Eric S. Raymond on the East Anglia CRU's Global Warming Fraud

Eric S. Raymond ("esr") is an open source luminary partly because of his industry changing book The Cathedral & the Bazaar. As a fellow software engineer and open source advocate, I was curious what he had to say about the tree-ring circus that is Mann made global warming. He's written several posts on the topic which I excerpt below. esr frequently replies to his commenters, so I've included some of his more interesting comments. After reading Eric's reply to "krygny", I wondered if anyone's calling it the "hard-coded hockey stick".

On 11/21, esr, set the tenor for his upcoming posts in Hiding the Decline: Prologue:

For those of you who have been stigmatizing AGW skeptics as “deniers” and dismissing their charges that the whole enterprise is fraudulent? Hope you like the taste of crow, because I do believe there’s a buttload of it coming at you. Piping hot.

Comments on Hiding the Decline: Prologue:

Those who claim “scientific consensus” as a justification for any position are attempting to perpetrate a fraud, and have only themselves to blame when it blows back on them. The proper justification of any theory is not “consensus”, it is predictive power.

--

The most data could tell you is that average temperature is rising and CO2 is too. Well, except that average temperature isn’t rising – it was flat between 1998 and 2008, plunged sharply in 2008, and has not resumed the previous trendline. This is embarassing to AGW alarmists, since CO2 has kept rising and their theories require anthropogenic CO2 forcing to swamp anything that mere nature might be doing – and that’s manifestly not happening.

--

My point is that the data fails to meet the criteria the alarmists themselves have set. That is, they’ve been quite willing to interpret a short-period temperature rise between 1975 and 1998 as indication that we’re on a long-term trend with that slope, but when we get a decade of flatness after that they ignore it. It’s not responsive and not honest to point out that a decade is too short to mean anything unless you’re also willing to dismiss the previous 23 years.

Over longer timeframes, I don’t think there’s any statistically significant evidence that we’ve deviated off the very shallow warming trend following the last Ice Age. If you scrutinize the alleged data claiming otherwise, you keep finding noise and fraud.

On 11/23, he called for Open-Sourcing the Global Warming Debate, a call I readily agree with:

There is only one way to cut through all of the conflicting claims and agendas about the CRU’s research: open-source it all. Publish the primary data sets, publish the programs used to interpret them and create graphs like the well-known global-temperature “hockey stick”, publish everything. Let the code and the data speak for itself; let the facts trump speculation and interpretation.

We know, from experience with software, that secrecy is the enemy of quality — that software bugs, like cockroaches, shun light and flourish in darkness. So, too. with mistakes in the interpretation of scientific data; neither deliberate fraud nor inadvertent error can long survive the skeptical scrutiny of millions. The same remedy we have found in the open-source community applies – unsurprisingly, since we learned it from science in the first place. Abolish the secrecy, let in the sunlight.

Comments on Open-Sourcing the Global Warming Debate:

If it doesn’t happen, we’ll know they were scamming all along. Useful outcome either way.

--

And now, I think, those people are going to pay. Because it could still be that full disclosure will vindicate the AGW crowd, but having read the CRU material…I don’t think so. In all of the scenarios that are now plausible, those who bayed the loudest about “consensus” and howled for the persecution of “denialists” are now set up for a hard fall.

--

One of the reasons AGW flimflam angers me is that it crowds out sane, constructive environmentalism. An environmental lobby that really cared about saving the planet would be agitating for crash programs to replace the burning of fossil fuels with nuclear energy; buying up rainforest acreage to stem loss of biodiversity; funding research into better battery- and supercap-based storage technology so low-density renewable power sources could be aggregated into baseload power. But the envorinmentalists we have won’t do these things, because they’re fixated on the wrong problems and the wrong means of solving even those.

--

If the historical temperature data were generally known to be garbage (which I was pretty sure was true even before the leak), it couldn’t be used to justify public policy that is both bad and expensive – like the U.S.’s “cap-and-trade” bill in progress, which has so many giveaways and exemptions that it subverts its own ostensible purposes.

On 11/24, esr examined the code that, quite literally, creates the hockey stick graph in Hiding the Decline: Part 1 – The Adventure Begins:

This, people, is blatant data-cooking, with no pretense otherwise. It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1940s 1930s — see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end of the century.

All you apologists weakly protesting that this is research business as usual and there are plausible explanations for everything in the emails? Sackcloth and ashes time for you. This isn’t just a smoking gun, it’s a siege cannon with the barrel still hot.

Comments on Hiding the Decline: Part 1 – The Adventure Begins:

There was a brief note about it in a comment on someone else’s blog, enough to clue me that I should grep -r for ARTIFICAL. I dusted off my Fortran and read the file. Whoever wrote the note had caught the significance of the negative coefficients but, oddly, didn’t notice (or didn’t mention) the much more blatant J-shaping near the end of the series.

--

I have a closely related heuristic: any eco-related scare for which the prescription would result in a massive transfer of power to the political class is bogus.

--

krygny Says:

November 25th, 2009 at 8:02 am

Wait just a second. Explain this to me like I’m 12. They didn’t even bother to fudge the data? They hard-coded a hockey stick carrier right into the program?!!

ESR says: Yes. Yes, that’s exactly what they did.

--

...of course, they now claim that crucial primary datasets were “accidentally” deleted.

After reading some of the emails about evading FOIA2000 requests…accidentally, my ass.

On 11/25, esr asks: Will the AGW fraud discredit science?

Therefore…the next time we hear a ginned-up panic over some vast environmental crisis, the prudent thing to do will be to remember Mencken: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” It will be prudent to suspect that the science is probably already corrupted and demand extra-stringent scrutiny of it under that assumption.

...

And that brings us to process transparency. I discussed this with particular reference in Open-Sourcing the Global Warming Debate, but there’s another point that deserves attention. Strictly speaking, the rules of science require complete disclosure of all experimental methods, data, and analysis tools so that others can peer-review and replicate the work. We may find it an acceptable to relax those full-disclosure rules to some extent for corporations doing commercially-focused R&D. But that IPR exception should never be granted to scientists whose research touches public policy. Because the stakes are so much higher, disclosure standards must be as well.

If the “hockey team” had been required to make their primary datasets and modeling code available for unrestricted inspection, the AGW fraud could never have turned into a political monster. If Michael Bellesisles had been required to make all his primary data open for inspection, the fraud that was Arming America would never have won a Bancroft Prize. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and full disclosure is the final and deadliest enemy of junk science.

Comments on Will the AGW fraud discredit science?

Matt Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 11:44 am

Corporate R&D is mostly engineering, rather than science. Thus, either it produces a working product (the precise definition of “working” may vary, but only the sponsoring organization’s definition and the market’s definition matter, and the latter only in the case of customer-facing projects) or it doesn’t…and if it doesn’t produce, then the methods behind it are irrelevant to anybody but the people who tried it.

The epistemological constraints on an engineer are thus easier to meet than those on a scientist. Peer review is still a good thing, but the integrity of the result isn’t dependent on it the way it is in the sciences, because the result is self-verifying.

ESR says. A telling point. Thank you.

--

>I am just wondering: Is AGW really junk science, because one team of experts (let’s say “experts”) did have an agenda?

No, it’s junk science because the agenda has driven systematic data suppression and fraud. It’s not the agenda itself that matters, it’s the breacjh in standards of scientific conduct. Those have been repeated and severe.

On 11/26, esr examines the Facts to fit the theory:

On 12 Oct 2009, climatologist and “hockey-team” member Kevin Trenberth wrote:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.

Eyebrows have quite rightly been raised over this quote. It is indeed a travesty that AGW theory cannot account for the lack of warming, and bears out what I and other AGW critics have been saying for years about the fallaciousness and lack of predictive power of AGW models.

But the second sentence is actually far more damning. “The data is surely wrong.” This is how and where most scientific fraud begins.

Scientific fraudsters are not, in general, people pushing theories they know to be false. Outright charlatanism is not actually common, because it’s relatively easy to detect. Humans are evolved for a social competitive environernt and are rather good at spotting lies, except when they’re fooling themselves because they want to believe.

Keep an eye on Eric's Armed & Dangerous blog for more on East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and the "science" of Mann made global warming.

Previously:

• New Zealand Climate Data Fudged
• Pitchforks Pointed at East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU)
• Scientific Fraud at East Anglia Climate Research Unit
• Implications of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit email leak

Economists as Enablers

Russ Roberts of Cafe Hayek has some observations on the challenges of financial reform:

Over the last 15 months, average Americans have sent hundreds of billions of dollars to some of the richest people in human history. The better the citizenry understands this reality, the better chance the political incentives will change. If people don’t understand it, the political incentives are going to stay in place. Economists play an important role in how people perceive what has happened. We should stop being the enablers of such obscene transfers of wealth.

New Zealand Climate Data Fudged

New Zealand's got a fudge factor that turns a noisy, but horizontal line into an upward trend. Can I borrow that for my investment portfolio? Raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one: "The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre."

What if large sums of taxpayer money induce greed in otherwise ethical scientists? Could there be other areas of government largess ripe for investigation?

Previously:

• Pitchforks Pointed at East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU)
• Scientific Fraud at East Anglia Climate Research Unit
• Implications of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit email leak

Pitchforks Pointed at East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU)

Here's something Ivory Tower Elites and Climate Skeptics can agree on: the peasants are revolting:

An hilariously bizarre situation is happening in the wake of the growing Climategate scandal. Many of the mainstream media stories about global warming are simply pretending it doesn't exist. Perhaps they feel that by ignoring Climategate entirely that it will just go away. Unfortunately for them, the readers of these global warming stories keep bringing up the inconvenient truth of Climategate by mentioning the scandal in the comments section over and over and over again.

Chalk one up for citizen journalism—delivering the news that editors and fact(!) checkers wont.

Previously:

• Scientific Fraud at East Anglia Climate Research Unit
• Implications of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit email leak

Scientific Fraud at East Anglia Climate Research Unit

Robert Tracinski at RealClearPolitics says the fix is in:

In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping "hockey stick," [ed. see Global Warming Bombshell] every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as "unscientific" precisely because it threatens the established dogma.

For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

Previously:

• Implications of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit email leak

Bill Hennessy interviewed about Saturday's Tea Party

KMOV channel 4 in St Louis interviewed Bill Hennessy about Saturday's Tea Party. Video at the link. Thanks KMOV!

Here are some more details about Saturday's Tea Party.

RightOrg's Bailout Prize Patrol

It's old news, but it's still hilarious!

Implications of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit email leak

Charlie Martin looks at the implication of the emails from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit:

They appear to reveal not one, not two, but three real scandals, of increasing importance.

• The emails suggest the authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO₂-forced AGW were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to “discipline” scientists and journalists who published skeptical information.
  

See for example emails 1047388489, 1256765544, 1255352257, 1051190249, 1210367056, 1249503274, 1054756929, 1106322460 and 1132094873. Also see email 1139521913, in which the author discusses how the comments at RealClimate.org are moderated to prevent skeptical or critical comments from being published. RealClimate advertises itself as a scientific blog that attempts to present the “real case” for AGW.

• The emails suggest that the authors manipulated and “massaged” the data to strengthen the case in favor of unprecedented CO₂-forced AGW, and to suppress their own data if it called AGW into question.

See for example emails 0938018124, 0843161829, 0939154709 (and the graphic here), and 0942777075 (and the discussion here).

• The emails suggest that the authors co-operated (perhaps the word is “conspired”) to prevent data from being made available to other researchers through either data archiving requests or through the Freedom of Information Acts of both the U.S. and the UK.

See for example 1106338806, 1228330629, 1212063122, 1210367056, and 1107454306 (again!).

I suppose those who advocate for AGW have just stumbled upon an inconvenient truth.

SEIU Condemns Teenage Volunteer

Coyote Blog: "The union whose president leads the world in visits to the White House this year has shown what is at the heart of its quest to help mankind — a naked power grab." From Coyote's source:

In pursuit of an Eagle Scout badge, Kevin Anderson, 17, has toiled for more than 200 hours hours over several weeks to clear a walking path in an east Allentown park.

Little did the do-gooder know that his altruistic act would put him in the cross hairs of the city’s largest municipal union.

Nick Balzano, president of the local Service Employees International Union, told Allentown City Council Tuesday that the union is considering filing a grievance against the city for allowing Anderson to clear a 1,000-foot walking and biking path at Kimmets Lock Park.

“We’ll be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails,” Balzano told the council.

Balzano said Saturday he isn’t targeting Boy Scouts. But given the city’s decision in July to lay off 39 SEIU members, Balzano said “there’s to be no volunteers.” No one except union members may pick up a hoe or shovel, plant a flower or clear a walking path.

Based on our experience in St Louis with the SEIU, I'm not comfortable around shovel wielding Purple People Beaters.

I was also reminded of the Practical Rules of Bureaucracy. Point #8: "Join the Union" seems to apply.

Moe Lane (via Instapundit) observes: "Note that the SEIU itself hung Balzano out to dry: when your guys are already out there on camera beating up protesters and gadflies, it’s not a good time to start a fight with the Boy Scouts of America."

China and the US Debt

Dougas Holtz-Eakin in the WSJ on The Coming Deficit Disaster: "And how will the resulting higher interest rates, diminished dollar, higher inflation, and economic distress manifest itself?" I've said before that China is not buying our debt, rather, China is purchasing future foreign policy concessions. They will eventually offer us debt forgiveness. And we will recognize they're sovereign claims to Taiwan and Tibet... maybe even give them a carrier battle group or three.

Million Med March in St Louis

More photos by KeyboardMilitia.com

I was unable to attend Saturday's Million Med March in Clayton, MO. Keyboard Militia, Sharp Elbows, Bob McCarty, and Gateway Pundit. There's bound to be more coverage—there was a blogger conference around the corner from it.

Ft Hood-like shooting threatened at Ft Benning

The Jawa Report says that a recently found note said Ft Hood Style shooting could happen in Ft Benning, Georgia. From the note: "tell the commanding general to call off all charges or there will be a re-enactment of Fort Hood."

Scientific Skepticism

UK researchers investigate: how to chill global warming

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

Breitbart throws down the Gauntlet

On Sean Hannity's TV show Andrew Breitbart promised AG Eric Holder more videos just before the 2010 election:

And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it’s not just ACORN, and we’re going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization.

Leadership

The Washington Post covered President Obama's arrival in South Korea this week:

Obama arrived on the base 3:19 p.m. local time (1 a.m. Eastern Standard Time) and received a rousing welcome from 1,500 troops in camouflage uniforms, many holding cameras or pointing cellphones to snap pictures.

"You guys make a pretty good photo op," the president said.

...

He got a huge cheer when he told them he was increasing military pay. "That's what you call an applause line," he said, before boarding his jet and taking off at 4:11 p.m.

Tea Party Effect: Healthcare Edition

Gallup reports a 12-point rise in the number of people that rate American healthcare as excellent or good. Someone must of put the fear of godvernment in 'em.

Obama Approval

Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics takes another look at Obama's job approval: "One can't help but wonder if a legislative success on the health care package will result in a further decline in the President's job approval rating." That dovetails with an earlier post by Jay: How to Divide a Party in Three Easy Steps.

Ed Martin on Big Government and Healthcare Reform

Ed Martin on the growth of government and reforming healthcare

Early this month, I spoke with Ed Martin, Republican candidate for the US House of Representatives in Missouri's 3rd district. In this segment from that interview, Ed talks about the growth of government and the steps we should take to truly reform healthcare.

Dean of Harvard Medical School on Healthcare Reform

Jeffrey S. Flier in the WSJ Health 'Reform' Gets a Failing Grade:

Instead of forthrightly dealing with the fundamental problems, discussion is dominated by rival factions struggling to enact or defeat President Barack Obama's agenda. The rhetoric on both sides is exaggerated and often deceptive. Those of us for whom the central issue is health—not politics—have been left in the lurch. And as controversy heads toward a conclusion in Washington, it appears that the people who favor the legislation are engaged in collective denial.

Read the whole thing.

Algorithmic Authority

Clay Shirky argues that our perception of authoritative sources of information is changing such that we are showing greater trust in automated information sources. He describes those sources in A Speculative Post on the Idea of Algorithmic Authority:

Algorithmic authority is the decision to regard as authoritative an unmanaged process of extracting value from diverse, untrustworthy sources, without any human standing beside the result saying “Trust this because you trust me.” This model of authority differs from personal or institutional authority, and has, I think, three critical characteristics.

...

the criticism that Wikipedia, say, is not an “authoritative source” is an attempt to end the debate by hiding the fact that authority is a social agreement, not a culturally independent fact.