Va's AG continues to abuse his office

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/03/AR2010050304139.html

"In light of the Climategate e-mails, there does seem to at least be an argument to be made that a course was undertaken by some of the individuals involved, including potentially Michael Mann, where they were steering a course to reach a conclusion," he said. "Our act, frankly, just requires honesty."
:har::har::har::har::har::har:

That has got to be one of the most intellectually disingenuous statements I've seen in a long time.

What an obvious fishing expedition!!!

There's a reason virtually all of the top flight American colleges and universities are located outside of the Bible belt, who's interests it's pretty safe to say this guy represents.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Someone on another site who holds a PhD offered this observation:

"Having met Dr. Michael Mann, I assure you he is no Mick Jagger or [insert rock star of your choice]. The dude is straight up, no frills, honest, and not out to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. He openly admits that there are still things that need to be worked out and he prefers discussing climate change happening differently in various world regions rather than the single averaged study that was published (he was part of that work, but his research focuses on how different regions will be affected by climate changes).

Also, when you score money for research (climate or any other kind) it doesn't go to pay personal bills. The money goes for equipment, research related travel, time on fancy fast computers, slave wages for lab techs/grads/undergrads/postdocs, and ****ing university overhead. Occasionally, grants provide some funding for conference travel and article publication (many scientific journals charge authors as well as put them through the peer-review process). AFAIK grant money does not score one a salary. This may differ in some of the medical sciences or engineering stuff, but in academia a prof is paid a salary (usually pretty crappy in comparison to the money they could make in private industry) by the university and their grant money pays for research.

This is yet another attempt to defraud science. This is not the work of healthy skepticism (which scientists engage in a lot as part of their knowledge creation model - you have to show good evidence or you get a torn a new one), this is the work of someone who most likely owes some corporate sponsor a favor and/or truly believes that the pursuit of knowledge and overall improvement of the well being/sustainability of our shared planet is a terrible thing. F__k Cuccinelli."

[SteamWake]

Dude has his own thread goin :yeah:

[NeonSamurai]

Maybe, but the quote in the second post is pretty much on the money imho (as a scientific type).

Also the guy is using his office to push his own private agenda and circumvent due process. I would call that an abuse of his position.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Dude has his own thread goin :yeah:

When unable to argue, ridicule?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Maybe, but the quote in the second post is pretty much on the money imho (as a scientific type).

Also the guy is using his office to push his own private agenda and circumvent due process. I would call that an abuse of his position.

Ayup. And people already knew what a nut he was before they elected him.

[CaptainHaplo]

Torvald, you continue to show how much of a political hack you are. Somehow this is a "threat to science" - when the only thing requested were documents regarding research and grant applications, as well as correspondance between Mann and other scientists. The man was being funded by taxpayers - and yet somehow making sure that he was on the up and up is an "abuse of power"....

So what your trying to say is any greeny, liberal pet project of social engineering that chooses to operate under the guise of "science" should just be given a pass and not have to actually be monitored. The reality is that just the IT notes show the data used in much of the climate data studies is more than just suspect, but inherently unverifiable AND unsourceable. That doesn't mean global warming isn't happening, but it also means that the claims that it is are much less than "irrefutable". Protecting the taxpayers from being defrauded - is what the man's job is.

Sorry you don't like that fact, but then, we can't really expect a political hack like you to be able to use any reasonable judgement on what is right and wrong.

[August]

Well said Hap.

Neo, please define due process in this situation. You're usually pretty level headed and I'm genuinely curious how you see this as an abuse.

[Platapus]

Well the AG will have a tough time proving a violation based on the definitions contained in the VFATA.

This smells of just a political ploy which, in my opinion, will hurt the Republicans in the long run. Virginia does not have the money for such ploys. But the AG is within his rights to do this.

I think some of the voters are starting to regret last year's election. If only the Democrats had viable candidate in that election.... But they didn't. :nope:

Thanks Mr. Deeds.... for nothing. :down:

[NeonSamurai]

Meaning he is using an act that is akin to a subpoena, that doesn't require any other legal body other than himself to sign off on it, no judges or anything. He doesn't even seem to need to have any actual evidence of wrong doing. I have a problem with all of that, especially given his history, and very obvious bias. He his using his office to for his own personal agenda, which I think is wrong no matter what side of the fence the agenda is on. I also don't think he should have that kind of power to begin with (I do not like that act as it is).

Also there is the problem that he appears to be heavily warping that act (I very much doubt this was the intent of the act). As was mentioned, grant money does not pay for the professor's salary, only the research and associated costs. So the first 2 parts of the act that he is invoking is out ("of the act forbidding employees from making false claims for payment, submitting false records for payment or conspiring to defraud the state"), and I wish him luck proving conspiracy to defraud when the prof doesn't even profit from the research (other than keeping his job at the university by engaging in research, but that is something else which I will leave for now). Plus of course he doesn't seem to have any actual evidence.

Of course the big thing is that this AG is not doing this to make sure the research is on the "up and up". He wouldn't have a clue one way or the other as he isn't a scientist. He is doing it to fuel his anti GW campaign which includes suing the EPA, and as such is warping this act to fish around for 'evidence'. Add to that his constant references to the 'climategate' emails (of which the official investigation found absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing BTW) as evidence that the science is false. Only thing I wonder though is if he is doing this because he genuinely believes it, or if he is just pandering to his perceived constituents. I suspect the latter mostly.

Anyhow I think that this whole thing is politically motivated. I am also concerned on the direction this will take.

[Platapus]

Well if the AG was not worried about this, he would be concentrating on "breastgate"

http://aidanmaconachyblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/ken-cuccinelli-and-breastgate-covering.html

As a resident of North Virginia, if a nipple on our seal is the most pressing issue affecting Virginia, then we are in a great position.

But we aint in that great of a position. :nope: I think someone needs to inform the AG that he was elected to do a job for the Commonwealth, not just his political agendas.

[CaptainHaplo]

Neon, while I agree your normally level headed about this kind of thing, a couple of things I have to rebut.

Meaning he is using an act that is akin to a subpoena, that doesn't require any other legal body other than himself to sign off on it, no judges or anything. He doesn't even seem to need to have any actual evidence of wrong doing.

Ok - so you do you hold this same standard when there is any kind of legal case? District Attorneys shouldn't be allowed to investigate issues, since they issue this kind of directive all the time for grand jury investigations. Or is it only not ok because he is going after a "scientist"?

I have a problem with all of that, especially given his history, and very obvious bias. He his using his office to for his own personal agenda, which I think is wrong no matter what side of the fence the agenda is on. Ok - now here your mixing your opinion of his bias (which I admit is very likely) with his legal grounds for investigating - which is his authority to look into whether taxpayers were defrauded. As a human he has the right to his own skepticism, and as an elected officer he has the right and duty to look into things he feels are questionable.

I also don't think he should have that kind of power to begin with (I do not like that act as it is). Ok, here this isn't even a gripe about what the man is doing - but about the fact you don't like the law as it is written. Where were your objections to this law previously? Or again, is the objection only due to it being about "science" and the legitimacy of documents submitting asking for taxpayer dollars?

Also there is the problem that he appears to be heavily warping that act (I very much doubt this was the intent of the act). Ok, funny that the school seems to have no issue with compliance - and if this was a "heavy warping" of the act as you claim, they would be well served (on principle as well as for precedent) to balk and take the matter before a judge. Yet - that isn't happeneing.

As was mentioned, grant money does not pay for the professor's salary, only the research and associated costs. So the first 2 parts of the act that he is invoking is out ("of the act forbidding employees from making false claims for payment, submitting false records for payment or conspiring to defraud the state"), and I wish him luck proving conspiracy to defraud when the prof doesn't even profit from the research (other than keeping his job at the university by engaging in research, but that is something else which I will leave for now). Well - thats why the word OR is used - it can be ANY of the three. As for defrauding the state, it does not require the professor to profit - though him keeping his job does in fact means he profits. Defraudng the state means exactly that - note the act doesnt say "defrauding the state to line your own pockets". So there is no legal arm twisting going on here - the investigation is fully in line with the act as written.

Plus of course he doesn't seem to have any actual evidence.

Uhm.... you do know this is termed an investigation, right? The whole idea of investigations is to determine IF wrongdoing has occured and to gather the evidence necessary to prosecute it if such wrongdoing exists. This means that IF charges are brought against Mann, or anyone else for that matter, they get to have their day in court just like everyone else. This is little different than the beginnings of grand jury proceeding for a criminal case. Yet somehow these scientists - who have done their utmost to hide their data and processess, should not be forced to have a bit of light shown on their actions?

Of course the big thing is that this AG is not doing this to make sure the research is on the "up and up". He wouldn't have a clue one way or the other as he isn't a scientist. He is doing it to fuel his anti GW campaign which includes suing the EPA, and as such is warping this act to fish around for 'evidence'. Add to that his constant references to the 'climategate' emails (of which the official investigation found absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing BTW) as evidence that the science is false. Only thing I wonder though is if he is doing this because he genuinely believes it, or if he is just pandering to his perceived constituents. I suspect the latter mostly.

Well this is pure opinion as to the "why" - and his stated reason is different than your opinion. So your opinion means that regardless of him conforming to the laws of the commonwealth, this is wrong. Again, is it him thats wrong, the law that is, or both? And I wonder if you would see it as wrong if the shoe were on the other foot - and he or another AG or political officer held a pro GW stance and used their office to push that agenday? I ask because there have been many that have - and this is the first time I have seen you say a word about it. After all, the actions by the sitting governor(a democrate at the time) of VA regarding professor Patrick J. Michaels didn't at all involve a politician holding a scientist up for ridicule just because the scientist questioned global warming, did it?

As for the "climategate" clearing - you mean by the rubber stamp group that everyone knew what the outcome was before it started? Just a slap on the wrist going "well the CRU should have been more open".... Yea, that was real convincing.

Anyhow I think that this whole thing is politically motivated. I am also concerned on the direction this will take.

Now we get somewhere..... ok lets just pretend it IS politically motivated and has little to do with protecting the interest of VA taxpayers. Even so, your concerned with the "direction" this could take. You mean it might start an OPEN scientific debate about the whole global warming issue? You mean it might mean that more and more of the downright abysmal scientific practices used by the CRU might be shown - casting further doubt on their research and findings? Yes, that would be horrible wouldnt it? Or would it return some integrity to the research?

After all - take the time to read the IT journal in which data was "rebuilt" - half the time the guy admits there is NO info on WHERE the data actually came from. No weather station data, just temps - no history on location, or even the ability to verify if the data even came from a station! Just numbers - with no explanation of where they came from - to be plugged into the datasets.....

Sorry - but that isn't good science - and so looking into one of the main players involved in passing that off as "research" - a person who as you put it - got to keep his job by applying for grants to perform said research - is not an abuse. An investigation is reasonable - because it IS the taxpayers money.

[NeonSamurai]

Neon, while I agree your normally level headed about this kind of thing, a couple of things I have to rebut.

Of course :) and naturally I shall re-rebut ;)



Ok - so you do you hold this same standard when there is any kind of legal case? District Attorneys shouldn't be allowed to investigate issues, since they issue this kind of directive all the time for grand jury investigations. Or is it only not ok because he is going after a "scientist"?

As a matter of fact I do hold the same standard. In a normal criminal case he couldn't gather evidence like that with out getting a judge to sign off on the search, and to do that he would need some evidence to get that. I object to him being able to do something like that on his own without having to get judicial approval first.

Ok - now here your mixing your opinion of his bias (which I admit is very likely) with his legal grounds for investigating - which is his authority to look into whether taxpayers were defrauded. As a human he has the right to his own skepticism, and as an elected officer he has the right and duty to look into things he feels are questionable.

Sure, I just do not like him using his position to grind his own axe. Having your own opinion is one thing, but using your position to forward that opinion is another. Is he serving the people or himself, and how much of the people's money is he going to waste on what is very likely to be a frivolous case. I think that legal investigations should be held to the same standards as scientific investigations, in that they should be as bias free as possible.

Ok, here this isn't even a gripe about what the man is doing - but about the fact you don't like the law as it is written. Where were your objections to this law previously? Or again, is the objection only due to it being about "science" and the legitimacy of documents submitting asking for taxpayer dollars?

I wasn't aware of the law before this, but I would still object anyhow as I think it gives too much power to the office. He shouldn't be able to commit searches of any kind (and this is a search for 'evidence') with out probable cause, and without having the judicial system approve it first.


Ok, funny that the school seems to have no issue with compliance - and if this was a "heavy warping" of the act as you claim, they would be well served (on principle as well as for precedent) to balk and take the matter before a judge. Yet - that isn't happeneing.

Of course not, the university doesn't want to take on the cost of fighting it. Universities will typically comply with such stuff. Its the student body that is more radical and takes a stand on such stuff, not the stuffed shirts. The only way the university would get involved is if the request was totally out of bounds, or they were threatened financially about it.


Well - thats why the word OR is used - it can be ANY of the three. As for defrauding the state, it does not require the professor to profit - though him keeping his job does in fact means he profits. Defraudng the state means exactly that - note the act doesnt say "defrauding the state to line your own pockets". So there is no legal arm twisting going on here - the investigation is fully in line with the act as written.

Profiting from it is generally an aspect of fraud (motive), and he did not need to commit fraud to keep his position per say. Results are results ,good or bad and that is the nature of research. His position at the university is not necessarily dependent on research, and certainly not on the results. This is one of the ways that we try to keep science from being bought, or releasing fraudulent science.

Uhm.... you do know this is termed an investigation, right? The whole idea of investigations is to determine IF wrongdoing has occured and to gather the evidence necessary to prosecute it if such wrongdoing exists. This means that IF charges are brought against Mann, or anyone else for that matter, they get to have their day in court just like everyone else. This is little different than the beginnings of grand jury proceeding for a criminal case. Yet somehow these scientists - who have done their utmost to hide their data and processess, should not be forced to have a bit of light shown on their actions?

Yes, but he doesn't have probable cause. Do you really think if this was a normal investigation he would have gotten that search request past the bench? This is what I object to. That he is able to do this with out any evidence what so ever, and bypass the judicial system thanks to this act. He is able to do this simply cause he believes global warming is fake.

Also the last part of your statement is utter bunk, most of this stuff is freely available if you are involved with a research lab or any university. The only stuff that isn't available is IP(Intellectual Property) data which comes from some of the recording stations. That means someone owns the raw data, and is trying to make money off of it, thus it is not freely available. Or do you object to capitalism in action as is the case with IP data, which is the only data that is unavailable (unless you want to buy access to it)?

Well this is pure opinion as to the "why" - and his stated reason is different than your opinion. So your opinion means that regardless of him conforming to the laws of the commonwealth, this is wrong. Again, is it him thats wrong, the law that is, or both? And I wonder if you would see it as wrong if the shoe were on the other foot - and he or another AG or political officer held a pro GW stance and used their office to push that agenday? I ask because there have been many that have - and this is the first time I have seen you say a word about it. After all, the actions by the sitting governor(a democrate at the time) of VA regarding professor Patrick J. Michaels didn't at all involve a politician holding a scientist up for ridicule just because the scientist questioned global warming, did it?

I think its a bit more then simply my opinion, and we both know stated reasons don't mean crap, especially from lawyers and politicians. If you look at his background, and what else he has been doing, I do think my opinion is reasonably backed up. I also as I have said before do not agree with the act he is using and the power it gives him.

As to your second question, the answer is yes. My position would not change one bit if it was the other way. I do not approve at all of what the democratic governor at the time did either. Please keep in mind that I am not politically motivated and don't believe in either camp. My opinions thus are also not based on politics. My goal here has always been to strip away all the political BS from the debate, as I think many opinions on science held by people here are far more politically based than fact based.

Now if there was some hard evidence that scientific fraud had been committed, then I would be all for this investigation.

As for the "climategate" clearing - you mean by the rubber stamp group that everyone knew what the outcome was before it started? Just a slap on the wrist going "well the CRU should have been more open".... Yea, that was real convincing.

Well no one else has been able to point at any solid evidence of any wrongdoing in that case. We went over that already in detail though.

Now we get somewhere..... ok lets just pretend it IS politically motivated and has little to do with protecting the interest of VA taxpayers. Even so, your concerned with the "direction" this could take. You mean it might start an OPEN scientific debate about the whole global warming issue? You mean it might mean that more and more of the downright abysmal scientific practices used by the CRU might be shown - casting further doubt on their research and findings? Yes, that would be horrible wouldnt it? Or would it return some integrity to the research?

Why pretend, the evidence is fairly strong that this is politically motivated. His previous track record shows his agenda pretty well I think.

I hope you are not putting my own scientific integrity into question, as the way you worded it and your use of quotations makes me wonder. The scientific debate is open, and always has been. There are more then a few respected scientists in the debate who don't agree. The problem is always when politics and money (economic interests) comes into the picture. If there is fraud, it will be found sooner or later by the scientific community itself. They are the only ones that are capable of judging if fraud has even occurred. Not the public, or the justice system on it's own.

I am concerned when the law gets involved in science when there is no evidence of any wrong doing. The scientific community doesn't think that this professor has committed fraud, there is no evidence of it in any of his research that I am aware of. That is why I am concerned. I don't like politics sticking its nose into scientific research. That is a source of contamination, not purity. Now if there is strong evidence of scientific fraud such as phony research and state/federal money payed for the research, then by all means pursue fraud charges. But this isn't the case.

After all - take the time to read the IT journal in which data was "rebuilt" - half the time the guy admits there is NO info on WHERE the data actually came from. No weather station data, just temps - no history on location, or even the ability to verify if the data even came from a station! Just numbers - with no explanation of where they came from - to be plugged into the datasets.....

Link it to me and I will take a look at it, and is this journal citing the original research? If so the data would be found in the original. Also it is not unusual for the final reports not to contain the raw data, though the sources will be listed someplace. I bet that I could probably find those sources if I did some digging.

Sorry - but that isn't good science - and so looking into one of the main players involved in passing that off as "research" - a person who as you put it - got to keep his job by applying for grants to perform said research - is not an abuse. An investigation is reasonable - because it IS the taxpayers money.

Well I stand by my statements so far. I also didn't put it in those terms. I don't know the specifics of his employment at that university, or the terms their under. I do know though that the results of his research should not have any bearing on his employment, only that he does have research grants. Now it is expected that scientists be fruitful and publish, and that can be a source of pressure to get results (something that I am not fond of at all). The statement of publish or perish is very true.

I do not feel that an investigation is reasonable at this point in time, and certainly not via the act he is using which bypasses the judicial system.

Politics and religion so often remind me of each other, both are mainly faith driven. Anyhow I shall stick to my neutral ways.. to quote Zapp Brannigan "I hate these filthy neutrals Kif! With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me." :woot:

[tater]

Why would they actively avoid following up on FOIA requests? Mann, et all, have suggested they were buried in such request by "deniers," but in fact there were only 2 or 3 such requests over a period of YEARS. In addition, the requests would not have been required had Mann et al published their data and code. Considering many of the journals they publish in claim to require data and code to be available this is even more striking.

They NEVER published the code used to generate their conclusions. Understandable given what crap their code is—it's embarrassing, I'm sure. This says nothing about the veracity of their claims, BTW, I'm speaking as an advocate for open science, particularly when public policy is involved (in which case openness should be mandatory, IMO).

People seem to treat publishing as the end result of the scientific method. It;s really just a beginning. You publish, then others replicate. If your conclusions come out of a black box, how can anyone replicate your model? In this case the model is the code. This would be like Newton writing that he had a theory of gravitation , then refusing to publish F=GMm/r^2 and instead publishing graphs of how his model predicts falling bodies.

Since climate science is driven by computer models, publishing the code is pretty much required to allow it to be checked.

I have to say as pure science, this would be creepy, but I'd simply not care. Once tax money is being spent to mitigate changes that are shown in simulations based on assumptions that changing a variable in simulations will change RL outcomes, I want that model to be in the public domain.

Politics aside, any reasonable person would agree that computer models used to set public environmental policy should be available for all to see and try out (along with any and all data required to get the predictions used for said policy).

Right?

[SteamWake]

When unable to argue, ridicule?

Nah just found it funny :03:

[NeonSamurai]

Why would they actively avoid following up on FOIA requests? Mann, et all, have suggested they were buried in such request by "deniers," but in fact there were only 2 or 3 such requests over a period of YEARS. In addition, the requests would not have been required had Mann et al published their data. Considering many of the journals they publish in require data and code to be available this is even more striking.

They NEVER published the code used to generate their conclusions. Understandable given what crap their code is—it's embarrassing, I'm sure.

People seem to treat publishing as the end result of the scientific method. It;s really just a beginning. You publish, then others replicate. If your conclusions come out of a black box, how can anyone replicate your model? In this case the model is the code. This would be like Newton writing that he had a theory of gravitation , then refusing to publish F=GMm/r^2 and instead publishing graphs of how his model predicts falling bodies.

Since climate science is driven by computer models, publishing the code is pretty much required to allow it to be checked.

I have to say as pure science, this would be creepy, but I'd simply not care. Once tax money is being spent to mitigate changes that are shown in simulations based on assumptions that changing a variable in simulations will change RL outcomes, I want that model to be in the public domain.

Politics aside, any reasonable person would agree that computer models used to set public environmental policy should be available for all to see and try out (along with any and all data required to get the predictions used for said policy).

Right?

First off if you are going to make such claims, you will need to cite sources (and news sites don't count, original sources only).

Second raw data is never found in published articles due to space limitations and IP issues.

Third I can't blame them much for trying to block requests from unknown parties (read non-scientists), I wouldn't want hacks going over my raw data either, especially under such circumstances.

Fourth, a lot of this data is IP and cannot be disseminated, if people want to look at that data, they gotta go to the IP holder and buy the rights to view the data (which isn't the scientists btw). This is also why raw data isn't included.

Fifth, I don't know if FOIA is really applicable or appropriate for work in progress research which a lot of this stuff is. Most of this research is very cutting edge, and constantly being upgraded and improved on.

Sixth, most of this stuff is available (other then raws), if you have the right database subscriptions. I don't think those databases are subject to FOIA requests given that they are private commercial companies. You want access you either gotta pay, work through a lab who pays, or belong to a university.


Anyhow I do have access to such stuff and I am even willing to verify your claim of a lack of any code or formulas they used in their writings. But you will have to be very specific about the area of research you are speaking of. Exactly which papers or theories.

[tater]

The CRU leaked code was the first appearance of it in public. If the code is available, it should be easy to search and find it.

CRU made claims that some data was unavailable because it was private, yet they gave that data to 3d parties they chose to. I know all raw data is not PRINTED in a journal, but even some climate journals where this was published have a policy for their authors to publish ONLINE their code, what data sets are used, etc. Much of this data is already online and in the public domain. The code is important because the code doesn;t take every single data point, it omits some data—which is fine when there is a good physical reason to do so and it is documented and explained.

Many of the FOIA requests were in fact from one guy, Steve McIntyre at climate audit. He's published, too. The whole point of freedom of information is that it is free. These "hacks" are apparently anyone who might (or might not) disagree with the author. Many are in fact experts in a related discipline. Statisticians can, for example, find problems with the misuse of statistics even if they are not experts in atmospheric physics. Computer science people have raised some very real concerns about the lack of quality control in and verification and validation in climate model coding—techniques that are used in other mission-critical software applications (spacecraft, as the obvious example). Trillions of dollars on the line absolutely makes this "mission critical."

Again, as long as public policy is involved, it should all be published. If they want to not publish some stuff and it's just for the basic science, I'm cool with that.

As soon as a trillion tax dollars are on the line, the US policy should be that every single line of code, and every single byte of data should be moved to the public domain for examination, or there will be no policy based on it. Note that SOME code and data is available (the CCSM3 and CCSM4 stuff is all online).

If the model cannot survive people running it to test it, it's a bad model.

F=GMm/r^2 works (to the first order ;) ) if you do the experiment, or some kid in a HS lab does it, or if caltech does it. Some loon could publish a claim that it doesn't work, and when no one replicates his bogus finding he'll be shown as the fraud he is.

BTW, I should add that I think the VA statute is BS, my thoughts about openness are simply related.

[August]

First
Second
Third
Fourth.
Fifth,
Sixth

Let me see if I understand this right Neon.

What you scientists are basically saying to the public is that you have researched the matter and have come to the inescapable conclusion that we will all die if we don't immediately send you the entire contents of your bank account. You won't show us the data you used to arrive at this conclusion because:

First off we're going to need to provide you proof that we won't die if we refuse to send you the money.
Second we wouldn't understand the data even if you did give it to us which you won't because:
Third You don't trust us to even examine your data because we might not arrive at the same conclusions that you did.
Fourth you don't actually have the data any more because it came from someone else and they won't share it (assuming they still have it) unless we're willing to pay for it.
Fifth although what you're asking will cause a huge life style change and quite likely upset our already shaky economy, the data is constantly being modified and updated and it would be obsolete and useless by the time we got it anyways.
Sixth if you decide that we have a valid need to see the data we can have access to a just a summation of it but only if you can tell us what the data says first.

Am I on target here?

[CaptainHaplo]

Neon - here are some examples - the link to the actual file is at the bottom:

19. Here is a little puzzle. If the latest precipitation database file
contained a fatal data error (see 17. above), then surely it has been
altered since Tim last used it to produce the precipitation grids? But
if that's the case, why is it dated so early? Here are the dates:

/cru/dpe1a/f014/data/cruts/database/+norm/pre.0312031600.dtb
- directory date is 23 Dec 2003

/cru/tyn1/f014/ftpfudge/data/cru_ts_2.10/data_dec/cru_ts_2_10.1961-1970.pre.Z
- directory date is 22 Jan 2004 (original date not preserved in zipped file)
- internal (header) date is also '22.01.2004 at 17:57'

So what's going on? I don't see how the 'final' precip file can have been
produced from the 'final' precipitation database, even though the dates
imply that. The obvious conclusion is that the precip file must have been
produced before 23 Dec 2003, and then redated (to match others?) in Jan 04.

Or how about this"

Tried running anomdtb.f90 again. This time it crashed at record #1096. Wrote a proglet
'findstn.for' to find the n-th station in a dtb file, pulled out 1096:

0 486 10080 1036 BUKIT LARUT MALAYSIA 1951 1988 -999 -999.00
6190 2094 2015 2874 3800 4619 3032 5604 3718 4626 5820 5035 3049
1951 3330 2530 2790 5660 4420 4030 1700 2640 8000 5950 6250 2020

(snipped normal years)

1979 110 1920 1150 5490 3140 308067100 2500 4860 4280 4960 1600

Uh-oh! That's 6.7m of rain in July 1979? Looks like a factor-of-10 problem. Confirmed with DL and changed to 6710.

This is a clear case of well we don't like the numbers the data gave us - so lets call it a bug and change it to what we THINK it should be..... Definition of massaged data..... because in this case had it been a sftw bug it would have been across the board...

Ran 'anomdtb' - got caught out by the requirement for a companion '.dts'
file again, ran 'falsedts.for' and carried on.. would still be nice to be
sure that it's not something meaningful **sigh**.

Wonder what data that was that simply wasn't included......


Essentially, two thirds of the stations have no normals! Of course, this still leaves us with a lot more stations than we had for tmean (goodnorm reported 3316 saved, 1749 deleted) though still far behind precipitation (goodnorm reported 7910 saved, 8027 deleted).

I suspect the high percentage lost reflects the influx of modern Australian data. Indeed, nearly3,000 of the 3,500-odd stations with missing WMO codes were excluded by this operation. This meansthat, for tmn.0702091139.dtb, 1240 Australian stations were lost, leaving only 278.

This is just silly. I can't dump these stations, they are needed to potentially match with the bulletin stations.

This is just in the first 25% - and there is ALOT more in there - stations with no lat/long or WMO number - no way to cross reference station locations, etc etc....

http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

Plan on reading for a few hours.

[NeonSamurai]

The CRU leaked code was the first appearance of it in public. If the code is available, it should be easy to search and find it.

CRU made claims that some data was unavailable because it was private, yet they gave that data to 3d parties they chose to. I know all raw data is not PRINTED in a journal, but even some climate journals where this was published have a policy for their authors to publish ONLINE their code, what data sets are used, etc. Much of this data is already online and in the public domain. The code is important because the code doesn;t take every single data point, it omits some data—which is fine when there is a good physical reason to do so and it is documented and explained.

Many of the FOIA requests were in fact from one guy, Steve McIntyre at climate audit. He's published, too. The whole point of freedom of information is that it is free. These "hacks" are apparently anyone who might (or might not) disagree with the author. Many are in fact experts in a related discipline. Statisticians can, for example, find problems with the misuse of statistics even if they are not experts in atmospheric physics. Computer science people have raised some very real concerns about the lack of quality control in and verification and validation in climate model coding—techniques that are used in other mission-critical software applications (spacecraft, as the obvious example). Trillions of dollars on the line absolutely makes this "mission critical."

Again, as long as public policy is involved, it should all be published. If they want to not publish some stuff and it's just for the basic science, I'm cool with that.

As soon as a trillion tax dollars are on the line, the US policy should be that every single line of code, and every single byte of data should be moved to the public domain for examination, or there will be no policy based on it. Note that SOME code and data is available (the CCSM3 and CCSM4 stuff is all online).

If the model cannot survive people running it to test it, it's a bad model.

F=GMm/r^2 works (to the first order ;) ) if you do the experiment, or some kid in a HS lab does it, or if caltech does it. Some loon could publish a claim that it doesn't work, and when no one replicates his bogus finding he'll be shown as the fraud he is.

BTW, I should add that I think the VA statute is BS, my thoughts about openness are simply related.


Hmm well I did a bit of digging and found this...
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/

It seems to be all of his data, formulas, etc for his PNAS article. I bet I could find similar for the rest.

Speaking of Steve McIntyre, who btw I do not have major issues with (he seems to be fairly genuine in his criticism, though rather biased). He also has major issues with Cuccinelli
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/cuccinelli-v-mann/
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/03/the-virginia-statute/

While it is true that some hacks may find flaws in the research (and there are always flaws in the research), it is generally very rare. More often they make a pile of mistakes of their own because they lack the specialized training of that branch of science. You can be a first rate statistician, but it doesn't mean you know what tests you should use on a type of scientific data, or the order you should be feeding that data, or changes that need to be made to the raw data.

The people testing the data, need to be able to fully understand it first, meaning they need the prerequisite training. That is why I prefer to let other scientists in the same branch do the testing, not hacks who think they know better.

Anyhow you are still stating claims without providing any referencing.


Let me see if I understand this right Neon.

What you scientists are basically saying to the public is that you have researched the matter and have come to the inescapable conclusion that we will all die if we don't immediately send you the entire contents of your bank account. You won't show us the data you used to arrive at this conclusion because:

First off we're going to need to provide you proof that we won't die if we refuse to send you the money.
Second we wouldn't understand the data even if you did give it to us which you won't because:
Third You don't trust us to even examine your data because we might not arrive at the same conclusions that you did.
Fourth you don't actually have the data any more because it came from someone else and they won't share it (assuming they still have it) unless we're willing to pay for it.
Fifth although what you're asking will cause a huge life style change and quite likely upset our already shaky economy, the data is constantly being modified and updated and it would be obsolete and useless by the time we got it anyways.
Sixth if you decide that we have a valid need to see the data we can have access to a just a summation of it but only if you can tell us what the data says first.

Am I on target here?

I don't believe so. First off Mann is not directly profiting to any real degree. He has his university professor salary, and that's about it. Also I don't think Mann has made any such claims, I seem to recall him doing the opposite and saying that it is to early to make chicken little claims.

If you are going to make claims about the science, you need to provide referencing so that others can see if there is any merit to said claims. I like to know the source of the information, since all of this does not originate from ourselves. I just want to know if the information being provided comes from a reputable source, and is at all reliable. If the best source offered is some conspiracy blog with no further sources, then I will take issue with that.

To understand the data, calculations, etc., you need training in the field in question. You can't expect to be able to fix a car, if you don't have any training as a mechanic (including self taught). This is partly why scientific reports present data in statistical terms, so that anyone with some statistical training can follow the results.

I don't trust people who are not from the field testing the data, as they lack the training to understand what they are doing, and are highly prone to making errors. A fellow scientist in the same field however is more than welcome to look at it, even if they don't agree with my findings. I don't like hacks who have a axe to grind doing so though, as they will definatly find 'problems' and most of those problems they will find, will be mistakes they made. All research has flaws in it, one of the standard practices in writing up a study is to discuss all the flaws in the research you just did, and what can be done in future research to correct those flaws.

There isn't much that can be done about IP data (honestly I hate IP data too, but sometimes its unavoidable). Some company owns that data, and to do the research, the research team had to pay to gain access to it. Its business (and the American way) to charge money for something you own. This is why climatologists are trying to move away from IP data, so that they can publicly make all their raw data available. Loss of data also happens, though most scientists take great care to avoid that. But accidents and mistakes happen.

The research is always improving. Our understanding grows over time, and the formulas and the like change and improve as the models do. Science is never static, nor is it perfect (or even close). However, most scientists seem to believe that the picture is good enough as it is now to give very clear warnings as to what is happening. Wait too long and it would be too late to do anything. Could the science be wrong? Sure it is possible, but I don't think it is very probable given current research.

Lastly, journal articles only contain the calculated data (for space reasons). It is, however, not unusual for the journal article to link to a location where the raw data can be found (if it is non IP data). If you belong to an accredited institution you can usually request the raw data from the scientist in question if it is not publicly available. Though you would still have to pay the source company if the data is owned.


Anyhow there are practices which I don't much care for either in the scientific world. I don't like the private databases which demand access fees that only universities and large research groups can afford access to. I don't like IP data as it cannot be freely disseminated. I am also well aware of the flaws in the peer review system. I also do not like the scientific community snubbing scientists who dissent (provided they offer plausible reason to) from a theory.

Neon - here are some examples - the link to the actual file is at the bottom:

http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

Plan on reading for a few hours.

I'll have to get back to you on that, maybe in a week or so.


Anyhow I am not trying to turn this thread into another debate on GW. We have done that enough I think, to little resolve (I do not foresee any agreement on this issue). My issues lie with the application of this act, and what Cuccinelli is doing with it. If McIntyre is correct in his http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/03/the-virginia-statute/ analysis of the law, then Cuccinelli is seriously abusing his position.

[tater]

McIntyre had to reverse engineer Mann's hockey stick code if you read back on climate audit. Mann and CRU clearly worked to avoid FOIA requests, it's right there in their emails back and forth.

That's my real concern. These are the go to guys for IPCC, and it's clear in their emails they work hard to discredit, or even freeze out ANYONE publishing contrary papers (calling friends who referee papers to in effect black ball authors they don't like, or for all like-minded climate scientists as themselves to cease submitting papers at all to any journal that publishes a contrary paper).

Again, since so much money and regulation revolves around this work, I think it needs to be the model of open science. Without multi-trillion dollar carbon taxes on the line, I frankly don't care about squabbles in academia. As soon as boat loads (container cargo ship loads, lol) of MY cash are on the line, I get worked up, ya know?

I think that the AGW hypothesis is reasonable, and worth investigation. I don't think any of the current models merit being called proper comprehensive theories of atmospheric physics—unsurprising given the complexity of the subject (both in lay terms, and in the sense of classical chaos theory, heheh), and the need to use iterative models to even hope for an understanding.