Thread: Climategate!

Originally Posted by sparq

I am sorry to be in an opposition again, but that is off topic, too. This topic is about suspicion of ethically questionable practices of some scientists involved in climate research who allegedly use non-scientific methods to propel forward their science and agenda. It has nothing to do with the actual state of our climate.

I hope I have it politically correct.

Have a great holiday. Seriously.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Have a great holiday. Seriously.

Thank you Billy. Have a nice holiday, too.

I wonder why hackers targeted this one research group?

In all honesty, there are always a lot of emails sent when doing collaborative research, and some of what is said between colleagues in an email is very context-specific - the full import of what is typed can only really be fully appreciated between the academics in question. What might look like a damning statement in an email might just be a continuation of a telephone conversation from weeks earlier - tip of a very mundane iceberg, as it were.

That is not to say there is not a lot of data manipulation that goes on, and it goes on in all research. I have seen it happen in everything from social and criminological research to environmental and medical research, and everything beyond and between. It is one of my chief concerns in any context actually, as a statistician. It is driven by the nature of the research profession: the need to procure continuing funding, the need to publish, the need to find "significant" results, and in some cases the genuine belief by some researchers that their hypotheses are correct but that the data is just not showing it to its "best advantage". Researchers are human after all, by and large.

This particular issue has sparked debate amongst statisticians across the world over the past week - my inbox is full of emails from various stats lists from the UK, Australia, US, and Europe. It is interesting reading, actually. It appears my colleagues can be just as emotional on this issue as anyone else, and I find that a disturbing trait in my profession (although I completely understand it on a human level).

In any event, one "data point" does not a population make. Inferring the entire population of climate change research is tainted based on this one instance (even if true) is ridiculous in the extreme. It might cast doubt, sure, but trying to say more than that is really just using the same logic the climate change sceptics find so frustrating in the climate change adherents.

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

In any event, one "data point" does not a population make. Inferring the entire population of climate change research is tainted based of this one instance (even if true) is ridiculous in the extreme. It might cast doubt, sure, but trying to say more than that is really just using the same logic the climate change sceptics find so frustrating in the climate change adherents.

James.

Thank you James. Unfortunately, the impacts of that particular research goes well beyond narrow scientific circles as it is so tightly interwoven with politics and miscellaneous groups agendas; with non-trivial impacts on our lives. I cannot accept it as a good anecdote, the implications go too far and wide.

Originally Posted by sparq

Unfortunately, the impacts of that particular research goes well beyond narrow scientific circles as it is so tightly interwoven with politics and miscellaneous groups agendas; with non-trivial impacts on our lives. I cannot accept it as a good anecdote, the implications go too far and wide.

It appears you are intimately familiar with this particular research, would you care to offer your objective refute of those unsubstantiated claims they have made, for the enlightenment of the rest of us?
You surely have analyzed the data yourself with rock-solid methods and would be able to convince us once and for all about this. Then we can finally put this topic to rest and return back to the best type of TP.

Originally Posted by gugi

It appears you are intimately familiar with this particular research, would you care to offer your objective refute of those unsubstantiated claims they have made, for the enlightenment of the rest of us?
You surely have analyzed the data yourself with rock-solid methods and would be able to convince us once and for all about this. Then we can finally put this topic to rest and return back to the best type of TP.

I am sorry to disappoint but I do not need to do that. Those scientists did quite enough to discredit themselves by employing methods that have nothing to do with science but that have politics written all over them.

A lot of rubbish here. When you get the complete E-Mails and not the edited versions which have been manipulated then you can make some conclusions. Until then those emails and two bucks or so will get you on the NYC Subway.

I just think we need to look at this in its broad context. There are many, many researchers all over the world working in the climate area. Just as "data" generates results for these groups, the results of each group themselves can be viewed as "data" too, informing us at a more macro level.

We've seen here that one data point is allegedly tainted. That does not mean the rest are, nor does it mean they are not. And it says nothing about how badly tainted it may or may not be. But I think it does highlight the fact that, whether the allegations are true or not, we always need to examine our "data" carefully before basing decisions upon it.

James.

They've been 'examining'/desperately trying to spin the data for decades, anything that they possibly can to keep the suckers sending them funding so that they won't have to go do something honest for a living.

To all the naysayers out there you guys gotta get a grip. Just about every scientific principle out there at one time or another (no matter how mainstream it may be now) had legions of detractors. My own field of Geology from the first mineralogist that started walking through the countryside collecting rocks and making associations to continental drift and everything in between the pioneers had to swim upstream to make their points and they were derided for it and many died that way. That's what makes it science. Eventually when others duplicate the work and reach the same conclusions it becomes accepted and of course sometimes guys get it wrong and sometimes long accepted principles fall by the wayside no matter how many years or decades it takes. Just that in this case we might not have decades to prove or disprove. Anyone out there want to make the ultimate bet? I live at 5600 feet I'm not worried. You guys on the coasts and low lying areas?