Comments in ClimateGate source code: unambiguous smoking gun • Hacker News Board

Re: Comments in ClimateGate source code: unambiguous smoking gun

#11

Post by youngian » Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 6:03 PM UTC

thras wrote: post #6

youngian wrote: post #2

Please. This is not a "smoking gun." It's another comment that looks bad to the layman, but may well be legitimate science. I don't know because I'm not a climate scientist. And you don't know because you're not a climate scientist.

You know, 20 years ago, the place of "climate scientists" in the scientific hierarchy was (justifiably) about the same as the placement of dentists in the medical hierarchy. The physics behind global warming makes a lot of sense. The warming models aren't pure physics, however, and require feedback effects. Now, are the models right about 6 degrees of warming in the next century? I don't have a clue because the histo…

Fair enough. I'm certainly willing to believe there are some hack scientists in the field. And even if they were all unimpeachable, there's the simple truth that we are very far from understanding the intricacies of the weather. So sure, it's possible that we're wrong about global warming. And it's definitely possible that we're wrong about certain weather patterns being related to global warming, even if we're right about the long-term effects. I'm just sick of people using their ignorance as a weapon.

Re: Comments in ClimateGate source code: unambiguous smoking gun

#12

Post by jordanb » Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 6:03 PM UTC

gaika wrote: post #4

That's nothing compared to the comments that show up in "HARRY_READ_ME.txt": http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&#...

That excerpt reads to me as written by a frustrated programmer who was given a dataset that was poorly designed and lacks sufficient documentation.

I've been in that situation before, as has anyone who's had to work with real-world data.

This hack episode seems really scary to me. Getting angry at the computer, your suppliers, et cetra is all part of the development process --- as is writing angry comments and internal emails. It's a much less disruptive way to vent the frustration that comes with the job than punching your monitor.[1]

I've not seen anything anybody's posted that doesn't happen at every development organization in the world. I really feel for those guys and the firestorm they must be in now. And to be frank. I hope the criminals who broke into their computers are captured and prosecuted.

[1] The nicest thing about the old CRTs is that they could take a good smack or two.

Re: Comments in ClimateGate source code: unambiguous smoking gun

#13

Post by pyre » Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 6:47 PM UTC

thras wrote: post #6

youngian wrote: post #2

Please. This is not a "smoking gun." It's another comment that looks bad to the layman, but may well be legitimate science. I don't know because I'm not a climate scientist. And you don't know because you're not a climate scientist.

You know, 20 years ago, the place of "climate scientists" in the scientific hierarchy was (justifiably) about the same as the placement of dentists in the medical hierarchy. The physics behind global warming makes a lot of sense. The warming models aren't pure physics, however, and require feedback effects. Now, are the models right about 6 degrees of warming in the next century? I don't have a clue because the histo…

I think the real problem is the people that want to use this as a 'smoking gun' to prove that they were 'right all along' that Global Warming is some sort of conspiracy to harm the auto industry by a bunch of 'hippy liberals' and that 'American industry' should keep on pouring out the pollution (of any kind) as long as it's able to make money because that's the 'American Way' that we use out 'American Ingenuity.'

Re: Comments in ClimateGate source code: unambiguous smoking gun

#14

Post by pyre » Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 6:51 PM UTC

nestlequ1k wrote: post #5

youngian wrote: post #2

Please. This is not a "smoking gun." It's another comment that looks bad to the layman, but may well be legitimate science. I don't know because I'm not a climate scientist. And you don't know because you're not a climate scientist.

Haha. Don't criticize the scientists cause "they are so much smarter than us!!"

How about something more along the lines of, "I think that we should trust a doctor to evaluate another doctor's performance rather than ?"

I mean have you seen some of the arguments against things like evolution by 'lay people?' The correct course of action here is to get them to produce an explanation, then evaluate whether it's reasonable or not.

Edit: Maybe I should mention that there are plenty of things a doctor could do wrong that anyone could be able to call him/her out on, but there are many things where the subtleties may confuse.

Re: Comments in ClimateGate source code: unambiguous smoking gun

#15

Post by nkurz » Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 6:55 PM UTC

zosi wrote: post #7

This has been debunked over and over already. The predictions based on the tree ring data in question are known to have diverged from actual, measured temperatures from 1960 onward. They're known to be fairly accurate prior to 1960, to the best of our knowledge. This is a scientific thing - if you can prove that tree rings were affected enough by non-temperature factors prior to 1960 to lead to inaccurate temperature…

They're known to be fairly accurate prior to 1960, to the best of our knowledge. This is a scientific thing

This sounds backwards. We calibrate against the instrumental record up to 1960, we know that there is increasing divergence post 1960, thus should we presume we can have greater trust for the previous eras where we have no instrumental record?

Wouldn't the onus be on explaining the divergence? I haven't seen anyone else accepting a divergence while at the same time claiming that the previous record is accurate. It seems more standard to downplay the divergence rather than to accept it.

Could you reference some sources that discuss the divergence?

Re: Comments in ClimateGate source code: unambiguous smoking gun

#16

Post by DanielBMarkham » Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 7:00 PM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #15

zosi wrote: post #7

This has been debunked over and over already. The predictions based on the tree ring data in question are known to have diverged from actual, measured temperatures from 1960 onward. They're known to be fairly accurate prior to 1960, to the best of our knowledge. This is a scientific thing - if you can prove that tree rings were affected enough by non-temperature factors prior to 1960 to lead to inaccurate temperature…

They're known to be fairly accurate prior to 1960, to the best of our knowledge. This is a scientific thing This sounds backwards. We calibrate against the instrumental record up to 1960, we know that there is increasing divergence post 1960, thus should we presume we can have greater trust for the previous eras where we have no instrumental record? Wouldn't the onus be on explaining the divergence? I haven't seen an…

I'm glad you asked this, because that comment made no sense at all to me. Here's what I heard: The old data where we couldn't verify it very well shows that it is good, but the new data where we can verify better it shows it is bad, so therefore it must be good.

I must have misunderstood something there.

Re: Comments in ClimateGate source code: unambiguous smoking gun

#17

Post by byrneseyeview » Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 7:17 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #14

nestlequ1k wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha. Don't criticize the scientists cause "they are so much smarter than us!!"

How about something more along the lines of, "I think that we should trust a doctor to evaluate another doctor's performance rather than ?" I mean have you seen some of the arguments against things like evolution by 'lay people?' The correct course of action here is to get them to produce an explanation, then evaluate whether it's reasonable or not. Edit: Maybe I should mention that there are plenty of things a docto…

Would you trust an astrologer to validate another astrologer's data?

Re: Comments in ClimateGate source code: unambiguous smoking gun

#18

Post by ajross » Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 7:19 PM UTC

thras wrote: post #6

youngian wrote: post #2

Please. This is not a "smoking gun." It's another comment that looks bad to the layman, but may well be legitimate science. I don't know because I'm not a climate scientist. And you don't know because you're not a climate scientist.

You know, 20 years ago, the place of "climate scientists" in the scientific hierarchy was (justifiably) about the same as the placement of dentists in the medical hierarchy. The physics behind global warming makes a lot of sense. The warming models aren't pure physics, however, and require feedback effects. Now, are the models right about 6 degrees of warming in the next century? I don't have a clue because the histo…

Wait, what? I thought the point here was that this whole subject has now been thoroughly debunked and that we should all start buying SUVs again and setting our thermostats to 75F again. I swear I read that somewhere.

Re: Comments in ClimateGate source code: unambiguous smoking gun

#19

Post by lionhearted » Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 7:55 PM UTC

bokonist wrote: post #8

I'm more in the skeptic camp, but I don't find the comments cited in this article very suspect, especially without further context. The comments may just be warning users not to use the function past 1960. The most damning excepts from the leaked email are the following: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024996.php In this one, they delete emails rather than respond to a FOIA request http://www.powerlineb…

> I'm more in the skeptic camp, but I don't find the comments cited in this article very suspect, especially without further context.

It's another piece of circumstantial evidence. By itself, it wouldn't mean too much. Considering everything else, it doesn't reflect well upon them.

You need to be very, very careful when normalizing or adjusting a complex system, and you need to be extremely clear that you're adjusting and how you're doing it.

A lot of normalizing/adjusting based on a certain factor is to make data fit a predetermined conclusion. There's some that are generally accepted - like adjusting for inflation - but even that can be done many different ways with different goals to serve different agendas. Adjusting data without disclaiming how you did it is a pretty big no-no and casts a lot of doubt on someone's results.

Re: Comments in ClimateGate source code: unambiguous smoking gun

#20

Post by lionhearted » Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 8:01 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #13

thras wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, 20 years ago, the place of "climate scientists" in the scientific hierarchy was (justifiably) about the same as the placement of dentists in the medical hierarchy. The physics behind global warming makes a lot of sense. The warming models aren't pure physics, however, and require feedback effects. Now, are the models right about 6 degrees of warming in the next century? I don't have a clue because the histo…

I think the real problem is the people that want to use this as a 'smoking gun' to prove that they were 'right all along' that Global Warming is some sort of conspiracy to harm the auto industry by a bunch of 'hippy liberals' and that 'American industry' should keep on pouring out the pollution (of any kind) as long as it's able to make money because that's the 'American Way' that we use out 'American Ingenuity.'

Please re-read your comment and stop and reflect. You're using buzzwords rather than trying to get the scope of the argument - it's like your mind is already made up. If your mind is already made up, then you won't be open to various truth and evidence.