Adam.T.Historian

Initial Talk page

Still in the process of learning the Wikipedia ropes, feel free to comment, insults will be ridiculed or ignored. Constructive criticisms and encouragements always welcome. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

CRU question

Do you think that CRU own data that they have refused to release? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a trick question? Do they own data? Do they own any data? They are publicly funded, at least in part. I have seen evidence both from the leaked/hacked files as well as reliable sources that they have refused to release data which could confirm or deny their particular AGW stance. (which is not binary, as John CHristy illustrates well, there are many shades within anthropogenic global warming, the question is, is it really an imminent danger requiring some sort of global carbon tax or cap and trade scheme.) Adam.T.Historian (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are, you say, a historian. I would hope that would come with a desire to use reliable sources and a concern for accuracy. They have refused to release data that they do not own and have not the right to release. Are you aware of their failure to release any other data? Perhaps you would care to share your reliable sources William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources for what exactly? Do you not consider John Christy/BBC a reliable source? Seems to me that is straight from the horse's mouth. Also, the data itself is very reliable as a source, especially when proving certain things. If you're referring to Wikipedia, then all we need do is quote reliable sources that reference the leaked data. We both know the legalese of British copyright was not on the minds of those evading FOI requests, we both know the NOAA provided funding, so isn't this data in part owned by the American people? -Adam.T.Historian (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RS for your claim that they have held back data. Please provide them. My feeling is that you don't understand the issue - but your claims are so vague it is hard to be sure. A source for your claims would at least clarify what your claims are William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Consider the following note that appears to have been sent by Mr. Jones to Mr. Mann in May 2008:

"Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?" AR4 is shorthand for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad man-made climate change has supposedly become.

In another email that seems to have been sent in September 2007 to Eugene Wahl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Paleoclimatology Program and to Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with."

When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. "The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this," he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on."

It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren't averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

Mr. Mann's main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.

For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn't to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent.

However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html

The actual emails that Wall Street Journal article were written about, they've published here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html

including...

From: Phil Jones

To: Gavin Schmidt

Subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper

Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008

Cc: Michael Mann

Gavin, [...] Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don't want to give them something clearly tangible. Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond —advice they got from the Information Commissioner. As an aside and just between us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has withdrawn himself from the WG1 Lead nominations. It seems he doesn't want to have to deal with this hassle.

The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on.

Cheers

Phil

Now, I've already told you my primary source is the leaked data itself. I have no problem playing the RS game in order to update climate-related articles to a more NPOV, but if you want a comprehensive list of every time the leaked data has been published in the media, that burden is on your shoulders. When the discussions come up for individual edits, the RS will be supplied in a case-by-case basis. The data itself is the smoking gun, and a growing number of reliable sources are publishing that data. Additionally, their handling of Climatic Research, as if it's NOT a credible peer-reviewed journal (which it most certainly IS) really illustrates who is and who is not a reliable source.

Make no mistake, there is no confusion here, on either side. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so judging from the above the "data" you're talking about withholding is email's - not climate data. Could you make that clear, in case I've misunderstood? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Including, but not limited to, emails. People understand that FOI requests are typically wide-sweeping, and cover all data related to topic of which information is sought, including correspondences of a professional capacity. The climate data itself was also requested, and I posit if the RealClimate blog is to be taken seriously, so is the ClimateAudit blog. I mention ClimateAudit because its primary author is one of the people known to have submitted multiple FOI requests, which the above emails prove a standard 'line' was used in an attempt to ward off. Some of the data was released anyway, so clearly, the old proverb is true in this case, "There is nothing in darkness, that won't be put into the light."... or if you prefer audio over video, "There is nothing whispered, that won't be shouted from the rooftops." Adam.T.Historian (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You're mixing things up - possibly deliberately; if so I won't bother. Do you understand the difference between the weather data, from which CRU derives its climate series, and the IPCC FOI requests discussed in the last mail above? I still can't tell from the above whether you are asserting that the CRU withheld data rather than emails, and if so which data you consider them to have withheld. For someone claiming a semi-professional interest in this matter as a historian, your lack of precision is disturbing William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The only thing disturbing here, is your ongoing involvement in these topics, your thinly veiled insult only reinforces the position that you and the rest of the AGW adherents who are so politically active are unprofessional in your tactics. I'm on a mission for Wikipedia NPOV, and I'll take all the fuel I can get, so by all means, keep confirming the suspicions of many via your activity on Wikipedia. I'm a new user here, yet you and yours are hammering my talk page with myriad insinuations. Is it bothersome that I cannot be fired or excluded professionally? Was there a chapter on "concerned citizens" in the AGW Character Assassination Handbook? Is this to gauge my dedication for NPOV? I ask because I am renowned for my stubbornness. The scientists at the core of this controversy, know they're pushing an agenda completely devoid of the slightest hope of peer-reproducible results - they're politicians with science degrees. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask a question of you, I've been very patient up to this point so I expect a clear and honest answer. As a scientist, do you agree that the only valid science is peer-reproducible science? Adam.T.Historian (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC) (moved question to where it belongs Adam.T.Historian (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC))

Hmmmm, rather interesting. Instead of answering WMC, you are going for his person. And it is a rather interesting question that WMC is asking, and one that illuminates things:

Do you claim that the above mails are about climate data?

If you don't, then why are you moving the goal-posts - this whole thread is about climate data, not emails - correct? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1. WMC makes several insinuations about my character, I'm just calling his intentions as I see them.

2. mails about climate work, written for "the job" is climate data.

3. WMC segregated your earlier comment and my earlier reply. I didn't see a problem with it.

4. This whole thread is about harassing a new Wikipedia member(me), and at this rate I will just start ignoring my own talk page and focus my attention where Wikipedia NPOV requires it. I'm a private citizen, why do you believe I'm particularly worried about character assassination? It has to this point, merely been tit-for-tat.

5. The only 'moving' I've done on my own talk page, was just now to bump my last question up so it would be under my last reply to WMC, which you rudely and intentionally segregated yourself.

+-Adam.T.Historian (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you consider this "harrasment", since that (at least for my part) isn't what is intended. With regards to your comments #2 seems to be the only one that is pertinent to this discussion. Data as defined in the FOIA requests is for raw station data, which has absolutely nothing to do with the emails. Do you agree on this? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If your only want is to split hairs, assume every possible hair has been split in your favor, to save us both some time. It's interesting you have no comment about the emails except to apparently imply they're moot. I'm, what, 3 days old on Wikipedia? Feel free to peruse all that you've previously written on the talk page and put it in the proper context. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to split hairs, i'm trying to stay on track. The reason that i have no comments on the emails, is that they are somewhat off-topic for the question that was originally asked ("Do you think that CRU own data that they have refused to release?"). I have no idea why it would matter whether you are 4 days or 10 years old on Wikipedia. Try rereading and consider my questions again (without mixing in Gore, emails,... which are tangential to my comments and questions). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Summation

Well for the record I do believe email is data, and a lot more things have been discussed here beyond "what is is.". You're acting like a lawyer in a court case, arguing hotly for Gore-pseudoscience, I've tried to state that my motivations are not political(unless you count individual and national sovereignty, which should always be associated with every political party of relevance,) but I doubt either of you will believe that. The fact that the 'science' is not peer-reproducible, and the fact that there are questions as to the validity of the science behind the data/research, is enough to warrant further investigation by governmental bodies as well as private citizens, so you can argue for the cause all you want, the sky is not falling and I can assure you millions of people will not hand a chunk of their GDP and/or individual/national sovereignty over without a serious battle. At some future date perhaps peer-reproducible science will be presented that does show some reason we should all do something so insane, but I highly doubt it at this point. This is all related, despite what is 'is'.... If you really have the best of intentions, seek objectivity, and have an open mind, there's a lot of information out there you should check in to, like the C-SPAN discussion between Hillary and Gore about a global GDP tax and cap and trade derivatives scheme. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you've chosen to ignore what this thread was about and have now gone completely off-topic. I do not care one bit about where you stand politically, nor am i interested the least in what your political opinions are about Gore pr on anyone else. But since you are unwilling to stay on-target, i will bow out. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) For my part, I think its clear that you've come here from some right-wing blog. I was hoping you'd be interested in reality, but it looks like not. If you don't like the way this conversation is going, and don't want me on your talk page, then the solution is easy: tell me to go away and I will. You're also free to delete this disucssion if you want to.

As to your question, it is misphrased, and appears to demonstrate ignorance on your part. Permit me to answer it with another: what makes you think I'm a scientist? I haven't claimed to be one: what is your source for this (incorrect) assertion? For bonus points: does the fact that your source hs mislead you about this make you doubt it in other matters? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time (in three days?) that people such as yourself have inferred(yes I realize you were wise enough to not directly claim I was right-wing, unlike what another user did here) that I am right-wing. That is to say, people who have an obvious mission to protect NPOV-deficient climate related articles from having a broader, more realistic, inclusion of information. Not all of us fit into this neat little false dichotomy 'left v/s right' world, though wouldn't it be grand if the world were that simple? Personally, I weigh every topic against pesky little things like founding documents and basic human rights - in fact about the only major topic I could even be considered having a right-wing stance on, is that all human beings have a right to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary, the false-dichotomy-think of left/right is made even more amusing by my unwavering support for [gay people arming themselves to prevent violent victimization]. Having to go on about left/right does illustrate that you and yours view me from very politically-tinted glasses, however.

I was under the impression from one of the "Climategate" Wikipedia article archives that you were a computer science major. While not one of the more empirically scientific examples, I would expect computer science majors to know that the answer to my question is without reservation a resounding YES(The only real science is peer-reproducible science, this is one of the basic pillars of proper science.) If you are not a computer (or other) science major, then I withdraw that part of the question, but it is not lost on me that you still haven't answered my question, and I had to provide the answer myself - I was under the impression peer-reproducibility was common knowledge.

Adam.T.Historian (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If you mean Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident then you're wrong, obviously. I'm not even mentionned. No, I'm not a compsci, and only Americans use funny words like "major". If you want to know who I actually am, then you could try my user page, or more speculatively William Connolley. I don't think you're being honest here; I'm going to go away and stop bothering you; feel free to come to my talk page if you want to talk further William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break, older talk below

[I put a break here cos I think it is confusing otherwise. You're free to revert, of course - WMC]

I think the confusion here is based on US thinking vs. European thinking on the subject of what is free, and what isn't. In the US all publically sponsored data is/should be free. But that isn't the case in Europe, where the thinking has been that publically funded institutions should attempt to minimize their funding by becoming self-sustainable. That means that data that would be free in the US, is copyrighted and wears a price-tag in Europe. CRU and the Met-Offices problem is that a part of their data is copyrighted and not freely releasable from such institutions (for instance the German data (iirc)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this confusion why the leaked data shows a desire to evade, and fear of, the UK FOIA? I mean as an aside I do find what you say fascinating, but I don't see how it really makes the scandal go away. The leaked data proves FOIA was of serious concern to them, it proves that a programmer had to make up data to fill in the holes, probably with the best of intentions... The leaked data proves there can never be peer-reproducible results, without which CRU science is mere unsubstantiated claim. -Adam.T.Historian (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

'FOIA' Steven McIntyre had already gotten all the raw data that the CRU had available "for free use" - the rest of the data was under copyright from other countries (check climateaudit - its all there if you look), this is also the case now, neither CRU nor the Met can release (some of) the data, since it doesn't own it. FOIA's btw. are time-consumers, and that is what most of the complaints are about. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

'programming' (a completely different subject): Sorry but it "prooves" no such thing. Take a look at the commentary from Linux kernel developers, you will find just as much frustration, just as strong remarks, etc etc. What you see is a programmer working on something that he'd rather not, but where there isn't budget to rewrite. The "make up data" thing has a curious question attached (which people rarely ask) "Was the code ever used?", "was the made up data for testing"? I make a lot of algorithms and programs where i have to invent the data to check if the program will work as it should, once it gets to its final stages where it can handle real-life data (which typically is extremely large, and takes for ever to run). What you see as "proof" is speculation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, "prooves"? What I see is sourcecode comments such as:

;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********

Like I already said, the true test for all good science is peer-reproducible results, the lack of this ability is why there are many professional climate scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming as it is being sold by the IPCC/CRU/Gore. You know Edward Bernays pioneered the modern propaganda trick where well-intentioned people support wrongdoing out of a misplaced sense of duty or obligation. Some people support Al Gore science just because he ran for POTUS as a democratic candidate. And by the way, the CRU e-mails specifically mention deleting emails in order to facilitate cover-up, at least one of these e-mailers states he'd rather delete than hand over information to a FOIA request. whitewashing = fail. +-Adam.T.Historian (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You see a comment - yes. Now please verify somehow that the source where this comment is placed:

1. has been used on real data (ie. by generating something that later has been used)
2. is used in any peer-reviewed papers.
3. is the artificial correction scientifically justifiable? [there can be several reasons to correct data]

Those are the 2 pertinent questions that one must ask when seeing this, and as far as i know, neither has been shown to be the case - in fact that particular section .... Is not used in later versions.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your comments, since once more you are changing the subject. (moving the goal posts). [but a side note here: Do you know that the "deletion" emails where used to "facilitate cover-up" or are you speculating (hint: speculating)] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Refer to to the above Summation in response to your other comment, and the emails show intent to deceive and cover-up, either you haven't read them or you're a shill/willing participant in one of the biggest lies in human history (hint: I'm hopeful you merely haven't read them.) If you want to ignore a large body of the facts, then stop wasting my time. Adam.T.Historian (talk)17:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Impressive. An advice: You may want to turn off the "if you are not sharing my opinion - then you are a shill" argumentation in the future. It will most likely end up badly. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I was actually leaning more toward the 'you haven't read them' option, and of course there's almost always more than two possibilities, wasn't trying to push a false dilemma fallacy, also in the Summation my comments about you having the best of intentions and objectivity.... - Well, what I meant by that is I know a lot of well-meaning people are caught up in this, I've felt very much on the defensive since my talk page started filling up, it's nothing personal. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make a last comment here, despite having said that i bowed out. I have read your "summation", and i found it a load of nonsense (sorry). I (truly) do not care the least bit about what your political "side"/viewpoint is. Gore doesn't matter on science. Hillary i have no idea why you are dragging in. And to get on track: All the science is peer-reproducible, and in fact its been reproduced several times (both Hockey-stick and temperature record) - and finally it doesn't matter the least to me when thinking on science whether politicians are going to do something or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the politics matter because it is the only reason the science exists. Gore is the first carbon-trading billionaire - he might not have invented the internet, but he did invent global warming as it exists today. The hockey-stick can only be reproduced by using a single tree designated YAD061. You don't find it strange that only one tree on the entire planet confirms the 'science' that is about to be used to usher us in to a new dark age? What kind of effects do you believe the carbon tax and cap & trade carbon trading derivatives fraud will have on the poorest people? They breathe, you know. They exhale carbon. Not to mention the increase in food prices because of fertilizer, packaging, transport. Indeed, the precipice we're standing on will lead to the deaths of countless millions. But if the goal is to get rid of useless eaters, well then the scheme is brilliant isn't it? -Adam.T.Historian (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your claims

I have more recently been spurned by some of my co-workers for having endorsed the use of Wikipedia, specifically as a result of real or imagined bias by certain Wikipedia editors

No offense, but I don't believe you. That sounds like something you made up. Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll give the benefit of the doubt, this once. When last I was at work, the climate had definitely changed, it had gotten significantly colder. I have, temporarily at least, lost one friend merely because I endorsed the use of Wikipedia. A few of the teachers who had not initially supported the use of Wikipedia in our Jr. High, are currently riding high horses. I don't expect things will be much better in the coming week.

If you think Joe Public isn't personally diving into this leaked data, you couldn't be further from the truth. A significant minority of people have taken the time to look at the leaked data. There are several reasons people are angry about the data, some more valid than others. There is no doubt certain newspapers and blogs have helped spread the word about the leaked data, and indeed perhaps some misconceptions in the minds of those who didn't actually follow up by studying the data themselves. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: If this is just the first volley in a character assassination attempt, I will see about the rules concerning the proper disposal of flamers. Thanks. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Adoption request

Hello, Adam.T.Historian. You have new messages at Arbitrarily0's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)