Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Oh dear. They may have murdered AGW

Rate this topic


Maarten

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Looks promising, there's too much to wrap my head around to really make any solid comment yet though.

Even if it is what it seems and there's large public backlash I'm not sure that would repel the forces of environmentalism for long. The culture is so saturated with it already and agrees with its philosophic sentiments too much to completely shrug it off so easily. On top of that there was already a scandal only a few months ago that barely registered on the public radar for long.

Still this might bring some hope while Cap-and-Trade is currently circling our nation like a vulture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fortunately I think my government will take notice of this (at least privately) as it plays into their current suspicions about AGW.

Don't look to Canada to buy into the Cap and Trade mess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks promising, there's too much to wrap my head around to really make any solid comment yet though.

Even if it is what it seems and there's large public backlash I'm not sure that would repel the forces of environmentalism for long. The culture is so saturated with it already and agrees with its philosophic sentiments too much to completely shrug it off so easily. On top of that there was already a scandal only a few months ago that barely registered on the public radar for long.

Still this might bring some hope while Cap-and-Trade is currently circling our nation like a vulture.

Agreed. I mostly hope this may help in capsizing the immediate threats that are both Copenhagen and Cap and Trade. Especially the later, if it gets discredited enough in the minds of moderate democrats that would help a lot in stalling the legislation, and that'd be a major victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hat's off to Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit. For a few years now, he has been a thorn in the side of Mann and others. He has pestered public institutions for their data, filed "freedom of Information" requests and fought a campaign when they refused. Though he has nothing to do with this hacking, I wouldn't be surprised if the hackers were aware of his battle to get this information using all legal means possible. I think its time to send him another donation.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scary! Because in my research, I use air-sea data reanalyzed by a govt. research center.

Scientists are claiming that the hackers themselves may have manipulated the content of the emails before releasing them on the internet. But it's 160 MB of emails - so it's hard to do it consistently, but still possible! Too bad, we have to rely on thieves for getting the truth out - I hope they are Ragners!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 1998 paper by Mann et. all was the main source of the "scariest" hockey-stick graphs. In 2005, McIntyre and McKitrick critiqued Mann's paper. One of their criticisms was that Mann has left out some readings that were adverse to their claims.The little nugget that I found funny was that Mann has stored this left out data in a sub-directory named "BACKTO_1400-CENSORED". Of course this is not proof of wrong doing, it does raise my suspicions that Mann is not an honest scientist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 1998 paper by Mann et. all was the main source of the "scariest" hockey-stick graphs. In 2005, McIntyre and McKitrick critiqued Mann's paper. One of their criticisms was that Mann has left out some readings that were adverse to their claims.The little nugget that I found funny was that Mann has stored this left out data in a sub-directory named "BACKTO_1400-CENSORED". Of course this is not proof of wrong doing, it does raise my suspicions that Mann is not an honest scientist.

My initial reaction to this data dump is skepticism -- it feeds into too many stereotypes, too well, and the critical data is unverified. Confirmation bias is seductive. This clearly warrants further and careful investigation, but I wouldn't accept it uncritically as true on the basis of what we know at this point. That said, if it is true it's a bombshell and reveals a truly sickening corruption of scientific integrity in pursuit of political goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My initial reaction to this data dump is skepticism -- it feeds into too many stereotypes, too well, and the critical data is unverified. Confirmation bias is seductive. This clearly warrants further and careful investigation, but I wouldn't accept it uncritically as true on the basis of what we know at this point. That said, if it is true it's a bombshell and reveals a truly sickening corruption of scientific integrity in pursuit of political goals.

You are correct, but I have read that several scientists that had sent to or received email from this group have vouched for the validity of the messages with their own names on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My initial reaction to this data dump is skepticism -- it feeds into too many stereotypes, too well, and the critical data is unverified. Confirmation bias is seductive. This clearly warrants further and careful investigation, but I wouldn't accept it uncritically as true on the basis of what we know at this point. That said, if it is true it's a bombshell and reveals a truly sickening corruption of scientific integrity in pursuit of political goals.
MY guess is that the data is actual, but the reporting is selective. When the email senders and recipients explain their view of the context behind any email, it will seem much more innocent to their friends.

Actually, among the ones released, the only really damning one is the one that indicates data manipulation. Even there, if the sender explains that by "trick" he meant "method", and if he explains why he thinks that method is legitimate, he can get away with it.

More broadly, I do not see these revelations -- even if they are worse than I think -- doing much lasting damage to the AGW folks. If really cornered, they will sacrifice a few scientists as being bad-apples, and move on. To them, this is political damage; it is not about the truth. I think the best possible outcome one can hope for is that a couple of prominent and real scientists -- who are not of the extreme AGW school -- switch sides and give Lindzen some company.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MY guess is that the data is actual, but the reporting is selective. When the email senders and recipients explain their view of the context behind any email, it will seem much more innocent to their friends.

Actually, among the ones released, the only really damning one is the one that indicates data manipulation. Even there, if the sender explains that by "trick" he meant "method", and if he explains why he thinks that method is legitimate, he can get away with it.

More broadly, I do not see these revelations -- even if they are worse than I think -- doing much lasting damage to the AGW folks. If really cornered, they will sacrifice a few scientists as being bad-apples, and move on. To them, this is political damage; it is not about the truth. I think the best possible outcome one can hope for is that a couple of prominent and real scientists -- who are not of the extreme AGW school -- switch sides and give Lindzen some company.

What it shows is primacy of consciousnesses epistemologies at work. Reality is secondary, what people think is primary, and they are working feverishly to uphold their mythical beliefs. This is consistent with leftists everywhere.

Btw, there is already quite a bit of damning evidence against James Hanson, and the guy runs the Nasa program!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct, but I have read that several scientists that had sent to or received email from this group have vouched for the validity of the messages with their own names on them.

There is some documents as well. Plus, the information that those emails contain is very detailed. It is unlikely for this to be a hoax. Too much work to make it up for something which if not real would be too easily refuted, and in the end would accomplish nothing for that amount of effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is no one commenting on the fact these people had their property rights violated?
Actually, Sophia did comment. Personally, considering their source of funding and the other background, I have no huge reservations about this particular episode of hacking. If a hacker had to break in somewhere to find out that Galt was being held in the State Science Instt., I'd not have any qualms. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been skimming over comments from people who are sifting through the data. Some examples:

- they have ignored or actively fought against FOIA requests

- they had everyone in their group delete all the copies of emails on a given subject

- they created false information about the use of their NOAA funding - referencing trips that weren't taken and equipment/computers that weren't bought - in order to keep the NOAA from getting "suspicious"

- they threatened not to submit their papers to a certain journal unless the journal got rid of a peer reviewer who was critical of their claims.

I won't copy and paste them here, but you can find them in the comments on this page.

As for the "Mike's Nature trick" - which has been explained away as a simple misunderstanding, Climate Audit has a more detailed examination, which shows that while "trick" doesn't mean "deception" in this case, the trick is deceiving nonetheless.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Erik Martinsen

If this truly damages the radical environmentalist movement, as it almost surely will, many people will claim that this is an example where the end truly justified the means, and/or that a greater good has been achieved. Some may say that the hacker acted morally, and practically engaged in self-defense on behalf of humanity. How would you argue against these claims? I'd love to see an Objectivist analysis of the hacker's actions (though it would probably be impossible without knowing more about his motives and values).

Edited by Erik Martinsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This person should not have violated property rights like he did. Also, like someone noted earlier, his poor methods cause me personally to make an objective flag serving as a reminder this person may have influenced the content of the data himself.

Wouldn't it be a mess of a twist if for example it turned out the hacker was hired by some kind of nutty anarchist/relativist AGW skeptic group? Or even more likely there could simply be much spin focused on the hackers unquestionable "climate denying" motivation. The whole thing could backfire or bloody both sides. The hacker element is obviously still very much up in the air. I would expect to hear more about the perpetrator in the future who will likely be caught and brought to court. That should be a whole other circus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does this compare morally to the Boston Tea Party and Ragnar's pirate activities? By what standard do you say this is wrong but the tea party was right, or sinking government ships was right, etc?

These were private e-mails. Also, I was under the assumption we were under a government that didn't require violence to get things done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This person should not have violated property rights like he did. Also, like someone noted earlier, his poor methods cause me personally to make an objective flag serving as a reminder this person may have influenced the content of the data himself.

In my ideal world, the disposition of this hacker's case would wait disposition until it was determined what level of criminal activity, if any, was going on at the CRU. If there was crime, then the release of the emails and files would be partially and possibly entirely justified because there is no right to commit crime behind a shield of privacy, or anywhere else.

It was not a police action that released these files, so there should not be any procedural issues with the investigation into the CRU. If the investigating authority wants 'clean' evidence (edit:and it should) it can be subpoena'd directly from the original source.

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...