« On Bryan Caplan's ethical intuitionism | Main | Markets in everything: department of yikes »
The lessons of "Climategate"
I've had many readers emailing me, asking what I think of the "trove" of emails unearthed from climate change researchers. I'll admit I haven't read through the rather embarrassing revelations, I've only read a few media summaries and excerpts. I see a few lessons:
1. Do not criticize other people in emails or assume that your emails will remain confidential, especially if you are working on a politically controversial topic. Ask a lawyer about this, if need be. "Duh," they will say to you.
2. The Jacksonian mode of discourse, or mode of conduct for that matter, can do harm to your cause, especially if you are otherwise trying to claim the scientific high ground.
The substantive issues remains as they were. In Bayesian terms, if it turns out that many leading scientists do not practice numbers one and two, I am surprised that you are surprised. It's very often that the scientific consensus "sounds that way."
In other words, I don't think there's much here, although the episode should remind us of some common yet easily forgotten lessons.
I should add that this episode will seem very important to you, if you conceive of the matter in terms of the moral qualities of "us vs. them."
Addendum: Robin Hanson offers a similar opinion. I wrote my post before reading his, yet we come to the same conclusions I think.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 23, 2009 at 06:53 AM in Education, Science | Permalink
Comments
"I'll admit I haven't read through the rather embarrassing revelations, I've only read a few media summaries and excerpts. . . In other words, I don't think there's much here."
Do you recall Rathergate? My advice to you is not to put your trust in "a few media summaries and excerpts" before you judge "I don't think there's much here".
My suggestion is to start with Bishop Hill's list of problematic emails, then read about what is in the paleoclimate code. The big guns are only beginning to analyze this stuff, far too premature to write it all off at this point. . .
Posted by: Matthew at Nov 23, 2009 7:18:17 AM
I tried reading through the emails. Tedious. Lots of what amounts to gossip and lots of science jargon. I am sure that most people will not understand the science, yet feel free to still make absolute conclusions. My sense from what I did read, is that they are just continuing the process of research. If you follow each IPCC report, there are always new questions raised. There has never been a statement saying that there is 100% surety. For a long time they had problems with high atmospheric temperatures and needed new tech to resolve the discrepancy.
I find it encouraging that they are looking at why temperatures did not rise as much as expected the last few years. Those who oppose the science around climate change, based mostly upon political affiliation IMHO, will see this as proof that they are correct. You are correct in that this mostly an us vs them issue.
Steve
Posted by: Ralph at Nov 23, 2009 7:18:18 AM
Trying to spin scientific opinion using dirty political methods is, indeed, not news.
Willfully, intentionally, deliberately falsifying data is.
Posted by: Ozornik at Nov 23, 2009 7:21:12 AM
Scientists disagree, have agendas, act like humans - people with little to no experience of how science is practiced are shocked.
However, if there was any single illegal e-mail hacked archive I would enjoy reading concerning the climate science debate, it would be S. Fred Singer's - after all, a surprising amount of the American style of how to poison the well of scientific debate can be laid at his feet, back during the days when he was decrying the junk science of ozone depletion. Strangely, his obsession with data seemed to evaporate the longer the data was collected, showing that the consensus based on observational data was correct not only in its broad outlines, but in many, if not all, of the particulars.
These games now stretch back decades. Ever wonder why there isn't much discussion of the CFC/ozone depletion deniers? That's right - it was all a coordinated global plot, one that to this day continues to clamp down on any dissent or reasonable attempt to have a debate about the flaws of the modelling process.
Personally, I would love someone to extract some of Exxon's e-mail concerning climate change over the last decade, not to mention some of their internal accounting information, because it is a reasonable bet that the correlation/causation debate would take on a whole new meaning.
Posted by: not_scottbot at Nov 23, 2009 7:23:54 AM
I agree about the substantive issues. But not that we should not be surprised at this behavior.
I worked as a physicist for many years. In my discipline, there were plenty of camps that had strong opinions about whether certain ideas were right or wrong, likely to move the field forward or likely to prove useless distractions. Sometimes discussions became quite heated. But never did I see groups of people plotting to hijack the peer review process in order to shut out those who disagreed with them, or discussing how to hide data that did not look good for their side of the debate. You can be a jerk and still be a good scientist, you can even have a personal bias and still be a good scientist, but you can't actively subvert the scientific process and still be a good scientist.
While the subtantive issues remain the same, most of us are not deeply enmeshed in the substantive issues. Instead, we have accepted the "scientific consensus" because we have trust in the scientific process. Knowing how these key scientists have behaved does, marginally, decrease, my trust in their findings.
Posted by: David Wright at Nov 23, 2009 7:29:38 AM
Robin is right...again. I hope my diatribes pointing out the reality of academia never get to people with power to trash my career. Robin is right except for his final comment. "Our side" has little personal interest in cooking the books. I don't even own Exxon stock. Scientists always have the incentive to put forth their best data, even when they aren't covered by a shroud of consensus and it is okay to question their results. That is the point of peer review. In this area peer review is broken while at the same time being held up as a gold standard.
Everything is us vs. them, at least to a degree. Isn't that the key insight of public choice, that you can't even escape it by going to people who claim to be altruists? Anything called "consensus" should worry everyone. I really get suspicious of people who go to great lengths to say it's not about antagonistic interests. The best I can say about most other people is they don't give a damn about me except that they may vaguely understand a system of fairness might save their rump some day.
Aside from about a dozen (maybe a hundred, I hope) people on the planet, if they do care about me at all, it's likely they want to externalize all over me. And, the best I can say about these people is that it has incurred transaction costs to do so in the past, so I can fly under most radars. This is my worry for when everything is systematized and computerized. Have you "texted" with one of those computer help cyborgs yet? The cost of "consensus" has dropped. So no, there is nothing new to be learned from the content of these e-mails.
However, you guys are missing a key point. These are bad guys who've been getting too much deference for way too long. Maybe they are only bad guys in the way that we are all bad guys when put in a bad system. That's my point. It may be THE point. On the other hand, a prediction market on recent temperatures would have been a nice way to fund my Christmas shopping.
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 23, 2009 7:31:44 AM
I must say as a PhD student myself I am certainly not unaware of the heat with which academics can argue their points, on climate change or any other topic. And of course personal emails should remain just that,personal.
On the other hand, I am a little depressed, having read the reactions of several academics, Dr. Cowen included, who seem to think that such rancor, particularly in what is supposed to be a scientific field, is no big deal and has no real important consequences, or at worst is a PR problem. As if to say 'sure they are nasty behind the scenes but that doesn't ultimately affect the quality of their published work.'
And then Tyler adds the zinger line of 'well don't think you aren't that way too' to shame anyone who has ever had a bad thought from voicing protest for fear of being labeled a hypocrite.
This is certainly nonsense and worse (though perhaps I am too cynical) smells suspiciously like an attempt at academic damage control. When people are exposed doing bad things it is certainly not the end of the world, but they should have the sense to fess-up and feel at least a little ashamed.
And just for the record, I believe in human-induced climate change.
Posted by: Justin Kraus at Nov 23, 2009 7:36:28 AM
And of course this is a much more important scientific debate than any other, because the politicians are proposing to add trillions in taxes and regulations on the back of a "scientific consensus" built upon the foundation of hiding data away from critics, stacking the peer review process, hacking the modeling programs to deliver the "right result", and deleting incriminating emails to avoid FOIA.
Posted by: Matthew at Nov 23, 2009 7:51:07 AM
I'm always surprised by the use of the term 'scientific consensus'. Considering the fact there is a debate indicates a distinct lack of consensus.
Simply stating there is a scientific consensus implies a political dimension. If the data were really that concrete, this dimension would not be required.
Perhaps this demonstrates one aspect of economics that varies from the physcial sciences. After all the consensus view did not accept there was housing bubble ...
Posted by: V at Nov 23, 2009 7:55:30 AM
Last Friday, Keith Burgess-Jackson wrote
"Nobody is claiming that because scientists tried to hide inconvenient data, the globe is not warming. The claim is that because scientists tried to hide inconvenient data, they cannot be trusted to inform the public about whether global warming is occurring. Do you see the difference? You can't appeal to authority when there are doubts about whether the alleged authorities are authorities."
I fully agree with him. So far that's all that we can say about the relevance of this case.
Posted by: E. Barandiaran at Nov 23, 2009 7:57:26 AM
Granted, we should all know by now that "science" is dead and the actions of these particular scientists shouldn't come as a surprise; still it is irritating to see people like Tyler being so nonchalant about it.
We are talking about science that relies on the use of statistics for modeling, which is difficult enough when done perfectly (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/09/why_most_publis.html). We are relying on some kind of "consensus" (the mere existence of which is troubling. All of our important research institutions intentionally speaking with one voice?) where there is a major bias in funding (Washington and its satellites). And apparently the scientists are participating in various forms of collusion and even fraud.
How am I supposed to have any idea what to think? Our knowledge machine is broken, yet the most useful ideas to the ruling faction are seized upon, funded until a "consensus" emerges, and used to justify anything and everything. This is a big deal and we need to wake up to it. And I could just as easily be talking about economics, which suffers similar problems. "Science" has basically become a single propaganda agency to justify the actions of Washington. Why is this any more trustworthy than "science" in the USSR? This is a much bigger deal than climate change even if the consensus is completely right.
Posted by: josh at Nov 23, 2009 8:14:54 AM
'But never did I see groups of people plotting to hijack the peer review process in order to shut out those who disagreed with them, or discussing how to hide data that did not look good for their side of the debate.'
Wow - never had anything to do with anything impacting the pharmaceutical industry, did you?
Ever apply for any grants? Let's say, for the sake of staying with an old GMU figure, from the tobacco or oil industry?
Or have anything to do with weapons development?
I could go on and on, but so what? Reality wins in the end - or how is your stress caused ulcer responding to your milk diet? Remember how that was overturned - by Dr. Marshall drinking a beaker of H. pylori. Because everyone knew that bacteria could not live in the acid environment of the stomach
Science is not really about proponents or sceptics, it is about reality as understood by humans. And our understanding of reality is not reality, something that that those saying something claiming an always less than perfect process is flawed because we seem how it is less than perfect remain resistant to actually grasping.
Including this little tidbit concerning H. pylori - 'German scientists found spiral-shaped bacteria in the lining of the human stomach in 1875, but they were unable to culture it and the results were eventually forgotten.'
Posted by: not_scottbot at Nov 23, 2009 8:26:51 AM
>The substantive issues remains as they were.
Very true. AGW is a hoax and always has been. The only difference now is that we have proof.
Posted by: Jim at Nov 23, 2009 8:29:37 AM
Look, if you haven't been following the millennial reconstruction debate, which has been going on for almost a decade now, then just say it. But to chime in now, having only read a few media run downs, and conclude that there is nothing to learn is BS.
It is highly probable that collusion to exclude alternative opinions from peer review and publication happened. It is highly probable that data was willfully and knowingly fixed, thrown away, and kept secret in attempt to confirm a particular hypothesis. If this were just some irrelevant and obscure non political academic debate, then yeah, who cares. However, the IPCC is just too damn powerful to write this off as some lame meta debate about "us v. them".
Sorry for the mean tone, it is too early to be commenting.
Posted by: stephen at Nov 23, 2009 8:36:46 AM
My reaction is like that of physicist David Wright: it is appalling that the scientists in the emails are concealing data and trying to suppress their rivals' research. I haven't heard of that in economics. (I am not surprised at this in climate science, but I would be in almost any other area of science.) Indeed, there are a number of episodes in which mistakes have been found in famous economics papers because of close scrutiny of data voluntarily supplied by the writers to scholars they know will search for every flaw. Examples are the Feldstein social security programming error, Lott's work on gun control, and Levitt and Donohue on abortion and crime.
Of course, all work has some mistakes, and a sophist could use trivial mistakes to try to discredit a paper, but in the profession trivial mistakes are expected and do not discredit, and we are all aware that big mistakes are very possible too, even from top researchers. Moreover, the custom of revealing one's data and methods is a deterrent to deliberate fraud. I haven't heard of deliberate fraud in econ published papers, but if climate science does not have the custom of making data and methods publicly available, we should predict that fraud will occur.
Posted by: Eric Rasmusen at Nov 23, 2009 8:37:03 AM
Let's not even bring up the issue of unadulterated peer review from the grad student's perspective.
Our "advisors" haven't a clue how to judge our work, so they outsource the task to peer reviewers and get their name on our stuff even if we haven't had a substantive conversation in a year or more. But "oh, you don't talk to your advisor, that makes YOU a bad grad student." Get over yourselves. If there was any value in it, it would happen.
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 23, 2009 8:55:54 AM
It's us vs them, but it has not been played on a level playing field. One side has government support, the other does not. It is akin to cops and robbers, and we just learned that the cops have been playing fast and loose with the evidence. "They're guilty anyway" doesn't work for the police, and it won't work now.
The public is in an institution smashing mood so I do not think this is over. Trust of "experts" is low and falling, this information comes at the moment when peak damage will occur to the scientific community.
Posted by: 8 at Nov 23, 2009 9:02:07 AM
I can't help but notice that nearly all search results for "climategate" are dubious website.
Let the hyperbole begin!
Posted by: William at Nov 23, 2009 9:04:45 AM
The rule is: do not write anything in an email that you would not put on a postcard. And attorneys themselves violate this all the time.
Posted by: bob at Nov 23, 2009 9:08:30 AM
You probably have the best opinion I've seen on this Tyler. I was kind of happy to see the emails released, but I think it's going to give science in general a black eye. It's a shame that the political/policy ramifications (which this effects in a direction I'd prefer) are getting hit along with the scientific aspects, but it seems that when science and policy ovelap, this kind of thing is waiting to happen.
Posted by: bellisaurius at Nov 23, 2009 9:15:20 AM
It does seem like most of the climate models just aren't that good/predictive and we can't use them to infer causality. Hiding the data used to create them is beyond suspicious. The emails are damning in that respect. Set the data free if you want anyone to believe you.
I think it is a strategic mistake by environmentalists to focus on man made global warming. I found the perspective in Superfreakonomics refreshing- let's treat the symptoms, since we can't control all of the causes (sunspots, volcanoes, etc.)
Posted by: mattmc at Nov 23, 2009 9:24:47 AM
I don't know, but I'm an antitrust lawyer, and look at things from a market perspective. If you looked at the marketplace of information on global climate change, and, assuming the worst (which I don't think is fair to assume), was the market for information restricted in any way by what these academics did? I mean, so someone didn't publish a paper in a specific journal. Did the paper get published anyway? Was the information restricted so that it didn't get in the marketplace of ideas. I think you are ascribing too much market power to a few academics.
Posted by: Bill at Nov 23, 2009 9:29:28 AM
Jacksonian discourse?
You mean like the email from Ben Santer on p. A3 of today's Wall Street Journal in which he threatens to beat up Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute? Jacksonian indeed.
But that's what the State does, beat up people and steal from them.
Posted by: Anne T. Positivist at Nov 23, 2009 9:35:26 AM
'Willfully, intentionally, deliberately falsifying data is.'
From what I've seen, none of the emails released provide evidence of falsifying data. Seems like the one people like to point out is 942777075, but they're talking about using direct measurements when available, and how that 'hides' the divergence--by showing that the divergence isn't actually a major problem for the models.
It's certainly not hiding that there was a divergence at all in the data. The divergence has been the subject in numerous papers.
People also point to 1254108338 claiming they're truncating data to hide stuff they don't want shown. I don't see that at all.
I see lots of evidence of them acting petty and unscrupulous. Can't find a smoking gun for falsification, though.
Posted by: Luca Masters at Nov 23, 2009 9:41:40 AM
Tyler and Robin are stopping too soon, maybe because of their own academic biases.
Robin says the fact of these emails has a bigger effect on the public than it should because people don't think of academics that way. So if people were more realistic about normal politics in science, they would not be upset.
But that's the way the whole thing has been sold. Scientists agree, the science is settled....., all are discussed as if scientists/academics are much more objective and un-self-interested than they really are.
Now that people are getting a glimpse into that, academics say "oh, you were a naive fool to think that we are not political and petty and don't stretch some things and cover up some things. Of course we do!" But those same academics and their supporters were very happy to rely on the non-political image of scientists when establishing the consensus in the first place.
Robin at least gets to a next level of the issue by saying let people put their own money where their mouths are, which is his normal and useful response to everything. But Tyler takes what I see as a more arrogant and dismissive approach--he says the brouhaha is due to naivete but doesn't note that the original acceptance of scientists by the public may have been based on that exact same naivete.
Posted by: tom at Nov 23, 2009 10:05:33 AM
"that the divergence isn't actually a major problem for the models" - you appear to have misunderstood. "Divergence" means "oh bugger, the model doesn't work". There's only about a century-and-a-half of temperature measurements available for calibrating proxies against. If the model is inconsistent with about half a century's worth of measurements, then your choice is to own up that the model is unscuccessful, or to attempt to disguise the fact with euphemism. I can, of course, admire the elegance of the chosen euphemism. "Divergence" indeed!
Posted by: dearieme at Nov 23, 2009 10:08:48 AM
I think people are wrong to focus on the "beat the cr*p out of Pat Michaels" stuff. Who cares about that?
The ones that shocked me concerned things like "hiding the decline" and "I'll keep them out of the IPCC, even if I have to redefine what the peer review literature is!" That last one could have been a joke; I don't know the guy's personality. But there are other ones where they discuss targeting a journal because (and I'm paraphrasing) 'this was the danger with accusing the skeptics of not having peer-reviewed publications, they might take over a journal!'
The other thing I think some people don't realize is that CRU is refusing to release a lot of the important data so that others can try to replicate their results. If you're an economist and published a paper relying on a regression of some industry stats e.g., and then someone emailed you saying, "I think you screwed up, can I please have your data set to check?" would you really think the scientific thing to do would be to say, "Why should I give you my data when you just want to find problems with it?"
I cannot believe that the tons of emails discussing how they are deliberately sitting on data to keep it "out of the wrong hands" doesn't bother many people.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Nov 23, 2009 10:26:11 AM
The problem with divergence is that the proxy data has to be linear with the temp. data over all ranges of temperatures, otherwise it isn't a proxy at all. If it is questionable over a 100 year period, how confident are you with 1000?
As far as "throwing away data" is concerned, the data mining process used to find series that correlate with the temp. data in the calibration period basically does just that. When you start with 1200 series and end up with only 400 for the reconstruction, you are throwing away data. It is debatable whether this is acceptable or not, but there you go. In some ways this isn't so much conspiracy as much as misleading statistics, which is why you see a bunch of physicists on one side and statisticians on the other.
Unfortunately, the emails themselves will leave most people change few peoples priors.
Posted by: stephen at Nov 23, 2009 10:37:10 AM
We should not be surprised that politically charged questions are treated rhetorically rather than philosophically – that is, as exercises in persuasion rather than open-minded inquiry. That is what I take to be Tyler’s legitimate point.
However, rhetoric has rules of legitimacy, and they do not include hiding data, destroying the paper trail, manipulating the peer review and publication process or any of the other misdeeds revealed by the emails.
There is nothing wrong with a scientist practicing rhetoric, only with practicing illegitimate rhetoric.
Take the case of Michael Bellesiles and the similarly charged question of gun control. His peer-reviewed prize-winning book turned out to be based on made-up data, a fact he tried to hide by claiming his notes had been destroyed – a clear example of illegitimate rhetoric dressed up as historical research. Eventually he lost the prize and lost his job, not because people disagreed with him on gun-control policy, but because his work was illegitimate. Is any similar punishment likely to be handed out in the present case?
Posted by: Kent Guida at Nov 23, 2009 10:42:07 AM
The problem is that AGW theory, as it is presented today, relies largely on credibility of these researchers and faith in peer review to act as a fair and accurate gatekeeper for good research. These emails, though unsurprising to people familiar with academic research and particularly in highly politicized areas like climate research, may help open the eyes of many people that scientific research is often affirmatively not a pristine temple of intellectual and scientific purity.
Some examples that can be learned from these emails:
1) Black-balling researchers that fail to tote the party line
2) Attempts to obscure inconvenient data and intentional misleading the public on the robustness of the evidence
3) Not sharing data and methods for meaningful outside review (even with so-called peer review)
4) Disobeying freedom-of-information requests for the sole purpose of hiding information
5) Extent of involvement of egos and personal pettiness
6) Financial and career rewards for playing ball
In other words, the process is highly corrupted and thus cannot be relied upon for accurate assessments (especially in the short run). People need to think for themselves and demand more evidence and more openness.
As way to deflect this sort of criticism, a key researcher (Gavin) on realclimate.org said "Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person." This is true, of course, but Newton upset consensus at the time and convinced the world because he offered an elegant proof that had predictive power that could be repeated in independent experiments. There is nothing remotely like this in AGW theory. While independent scientists can prove in a lab that CO2 absorbs some amount of infrared radiation and thus can as a greenhouse gas (at least in isolation), the supposed consensus demands that we go much much further than this.
They demand that we believe that our contribution to a relatively small change in CO2 concentrations has already caused a large unprecedented shift in average temperatures where before it was relatively stable for ~2K years.
They demand that we believe in the particular models presented by researchers, which necessarily rely upon feedback effects to greatly amplify any warming CO2 causes, that CO2 will cause a rapid disruption because of increased feedback effects or tipping points.
They demand that we believe that there will be horrendous 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order impacts as a result of warming.
Almost none of this lends itself readily to outside review, but the evidence is clear that this community has gone out of its way manipulate the peer review process for political motives and prevent outside review by blocking access to data, methods, preventing publication in journals, etc.
Posted by: Pete L at Nov 23, 2009 11:02:41 AM
The problem is that AGW theory, as it is presented today, relies largely on credibility of these researchers and faith in peer review to act as a fair and accurate gatekeeper for good research. These emails, though unsurprising to people familiar with academic research and particularly in highly politicized areas like climate research, may help open the eyes of many people that scientific research is often affirmatively not a pristine temple of intellectual and scientific purity.
Some examples that can be learned from these emails:
1) Black-balling researchers that fail to tote the party line
2) Attempts to obscure inconvenient data and intentional misleading the public on the robustness of the evidence
3) Not sharing data and methods for meaningful outside review (even with so-called peer review)
4) Disobeying freedom-of-information requests for the sole purpose of hiding information
5) Extent of involvement of egos and personal pettiness
6) Financial and career rewards for playing ball
In other words, the process is highly corrupted and thus cannot be relied upon for accurate assessments (especially in the short run). People need to think for themselves and demand more evidence and more openness.
As way to deflect this sort of criticism, a key researcher (Gavin) on realclimate.org said "Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person." This is true, of course, but Newton upset consensus at the time and convinced the world because he offered an elegant proof that had predictive power that could be repeated in independent experiments. There is nothing remotely like this in AGW theory. While independent scientists can prove in a lab that CO2 absorbs some amount of infrared radiation and thus can as a greenhouse gas (at least in isolation), the supposed consensus demands that we go much much further than this.
They demand that we believe that our contribution to a relatively small change in CO2 concentrations has already caused a large unprecedented shift in average temperatures where before it was relatively stable for ~2K years.
They demand that we believe in the particular models presented by researchers, which necessarily rely upon feedback effects to greatly amplify any warming CO2 causes, that CO2 will cause a rapid disruption because of increased feedback effects or tipping points.
They demand that we believe that there will be horrendous 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order impacts as a result of warming.
Almost none of this lends itself readily to outside review, but the evidence is clear that this community has gone out of its way manipulate the peer review process for political motives and prevent outside review by blocking access to data, methods, preventing publication in journals, etc.
Posted by: Pete L at Nov 23, 2009 11:06:35 AM
Should add one more
3. Don't delete information to avoid producing it for a Freedom of Information Act request.
3a. Don't send emails saying that you are deleting other emails in response to the FOIA request.
Posted by: anon at Nov 23, 2009 11:07:48 AM
Take it easy on Tyler. If the scientist can be political, then obviously the NY times can be political! If Tyler doesn't "play ball" correctly he will be blackballed just like the peer reviewed sceintists were blackballed. He is clearly either scared or he is talked himself into believing that he is right to be pro-CO2 tax. The cognitivie dissonace makes him uncomfortable so he can't even bring himself to read the emails as he admits.
Posted by: Gabe at Nov 23, 2009 11:15:15 AM
He will probably deal with this by continuing to not adres the Crime of avoiding FOIA...instead he will go eat a nice big lunch at some dive east-asian place and pack on a couple more pounds while writing another review explaining his OCD of analyzing lunch places.
In the mean time...I hope we get the health plan and a CO2 tax, plus a couple more bailouts and taxpayer donations to Goldman Sachs for good measure! Gold hit $1170 today..might sell some so I'm ready to keep buying the dips.
Posted by: Gabe at Nov 23, 2009 11:19:05 AM
Corruption of the peer review process seems troubling, no? http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2009/11/peer-review.html
Posted by: Stuart Buck at Nov 23, 2009 11:21:35 AM
Okay, I'm looking for a better definition of "Jacksonian mode of discourse"...the vocabulary guide from the other day didn't actually define it. I can guess from elements of Jackson's politics that it means "A method of debate which accepts arguments from the masses." By invoking Jacksonian discourse, you're referring to the numerous bloggers, editorials and op-eds who pipe in on a subject even if they may not be experts in the field. Specifically, the arguments from these non-experts need to be responded to by the experts lest they risk seeming "holed up in the ivory tower". Is this correct?
Posted by: Miles at Nov 23, 2009 12:14:49 PM
Naw man Stuart...we all know that "peer review" is really just a good place to institutionalize attitudes and beliefs that the elite thinks are important for teh little people to internalize. It ain't really a big deal, move along now and enjoy your CO2 tax.
Posted by: Gabe at Nov 23, 2009 12:17:42 PM
I wonder if Tyler and Robin have this reaction because this type of behavior is more common in economics, due to the lack of testability of many of the ideas being promoted.
In the hard sciences and engineering, I don't think this behavior is the norm, simply because most theories are testable, so you don't need to use influence and politics to convince people you're right. You do an experiment, you observe the result, you write a paper, and then other people do the experiment and validate your findings or refute them.
But in the social sciences, in economics, and in fuzzier hard sciences like climatology, string theory, and certain aspects of biology, assertions are constantly made that simply can't be tested. You can build a model for long-term climate, but you can't run an experiment to see if the model is correct. You can do an analysis of the past effects of economic activity, but since you don't have a control to compare against, you can never really be sure if you're missing confounding variables or truly understand the process. You can build a mathematical string theory model, but you can't test it. Thus, it becomes more important to gather consensus, trade on reputation, pull people into your camp, exclude non-believers, etc.
That's why you see lists of scientists for and against global warming, but you're unlikely to see theories about the existence of the Higgs Boson or black holes to be treated as popularity contests. Instead, we'll just use a supercollider and actually try to find out, or build a big telescope and try to see the effects of black holes. Then it won't matter if the idea was supported by one scientist or a thousand.
Posted by: Dan H. at Nov 23, 2009 1:02:47 PM
I too think that maybe the economists are looking this and saying "Hmmm, feuds between schools of thought, ho hum."
I don't think this is this is the M.O. for harder sciences, if climate can be called one.
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 23, 2009 1:10:39 PM
I recently got Jacksonianed for calling out Jacksonian discourse over at Reason's "Hit & Run" blog. So, I am not at all surprised or even remotely put off by such discourse among those with whom I might disagree. Every group has its Michael Moores and Billy Carters. I'm not gonna judge "climate alarmists" (<- insincere pejorative), or even Acorn for that matter, for an insular culture of "us v. them" or stupid jackassery when it is ubiquitous in my own camp, or even if it weren't.
Posted by: Rimfax at Nov 23, 2009 1:15:53 PM
What is really disheartening when information like this comes out is the confirmation of suspicions many had when they were in graduate school (or have in graduate school now) about pursuing research, especially in "controversial" areas. I mean, climate science is supposedly a relatively "hard science," where an open-minded search for truth is present - these e-mails demonstrate the efforts to subvert scientific research. I mean, if the data is so stong in one direction, why would scientists even worry about peer-reviewed articles, conflicting data, etc?
It is far worse in the social sciences (I'm speaking as a psychologist), who recognized early on that life in graduate school is far better (and student loans far easier to pay off) if you avoid certain topics altogether, pay lip service to certain prevailing views in your dissertation, research, etc., and get your degree. The sad part, of course, is how much important research never gets completed as a result of fear of reprisal, ocstracizing, marginalization, etc. Why should "bravery" be required to be a scientist, in this day and age: a person who simply asks questions, and seeks answers through research?
Posted by: Jerry at Nov 23, 2009 1:58:11 PM
"Prefer instead to act shocked, just shocked, when the other side is shown to do this stuff, while reserving your side’s ability to do the same? Then I have little respect for you."
I guess I'm going to have to live without Mr. Hanson's respect. To take this is a less (currently) politically volatile context, the episode reminds me of The Brethren, Bob Woodward's expose of the SCOTUS. I wasn't shocked at the Justices' willingness to engage in pettiness and horsetrading, but I was shocked at how brazenly they were willing to do it.
Posted by: Koz at Nov 23, 2009 2:11:10 PM
Hacking Palin's email proves all liberals are evil, while hacking climate scientists' email proves all conservatives are defenders of truth and virtue.
Posted by: mulp at Nov 23, 2009 2:33:37 PM
"Hacking Palin's email proves all liberals are evil, while hacking climate scientists' email proves all conservatives are defenders of truth and virtue."
-from mulp
This about says it all - really is "my guys good and your guys bad"
Posted by: Mark at Nov 23, 2009 3:00:12 PM
mulp,
Hack Palin's account all you want, please. Hack George Bush and Dick Cheney while you are at it. Bush came out in favor of CO2 tax at the end of his term anyway remember? Most of the people here who are against the CO2 tax are also very much against republicans.
It is revealing that your narrow mind can only conceive of a "left" and a "right". I suppose you are happy with how Obama has only escalated the wars that Bush started? More troops in Iraq/Af/Pak now than even when bushchimp was in! You must get all proud when the troops bomb another kid in the mountains....making the world safe for Karzai's heroin profits.
Posted by: Gabe at Nov 23, 2009 3:44:09 PM
"I'll admit I haven't read through the rather embarrassing revelations, I've only read a few media summaries and excerpts. . . In other words, I don't think there's much here."
Not a lot there? I guess not if you haven't been following the debate carefully and have not paid attention to the Wegman testimony in Congress or to the very clear case outlined by Steve McIntyre, who has found a number of errors and forced a number of corrections to the data.
The individual who is responsible for putting out the global temperature trend wrote the following:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Now he may claim not to remember exactly what he meant by nature trick and say that it was just a complement of the use of a clever statistical technique to solve a problem but the evidence says otherwise because we clearly have programming notes from the code that explain exactly what the trick was. The notes state:
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
What this means is very clear to those of us who have followed the debate. The programmers did away with the divergence of the dendro data by cutting the plot off in 1960. To the plot they splice the instrumental global temperature plot, which goes straight up and helps to create the hockey stick shape.
But there are big problems with this approach. First, the method of splicing thermometer to dendro data at selected points is inappropriate and not in use by credible scientists for obvious reasons. Second, the global data set was missing a great deal of data and included urban heating bias that was reflected inaccurately in the final temperatures. Third, the global temperature plot diverges significantly from the US data, which showed no appreciable warming since the 1930s.
But the biggest problem is that the data that supposedly created the temperature profile has never been independently verified by anyone outside the small circle at CRU. For many years CRU denied requests to provide the data. After a number of FOI requests put pressure on the group, Phil Jones stated that the data was destroyed due to a lack of cabinet filing space. Given that the e-mails show requests to destroy data rather than comply with the FOI laws there is reason to question the integrity of Dr. Jones and the CRU procedures.
What I find interesting is that Phil Jones put out a recent paper in which he admits that the UHI effect for China is around twenty times higher than stated in his 1990 paper, which was the basis for the IPCC's figure, even though that paper was an outlier when compared to the literature. It was my guess that Dr. Jones did this to give himself and CRU a way out. (It is obvious that a proper accounting of the UHI effect would allow a reconciliation between the US and global plots.) But the CRU leaks came before Dr. Jones and CRU could take other steps that would give them a way out and still not have to admit academic misconduct and fraud. The best that they can do now is to stall.
The e-mails show exactly how important papers get chosen even though they are outliers and do not agree with most of the literature. The same group of insiders are doing the choosing as they are provide important positions for the IPCC reviews. As such they can assume that CO2 lasts in the atmosphere for 100 years even as the literature overwhelmingly shows that the actual number is around ten years. By being able to influence the selection of reviewers and editors the group also gets to influence which papers are published and which are rejected by the journals. Because of their important positions within the IPCC these individuals can ignore many papers that falsify the AGW theory.
Please note that the Wegman review and testimony to congress figured out what was going on. When doing its evaluation of MBH98/MBH99 (the hockey stick papers), the committee identified a group of about 40 individuals who wrote and reviewed most of the papers on which the AGW argument was made. In the report (and in Dr. Wegman's testimony) it was noted that the group had little contact with statistical experts and its members were so unfamiliar with statistical techniques that they missed basic errors when writing and reviewing papers. The report and testimony also noted that the review process was clearly not independent and that the failure to show the data and methods reduced scientific credibility for the palaeoclimatology group.
Sorry Tyler but you could not be any wrong about how serious this issue is. While the politicians can try to sweep it under the rug there are some in the media that will use the revelations to gain both credibility and ratings.
Posted by: Vangel at Nov 23, 2009 3:57:02 PM
I'll just say that this conclusively disproves Sayre's Law.
Posted by: Careless at Nov 23, 2009 4:27:11 PM
For some reason, a whole lot of economists - including many who are usually thought of as "conservative" - seem to find the whole AGW mitigation thing to be a fascinating intellectual exercise, and appear to accept the "consensus of experts" argument for AGW without question.
Posted by: Foobarista at Nov 23, 2009 5:34:10 PM
Gabe,
Why do you keep ranting here about a "CO2 tax"? Nobody is proposing that. Yes, cap and trade will have a similar outcome, higher prices on similar activities, but they are not the same thing. Your insistence on rattling on about a "tax" means that either you are ignorant (doubt it), stupid (doubt it), or consciously lying. Take your pick.
Vangel,
I agree that serious issues are involved here, and certainly in economics the sorts of games we have seen revealed here go on a lot, which may partly explain the apparent nonchalance of both Robin and Tyler. However, it is also the case that the outcome of some of this is overdone. Note that most of the most troubling emails are a decade old, and much of this has become irrelevant now with new studies and new data.
So, indeed much of this really boiled down to the great hockey stick controversy. A key figure in the emails (and one of those running real.climate.org) is Michael Mann, who was in the same department at the University of Virginia for a long time as another figure in the emails, Patrick Michaels. Yes, we are talking about something deeply rooted and long running and nasty all the way around (and neither of them is in that department anymore).
So, Mann was an author of the original hockey stick paper. This paper was shown to be seriously flawed on both data grounds and statistical methodology grounds. Mann and allies floundered about to offset this, but basically failed. However, subsequent studies have resurrected the hockey stick. It is back with renewed support.
Also, the whole IPCC proces has changed considerably since then. Michaels is now a part of it, and he does not reject AGW, in spite of what appears in these emails. He accepts it, but says that it will occur at a much lower rate than most do, probably near the lower end of the IPCC range of possible outcomes.
In this regard Tyler is not so far off in dismissing the significance of much of this. Those revealed to have misbehaved indeed misbehaved, but subsequent research has shown that they were not so far off after all on the basic facts. Anyone who thinks this is some death knell to AGW do not know what they are talking about.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Nov 23, 2009 5:36:22 PM
This is pathetic. It is just so disappointing.
Science is a process. It is a not an end; it is a process.
There are very few rules to that process and they are pretty
darn simple.
People come up with hypotheses about the world around them.
It does not matter where the ideas come from; there are no
illegitimate sources. Ideally a person with an idea then attempts
to find data to disprove their clever idea. Some scientists, especially
the more productive ones, actually do something like that. But more
commonly, more normally, and all to humanly, the scientist attempts
to gather data to support their ideas and doesn't look that hard for
data or thinking that contradicts it.
Then once this person feels they've put together a compelling
case, or at least an interesting case, they write it up. They publish
their clever idea and put the evidence out there that they have for it.
That, together with some obvious variations on the same theme, is pretty
much all there is to it. Anything that fits this template is arguably
science.
Posted by: Mark Amerman at Nov 23, 2009 5:57:05 PM
