In article , Pete Snell wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article , Pete Snell wrote:

Well, so far CRU has not denied the emails or claimed that they were
altered, in particular the 10 to 15 critical emails. While there may be
many emails not leaked, a few of those 10-15 are startling, and it
really doesn't matter how many other emails were boring lunch
invitations.

So there has been no denial or spin? How unlike non-science groups!

Denial, no. Spin, yes, in spades. Mostly attempts to minimize and/or
reinterpret the zinger emails. Not very successfully, it appears. Time
will tell. It is certainly giving the US Congress a reason to temporize.


:-) I daresay most of us have written something in a email they wish
they could take back, or would look very sinister or silly taken out of
context.

Oh yes. While out-of-context can make a big difference in appearance,
it's hard to see how else to interpret some of the emails.


While I understand the problems some scientists have had with releasing
their data, I am not sympathetic with CRU on this. If one does science
with trillion-dollar policy impact, it comes with the turf that one will
be releasing data to one's sworn opponents, and will be dealing with the
consequences. This comes under the rubric of "if you can't stand the
heat, get out of the kitchen".

My problem is that I don't really see where they 'haven't released
the data'. How would that even be possible? They certainly didn't
collect it all themselves. I suppose that somehow they got data that
no-one else has, but the magnitude is such that I can't believe they
have anything that lots of other people don't about. Now what they have
done with the data to analyse it could be another story. But I have a
hard time believing most of the data isn't already out there in the
wild. Why aren't other people analysing it and submitting their findings
for review? Remember, I'm talking about Data, not results. If you mean
results, then that's something different.

Well, the emails do discuss withholding strategies, as well as data
"adjustment" approaches. And I have been hearing complaints about
inability to get the underlying data for years.

I think people want the *exact* data that CRU used to arrive at their
various data, to allow exact auditing of the data and the analysis
process that underly CRU's various publications.


Nor should one expect to be in a position to direct that much spending
without *lots* of help.

That's sort of true, but it's also true that too much help is almost
as bad as none.

Only sort of? I agree that one can certainly get too much help, but
with this much money at stake, one must learn to live with the excess
and/or malicious help, or find some other line of work.


Well, there is no such thing as fairness to models ... they are guilty
until proven innocent.

Heh! Good quip! I would add that no model is ever finished!

Thanks; I take perverse pleasure in perverting the foundations of
American jurisprudence, all for a bad cause.

Not to mention corrupting the minds of the young.

Another quip: All models are wrong ... but some are useful.


It has ever been thus. For that kind of money, people *will* lie.
An/or may have become true believers, where the end justifies the means.
This seems to be what befell CRU. Granting that people will lie and/or
believe too strongly, all such efforts must be designed to be able to
make progress nonetheless - people are people, and have always been so,
for all of history.

Bjorn Lomberg's position is that it's far cheaper to deal with the
consequences of GW than to try to stop GW. He also points out that most
of the non-rich world has far more immediate concerns than what the
climate will look like in 50 years. I think he is right on both points.

Cheaper maybe, effective? Who knows. I think it is probably prudent
to take a pragmatic approach to both sides. Nothing wrong with
increasing the effort to find cheaper cleaner power and fuel. And we
could all put a little more effort into ending ignorance and poverty in
the world.

It all depends on how fast things change. If it's slow enough, we need
do nothing special, as the biosphere and economies will simply keep up
by adapting.

The Maldives come to mind -- it has to be far cheaper to simply buy the
entire island chain and turn it into an underwater nature preserve than
to control sea level.


I'm not convinced that true believers of either stripe will suddenly
develop balance. All I hope for is that the debate will become
unchained, and will be allowed to run to completion, with every position
getting the wire-brush treatment. The Truth will be somewhere in
whatever survives the wire brushing.

I agree with that! I'm signing off on this, been good talking to you.

Likewise. Let's compare notes in a year.

Joe Gwinn