinion, and that jury will see everything that is available, regardless of its provenance. Some dirty laundry just got exposed to the public. It isn’t going to go away. Like it or not, it is something that will need to be addressed and explained.

Comment on The CRU hack by Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:33:44 +0000

> trick

http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Statistics-Tricks-Andrew-Gelman/dp/0198572247#reader_0198572247

Google finds about 92,700 hits searching for:

mathematics statistics trick

Comment on The CRU hack by Joe Hunkins

Joe Hunkins — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:33:38 +0000

Kudos to Gavin and the RC folks for publishing some of the critical comments here, including mine above. Thank you.