It is really too bad that I don’t have a subscription. I’m a bit late to commenting on this editorial that appeared in Nature magazine yesterday, but I feel it is important to say a few things about it, even though many WUWT readers have probably already seen the editorial.
1. For a scientific journal to use the label “denialists” is in my opinion unconscionable, and highlight’s Nature’s own bias. For the record, while there may in fact be a few people who deny any warming has occurred in the past 100 years (it has) the real issue is the cause. That is what skeptics are about. There are many academics and researchers that have questions about what is being presented in the mainstream climate science today. To put the full weight of Nature behind a broad brush labeling them as “deniers” or “denialists” is a huge mistake. The scientific integrity of one of the foremost scientific magazines has been tarnished by the use of a cheap slur.
2. The claims of harassment are ludicrous. The very foundation of science is based on the ability of other scientists to perform replication via data sharing. Finding excuses to not do this, and actively setting up hurdles to those requesting data for replication is not only not part of the scientific method, it is obstruction of the method. Had the files been provide in early FOI requests, no escalation of requests would have happened. CRU brought this on themselves, mainly due to the stubborn refusal of Dr. Jones to allow data for replication purposes. Besides, UAE has a person specifically assigned to handling FOIA requests. Jones had the data to fill the requests, all he had to do is hand them to the FOIA officer. He chose not to, further in one of the emails it was revealed that Jones and his staff lobbied that FOIA officer not to honor these requests. My hunch is that is where this row started.
3. For Nature to claim that:
Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions. Moreover, in countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the national meteorological services will provide data sets only when researchers specifically request them, and only after a significant delay.
Is pure rubbish. See point 5 below also – they provided the data to Peter Webster. The majority of weather stations that report data used in the CRU are from public airports worldwide. Here is a list of stations that was grudgingly provided by Phil Jones after years of effort, and it was delivered broken. McIntyre had to fix it. See the cru_station_info file. Pick a few stations in France, Germany, and United Kingdom, then go to weatherunderground.com and see if they are available as hourly reports, or check many of the publicly available climate data sistes It is public data. Yet CRU claims it is proprietary and protected by agreements and we can’t see the data they are using?. Something is wrong there.
I picked three from the countries listed at random from the cru station info file:
GERMANY HOHENPEISSENBERG See http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/HOHENPEISSENBERG/109620.htm
FRANCE BOURGES See: http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Bourges/72550.htm
UK WADDINGTON See: http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Waddington/33770.htm
Anybody with a PC and Internet connection can get some of the data CRU uses that is claimed proprietary, so why the need for protectionism when a researcher asks for data from the same locations collated as used in CRU processes?
4. Nature assumes it was a hack in, but the evidence points to a leak, or even a carelessly left file on a public FTP site at CRU (which has happened before) Hackers are usually smash and grab affairs, with little time for understanding of what they are grabbing since they don’t know how long it willbe before they are discovered. They’ll sort it out later. The FOIA2009.zip appears to have been carefully assembled, pointing to someone with specific knowledge and broad access across systems. Further, hackers usually tout their exploits as “badges of honr”. We’ve heard nothing.
5. Previously, Nature reported on Steve McIntyre’s attempts to get access to this data in their report on August 12th, 2009 without so much as a disparaging word against Mr. McIntyre. They wrote then:
McIntyre is especially aggrieved that Peter Webster, a hurricane expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, was recently provided with data that had been refused to him.
Webster says his team was given the station data for a very specific request that will result in a joint publication with Jones. “Reasonable requests should be fulfilled because making data available advances science,” says Webster, “but it has to be an authentic request because otherwise you’d be swamped.”
Yet today, they drag out the slur denialist over the very same issue: data access and replication. If replication is not a valid request, then climate science is doomed.
Yes, I’d cancel my Nature subscription if I had one. – Anthony
Here is the Nature editorial as posted here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
Editorial
Nature 462, 545 (3 December 2009) | doi:10.1038/462545a; Published online 2 December 2009
Climatologists under pressure
Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.
The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ‘smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.
This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.
First, Earth’s cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate. These changes include glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Second, the global sea level is rising. The rise is caused in part by water pouring in from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year.
Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world’s voracious appetite for carbon is essential (see pages 568 and 570).
Mail trail
A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists’ conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.
If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.
The theft highlights the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers.
The e-mail theft also highlights how difficult it can be for climate researchers to follow the canons of scientific openness, which require them to make public the data on which they base their conclusions. This is best done via open online archives, such as the ones maintained by the IPCC (http://www.ipcc-data.org) and the US National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html).
Tricky business
But for much crucial information the reality is very different. Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions. Moreover, in countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the national meteorological services will provide data sets only when researchers specifically request them, and only after a significant delay. The lack of standard formats can also make it hard to compare and integrate data from different sources. Every aspect of this situation needs to change: if the current episode does not spur meteorological services to improve researchers’ ease of access, governments should force them to do so.
The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers’ own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a ‘trick’ — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature‘s policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.
The UEA responded too slowly to the eruption of coverage in the media, but deserves credit for now being publicly supportive of the integrity of its scientists while also holding an independent investigation of its researchers’ compliance with Britain’s freedom of information requirements (see http://go.nature.com/zRBXRP).
In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that undermine scientific values. Yet it is precisely in such circumstances that researchers should strive to act and communicate professionally, and make their data and methods available to others, lest they provide their worst critics with ammunition. After all, the pressures the UEA e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science.
Funny that nobody would even put their name directly on that piece of opinion!
“…and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that undermine scientific values.”
I read this as a “Throw Phil under the bus” statement.
I think this is bull… when climate scientists jumped into bed with politicians they had to start acting and thinking as politicians. Phil Jones hid and deleted emails because he became a political hack.
In my publishing days, Nature and Science were not considered the best journals to present your research results. They were considered to be a way to get something published fast without true critical review by your actual peers. I chose to publish in journals of professional organizations that have good peer review processes. I chaired committees and research symposia and did my share of reviews. I suspect global climate science hasn’t matured enough to develop a critical peer review process.
Re, Mark Robertson (22:16:07):
I’m a skeptic and I use a Mac…
From their mission statement, their first priority is to serve scientists.
I suppose one could say this editorial qualifes. Too bad it is at the expense of everything else, including the magazine’s integrity.
“Nature’s mission statement
First, to serve scientists through prompt publication of significant advances in any branch of science, and to provide a forum for the reporting and discussion of news and issues concerning science. Second, to ensure that the results of science are rapidly disseminated to the public throughout the world, in a fashion that conveys their significance for knowledge, culture and daily life.”
Disquisitive (22:32:24) :
This link
http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/
is very useful but look at the comment by rainfade which refers to
documents/osborn-tree6/summer_modes/pl_decline.pro
and provides the following quote from the code:
“; … In fact we compute its mean over
; 1856-1930 and use this as the constant level from 1400 to 1930. The
; polynomial is fitted over 1930-1994, forced to have the constant value
; in 1930”.
If this doesn’t mean “we take an average for the 75 years up to 1930 and then pretend that was the figure fot the previous 455 years”, then what does it mean?
@ur momisugly Anthony
Point taken regarding the use of the word “conspiracy”, however, you use it the purely legal sense whereas it’s read by many in the colloquial sense i.e. watergate, kennedy assassinations, moon landings etc.
One can see individual legal conspiracies but also self interested organisations aligning their agendas such that what results, when viewed from the outside, appears to be a colloquial conspiracy.
I will try to break this to you gently. The deniers are the members of the staff of Nature. They are, by their endorsement of the work of the CRU, implicitly denying the Medieval Warming Period, or MWP. This is a staggering leap of faith, flying in the face of reams of archaeological evidence.
Farley Mowat, in his wonderful The Farfarers, chronicles the evidence he found in eastern Canada of the Viking settlements there. I will not go into the colonization of Greenland (which was given that name because, at the time, it was GREEN).
The MWP is historic fact. Agriculture, human settlements, the movement of various animal species, the melting of glaciers, are all documented in extant records which are centuries old.
The Little Ice Age which followed is also historic fact, as is the Maunder Minimum from 1650 to 1715. Be it noted that many observers castigated Galileo for his insanity of claiming spots on the sun. It got quite cold in Europe towards the end of the Maunder Minimum, which is also historic fact.
That there is no MWP in the publications of the CRU is also fact, nor any subsequent Little Ice Age.
I suppose that there is nothing more humorous than watching a cat try to cover up on linoleum.
Stay tuned. This will be fun.
I read Nature’seditorial last night and felt I had to let them know how I felt. I sent their editorial department the following E-mail:
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I just finished reading your “Climatologists under pressure” article in Vol 462, Issue no. 7273, 3 December 2009 and I am appalled.
(1) You start out by declaring that the CRU e-mail archives were stolen. I have seen no proof of this. The archives may have been leaked and/or inadvertently placed on a public server.
(2) You say “Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause.” Your statement is nonsense. When people coooperate to prevent opposing scientific opinions from being published in “peer-reviewed” journals and then argue often and loudly that all “peer-reviewed journals support their position (in this case, anthropogenic global warming) so their science must be correct, anyone who can’t see that this undermines the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming, much less global warming, is blind. Warren Meyer put it well: it’s kind of like the Catholic Church imposing a book banning policy and then claiming that all books in print support the Catholic Church’s position. Furthermore, you forgot to mention the “leaked/hacked” code and the comments therein, both of which paint a picture of utter confusion regarding the raw data that were used to make the global warming case. I’d say that alone undermines the scientific case for global warming.
(3) The AGW case may be “supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence”, but the case is not proven by any/all of them–except to those who want to believe.
(4) Some glaciers are retreating, some are growing. Some ice is thinning and some ice is thickening. Greenland ice may be decreasing, but Antarctic ice is increasing. In any event, none of these items or any of the other items you mention indicates much less proves that man’s burning of fossil fuel is their source. Your claim that “when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming” is laughable. Are these the same models that in 1998 predicted increasing temperature for the next decade and beyond? Somehow I find it hard to put much faith in those models.
(5) And contrary to what you claim, a fair reading of the e-mails reveals “everything” to support a coordinated effort among the senders and recipients of the e-mails to tell a story, the whole story and the nothing but the story. I call such action a conspiracy, and I believe most people would agree.
(6) You state that if there are benefits to the e-mail theft (there you go again with the declaration of a theft when none has been proven) one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers. This statement is also laughable in face of the harassment of deniers by AGW alarmists openly stated in the e-mails.
(7) You argue that the e-mail theft (there you go again) makes it difficult for climate researchers to follow the canons of scientific openness. How so? All the CRU ever had to do was put the raw data on a server open to the public. How can the e-mails have conceivably hindered their doing so?
(8) You then argue that the researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions. But as I understand it, the researchers did release some of their data to a few preferred individuals. If true, how can not releasing the data to non-preferred individuals be justified?
NATURE can decide to investigate, or not. That’s your prerogative. The fact that you see nothing in the e-mails that passes the “qualifies for investigation test” says as much about your motives and agenda (you have at least one and probably many) than it does about your objectivity (you have none).
Finally, I mostly agree with you when you write: “After all, the pressures the UEA e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science.” I would change the word “denialists” in your statement to “realists” or “people who want to know why they are being asked to change their lifestyles” or “people who don’t like being duped”, etc. However, even without my suggested change, with all my heart and soul I hope your prediction turns out to be true.
Please do not send me a NATURE subscription application. Your article has destroyed all credibility NATURE has or will likely ever have with me.
Thank you for your time,
Reed Coray
IN THE LAST HOUR !!!!!
Google climategate has gone from 26,800,000 to 32,400,000
(Standard European Time now 1800 hours )
Obama, when you leave, turn out the lite !!
Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming.
Has anyone pointed out that these are the same models that cannot explain the current lack of warming? (What a travesty!)
This is not science! It is amazing how the climate models are assumed to be magically infallible. This presumes the knowledge of the modelers is complete; that because they cannot conceive of other variables that none exist, or that they have somehow tamed non-linear Chaos.
I wonder: Had this editorialist had been around a century ago would he have railed then against the Newtonian deniers? “There is a consensus! The Mercury anomaly is just a measurement error — as soon as the data are corrected it disappears.”
If this is what passes for logic and rigor at Nature, I propose the magazine rename itself Human Nature, for they are pursuing personal emotional satisfaction at the cost of objective truth.
Nature is part of the Nature Publishing Group. This is ultimately owned by “Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck. http://www.holtzbrinck.com/”
Here is my email to them:
“Please review this editorial from your magazine Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
The tone and type of argumentation contained in this editorial would shame the most zealous confessional zealot from the 30 Years War. No person capable of writing such a piece should be permitted any position associated with any aspect of science. If your company wishes to maintain the prestige of magazines in the Nature Publishing Group, this person, and all others substituting the attitudes and behaviors of religious fanaticism for scientific method, should be encouraged to seek new employment.”
The have a contact page at: http://www.holtzbrinck.com/artikel/779466&s=en
I used to subscribe to Scientific American, but I cancelled my subscription years ago, when the science disappeared. I replaced it with a subscription to American Scientist, which seemed more like the old Scientific American. Not so long ago I was offered a renewal, with some highlights from the latest issue. The main story was a pro AGW article, so I wrote to the subscription department:
I received the following answer:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45235382@N05/4157719153/
Well I have had a subscription to Scientific American for at least 40 years, and have also paid for a subscription for a long time friend (fly fishing Guide). More in the nature of general curiosity, about numerous fields, but not expecting deep science.
And I have had a membership in the AAAS and SCIENCE subscription for a much shorter time; mainly to get access to some quite serious scientific papers.
Three months ago, SciAm informed me that my subscription was about to expire; even though my last paid for issue would be Jan 2010. I recently renewed it for one year, and told them I didn’t like being treated as a mere servant. One month ahead is time enough to renew any magazine subscription. Well now I don’t have that concern, because that renewal was my final one. I’ll likely keep paying for my friend who is a non-scientist; but the staff of SciAm have lost me for good.
I’m no more thrilled with the staff of AAAS and SCIENCE; but sometimes it is helpful to have an ear under the scoundrel’s tent. I won’t call them the enemy; because science to me is not a battle; but I’m incensed that there are those in postions of influence who would corrupt science for any political or self serving end.
Science is our only pathway out of ignorance or stupidity; and I can’t abide anybody who would deliberately corrupt that discipline.
“”” Karl Maki (09:11:34) :
Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming.
Has anyone pointed out that these are the same models that cannot explain the current lack of warming? (What a travesty!)
This is not science! It is amazing how the climate models are assumed to be magically infallible. This presumes the knowledge of the modelers is complete; that because they cannot conceive of other variables that none exist, or that they have somehow tamed non-linear Chaos.
I wonder: Had this editorialist had been around a century ago would he have railed then against the Newtonian deniers? “There is a consensus! The Mercury anomaly is just a measurement error — as soon as the data are corrected it disappears.” “””
An interesting case you chose there Karl. According to some recent papers there is a possibility that Newton may in fact have been correct, and maybe it is Einstein who was wrong.
Einstein’s General Relativity; for all of its success is still incompatible with Quantum Theory. And there is so much more of our every day experience, that is in agreement with quantum theory, than there is that agrees with general relativity.
A new theory gives the appearance of being able to explain virtually all of known (observed) cosmology; without having to invent “inflation”, or “Dark Matter” or “Dark Energy”, or any of the other bizarre trappings of present day cosmology theories. Hopefully it will eliminate strings and other silly things like parallel universes,a nd yet be consistent with all that we presently “know” from observation.
I believe the new theory replaces the “:Big Bang”, with a “Big Bounce”; so that the singularity disappears, so inflation becomes superfluous. No Einstein is not sent to the woodshed; but Newton does enjoy a reformation, or renaissance.
I’ll have to dig out what I found, and learn some more about it.
But your basic point Karl is certainly on the mark; we don’t expect Science Journals; at least serious ones to speak in such emotional terms, as “denialists”.
Maybe the Mayan Calendar has it figured about right; perhaps we will know more after Copenhagen; in any case, we will get another Presidential election before they pull the plug and close the curtains.
Karl Maki,
“This presumes the knowledge of the modelers is complete; that because they cannot conceive of other variables that none exist, or that they have somehow tamed non-linear Chaos.”
This is a type of argument known as argumentum ignoratum – deducing a conclusion because no known alternatives explain the phenomenum A very famous example of argumentum ignoratum was that used by Paley in 1802 to argue for the existence of God – the watchmaker analogy. The argument leads to the conclusion that life has an intelligent designer because no KNOWN mechanism could account for the complexity of life. Enter Charles Darwin and the fallacy of argumentum ignoratum is easily exposed.
Global climate models are a testimony that argumentum ignoratum is alive and well.
On a second reading of Nature’s editorial, I had to temper my disgust. Nature gave the ultimate condemnation of the UAE/team when they wrote:
“In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are human beings…”
To “mankind loathers: there can’t be a bigger insult than being called a “human being”.
It strikes me that all the chief collaborations between scientists were outgrowths of some professional journal or magazine that patronized them.
Perhaps it’s useful to re-examine Wegman’s “clique”, or social network of connected climate scientists:
http://www.probeinternational.org/old_drupal/UrbanNewSite/Wegman%5B2%5D.pdf
… and the graphs at the end, illustrating their interconnectedness, including their patterns of collaboration. Though journals are never named, they now must be.
There are some 206 references to “Nature” in the whistleblower e-mails. From what I’ve seen so far, a safe guess would be that those e-mails have more to do with the strategies of getting into print than with nnature.
Read here, for example
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=18&filename=848679780.txt
If Wegman didn’t get enough first time round, perhaps he could be persuaded to do a map of climatologists’ professional connections as well. A ghastly thought to dig through it all, but…
It might be argued that a wheel has fallen off the juggernaut, but that the true believers have heroically determined to bear it along on their shoulders, at least for the time being. Let us add more weight.
Unfortunately Nature, Science, Scientific American, and loads of others – have been infected with “Climavirus.” This is a deadly virus that corrupts once-highly regarded journals, institutions and publications. It is easy to diagnose – just check to see if there is ANY semblance of balance in the way skeptics are treated. If there’s little or no balance – it is a case of Climavirus.
While there is no cure at this time – knowledge exposes entities suffering Climavirus and new, clean, uncorrupted replacements are arising. In the meanwhile keep getting news and updates from the internet where there is little restriction on what you see and hear – thus far more truthful.
Nature is now not much more than a shadow of its former self. Dark, flailing in the death throes of Climavirus – it will collapse, along with IPCC, Nopenhagen and East Anglia U.
“Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year.”
Leave it to the gov’t to stop this illicit, early blooming on trees.
“They wilt the grass they walk upon, they leach the light out of a room.”
Joni Mitchell
Notice that in the concluding sentence, the passage of the climate bill in the US Senate is said to be the goal. It says so much, in so many words.
Interesting look behind the iron curtain of modern science.
Nature’s POV may portend trouble with the UEA investigation if approached with the same controlling agenda of See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil. As has been repeated several times here on various posts, the proof is in the code. The emails are mere reflected glimpses of trouble within.
WUWT, please push the code inquiry wherever it leads. Make the powerful respond to the data and the contemporaneous recorded remarks.
Vincent, way OT, so I’ll not address the substance directly, but just point out you are way off base with your example of Paley/Darwin.
Your main point about argumentum ignoratum is well taken, however.
So? There hasn’t been any warming in the last 1000 years. There, that make you feel better?