Re: [asa] Climate Progress

From: Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue Dec 15 2009 - 00:08:53 EST

Hi John,

As a brief point of clarification, you cite Bonhoeffer's attempted assassination of Hitler here as an example of "moral clarity" which was not wrong (at least, that's what you implied). However, not even Bonhoeffer drew this conclusion; he fully believed he was committing a sinful act. Per wikipedia:

"In the face of Nazi atrocities, the full scale of which he learned through the Abwehr, Bonhoeffer concluded that "the ultimate question for a responsible man to ask is not how he is to extricate himself heroically from the affair, but how the coming generation shall continue to live." [22] He did not justify his action but accepted that he was taking guilt upon himself as he wrote "when a man takes guilt upon himself in responsibility, he imputes his guilt to himself and no one else. He answers for it...Before other men he is justified by dire necessity; before himself he is acquitted by his conscience, but before God he hopes only for grace."

In Christ,
Christine

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7

Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find out how.

Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org

--- On Mon, 12/14/09, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Climate Progress
> To: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
> Cc: "John Burgeson (ASA member)" <hossradbourne@gmail.com>, "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>, "Rich Blinne" <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, December 14, 2009, 8:11 PM
>  
> If you mean this: 
>  
> Phil Jones has publicly gone on record indicating that
> he was using the term “trick” in the sense often used by
> people, as in “bag of tricks”, or “a trick to solving
> this problem …”, or “trick of the trade”.
>  
> then yes I saw this but the reason I missed it is I
> didn't expect to be what anyone would consider this
> as anything of any great importance that would sway any
> opinion. I included this in my previous assessment of
> not being very convincing.
>  
> I appreciate you breaking down the beautifully clear
> and well written article from Science for me but I have
> these comments.
>  
> For instance:
>  
> "The problem is that some sets of tree-ring data
> suggest temperatures start falling towards the end of the
> 20th century, which direct temperature measurements show was
> not the case. 
>  
> So, we admit and agree that the later tree ring data
> shows cooling not warming. So to try to find some
> explanation for deviating from the consensus  we turn
> to the direct temp readings. But Rich just
> conceded that on at least one of them is GIGO. So the
> attempt to homogenize a non-consensus result with something
> that is conveniently already homogenized to the consensus
> seems to support my point, that this explanation is not very
> convincing. Maybe the tree ring data was right after
> all?
>  
> "So the researchers instead replaced the
> reconstructed temperature data for this period with the
> directly measured temperature data."
>  
> Yes, I think I see what you mean about this article
> being a better explanation of hiding the decline.
>  
>  
> As far as:
>  
> "I'm utterly appalled that you should
> suggest that I think Rich's lack of response so far is a
> tacit admission that he was wrong and Eschenbach was
> right."
>  
> Sorry if I put words in your mouth but it
> seemed to me to be what you were saying. Regardless I will
> own the comment that Rich's lack of response was a tacit
> admission of being wrong. it is moot now anyway because I
> believe Rich has now confirmed that he was wrong.
>
>  
> As far as:
>  
> "John I really wish you would acknowledge
> this - you are fond of quoting Scripture to make your point,
> but seem curiously to ignore it when someone else uses
> scripture that doesn't help your case - there can be no
> argument; it was wrong to steal the emails, however valuable
> the information in them might have been.  Do you
> agree?  Or do  you think it's OK to break the
> Eighth Commandment in this case.  I await your reply
> with interest."
>  
> No I don't agree. I think it was an act of
> conscience and a superb display of moral clarity. just like
> Dietrich Bonhoeffer's unfortunately unsuccessful attempt
> to assasinate Hitler. When this is over he should be awarded
> some whistleblower award by Congress or our new President.
> He could have saved civilization.
>  
> I concede that it looks like Eschenbach may
> have been fed that particular station by someone and he
> chose to represent it as his own but I don't see that
> makes any difference. The important point is that all the
> data gets verified independently like that and I applaud you
> and Rich for taking the time to do it. I will be the first
> to sign on if you guys or others I trust to be equally
> objective independently verify that all the temps and
> proxies have been reproduced from raw data with reasonably
> accepted methods an the trend shows warming.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Iain Strachan
> <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
> To: John
> Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> Cc: John
> Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>; asa
> <asa@calvin.edu>; Rich Blinne
> <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
> Sent: Mon,
> December 14, 2009 4:45:06 PM
> Subject: Re:
> [asa] Climate Progress
>
> John,
>
> I have read all your email, but there are just a couple of
> points here which seriously need responding to, and to
> respond to all of it would make it overly long.  I also
> have absolutely no desire to enter into a discussion about
> Janice - I put her emails on auto-delete long before she was
> banned (only
> to be hit by the wretched woman's sock puppet, which
> Rich, if you recall did some admirable detective work in
> uncovering).   I'll deal with the other points
> in reverse order:
>
> (1) You wrote:
>
> My rejection of the reasonableness assertion when applied
> to me is that I can't possibly live up to other
> people's criteria for  objectivity so as a rule I
> don't let myself fall into that trap nor do I try to
> impose it on others. I am sure Mann's defense of the
> emails would be interesting but I have just not seen it
> anywhere. I am not avoiding it or opposed to reading it but
> I reject the conclusion that because I haven't read it,
> I still can't deduce a pattern of
> deception and coverup clearly shown in the
> emails.
>
> I respond:
>
> A .. hem.  Excuse me.  The entire text of
> Mann's defence of the emails was contained in the
> original email that Burgy posted to start this thread!!!
>
> How on earth did you miss
> it??? 
>
> Actually I think I know how you missed it.  You got so
> wound up about his use of the word "denialist"
> that you chose to write a snotty email about that instead of
> engaging in the material John had brought to the list's
> attention.  Now, I don't think it's reasonable
> to expect you to go to the same lengths as I went to, to
> analyse the data, but I do think it's reasonable to
> expect you to have actually read the email you were
> responding to.  Don't you?
>
> If you don't trust Mann, you might also find it helpful
> to read the beautifully clear and well written article at
> the New Scientist website I mentioned earlier.  The
> relevant article is at:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html?page=1
>
> Just so you don't have to follow the link if you
> don't want to, here is their very clear and simple
> explanation of the infamous "trick to hide the
> decline" email.  I think it's even clearer
> than Mann's explanation as it uses fewer jargon words:
>
> ----
>
> The problem is that some
> sets of tree-ring data suggest temperatures start falling
> towards the end of the 20th century, which direct
> temperature measurements show was not the case. So the
> researchers instead replaced the reconstructed temperature
> data for this period with the directly measured temperature
> data.
> Is this an unjustified
> "fix"? No, because some sets of tree-ring data can
> be compared with the direct records of local temperature for
> the past century. Up until the 1960s, there is a very close
> correlation between the density of growth rings in trees in
> northern latitudes and summer temperatures, but after this it
> starts to break down.
> We don't know why.
> It might be that the correlation breaks down whenever it
> gets too hot, in which case reconstructions of past
> temperature that rely heavily on tree-ring data will give a
> misleading picture. Or it might be due to some factor unique
> to the 20th century, such as changes in the timing of the
> snow melt, in which case it will not affect
> reconstructions.
> The issue has not yet
> been resolved but there has been no attempt to conceal this
> or any of the many other problems with temperature
> reconstructions. On the contrary, the head of the Climate
> Research Unit at East Anglia, Phil Jones, and others have
> published papers discussing it in prominent journals such as
> Nature.
> ---
> So there is nothing
> suspicious here at all.  The tree ring data breaks down
> post 1960's (for reasons as yet unknown, but doubtless
> time will tell) but the truth (the actual temperatures as
> opposed to those reconstructed from a mathematical model of
> the tree rings) were placed on the graph.  The
> "hidden decline" was one that arose from the
> faulty tree-ring model.
> Other emails are
> discussed with equal lucidity, along with the very
> reasonable reasons for "fixing" the data. 
> From years of analysing data myself I concur that you have
> to perform pre-processing on it (which may well involve
> removing false offsets that arose for various reasons) to
> get any sensible model to work.
> I commend the article
> for your attention.
>
>
> (2)  This one is
> more serious.
> You wrote:
> I was also awaiting
> feedback on that from Rich and since we haven't heard
> back from him after he initially stated that the smoking gun
> was Eschenbach's, I agree with you that that is a tacit
> admission that he was wrong and Eschenbach was right.
> I respond:
> I'm utterly appalled
> that you should suggest that I think Rich's lack of
> response so far is a tacit admission that he was wrong and
> Eschenbach was right.  I never wrote ANYTHING OF THE
> SORT.  Sorry for shouting, but this really is one of
> the most blatant twistings of what I have written I have
> ever seen and I wish to make it clear in the strongest
> possible terms that I was making no such assertion about
> Rich.  You are reading way too much into my words;
> perhaps you dislike what Rich posts so much that it has
> marred your judgment.
> I'll concede only
> this.  When I said that an explanation had not been
> forthcoming, that was definitely a poor choice of words,
> because it implies a form of concealment that I did not
> intend.
> Here's what I
> meant:
> It was an admission that
> *I* was wrong in making the assumption that just because I
> could not reproduce Eschenbach's graphs initially that
> he must have fabricated it.  When I was shown the
> dataset that was used, and independently reproduced
> precisely the same graphs, I felt it was necessary to
> correct the erroneous impression I had given.
> Nor did I say Eschenbach
> was "right".  All I affirmed was that I had
> found I could reproduce the graphs in Eschenbach's
> article.  I also said that I didn't necessarily
> think Eschenbach was right in his accusations of the data
> being deliberately manipulated.  I proposed my own
> simpler explanation  (that the two datasets, raw and
> adjusted for Stations 0,1 and 2 had been accidentally
> swapped over.
>
> Since then, I can report
> that Rich and I have corresponded off-list about this
> matter.  In fact Rich disagrees with my alternative
> explanation - with some good reasons.  If he had wanted
> to conceal anything he'd have just agreed readily with
> my post to shut the critics up.  But he didn't
> because he's honest and wants to find the truth just as
> much as I do.  I've given Rich the links to the
> download site where I got the data together with the
> necessary information to extract the records for Darwin
> airport.  Since then no further progress has been made
> and we don't have an explanation of why the data is as
> it is, and why there is a stepped trend of adjustments in
> the diagram in:
> http://picasaweb.google.com/IGD.Strachan/NOAADarwin#5414394774309127298%c2%a0%c2
> (my graph, which corresponds to Eschenbach's Figure 8)
>
> I will continue to work
> on this when I have the time.  I may even try to see if
> there are any other stations that show this type of
> pattern.  Further data may lead to an innocent
> explanation, or expose a massive conspiracy.
>
> Now this prompts me to
> say something about "conspiracy theory"
> explanations, because it has to do with my whole objection
> to Intelligent Design inferences.  Effectively that is
> what Eschenbach is doing - he's making an inference of
> "Intelligent Design" in order to fiddle the
> data.
> Here's the problem:
> such an inference can explain just about anything.  But
> that is not the only conspiracy theory that could explain
> the graph above. 
>
> Here's my
> alternative "conspiracy theory" that I'd like
> to propose.
> We've just had a lot
> of scandal and controversy on the Internet over the hacked
> CRU emails, and much discussion of this particular violation
> of the Eighth Commandment (John I really wish you would
> acknowledge this - you are fond of quoting Scripture to make
> your point, but seem curiously to ignore it when someone
> else uses scripture that doesn't help your case - there
> can be no argument; it was wrong to steal the emails,
> however valuable the information in them might have
> been.  Do you agree?  Or do  you think
> it's OK to break the Eighth Commandment in this
> case.  I await your reply with interest.  I also
> don't buy your argment about "selective
> sanctimony" and the Wedge document - I never made any
> assertions about that affair and it doesn't apply to
> me.  If the document was also stolen, then in my books
> that is also wrong.)
> Now, hot on the heels of
> the controversy where someone stole the emails from the CRU,
> we get this concrete example of apparently fiddled data,
> that is difficult to explain.
> One very simple
> explanation of the peculiar graph could be that the data
> file from the NOAA website was also hacked, altered, and
> Eschenbach was then tipped off.
> Don't you think it
> strange that so soon after the Climategate scandal, the
> Eschenbach knew exactly where to look to find
> a "smoking gun" ? If I were thinking like a
> tabloid journalist, rather than a scientist, I would think
> it very suspicious.  If this had been the outcome of a
> prolonged piece of research, revealing a conspiracy, then
> Eschenbach should have been able to report that the same
> effect had been seen in hundreds of stations.  But the
> whole article focuses on one station without mention of any
> others.
> The beauty of this
> explanation is that Eschenbach could be entirely innocent in
> all this.  A hacker could have written to him, as a
> known skeptic, and said "I've found somethng
> strange at Darwin Zero - have a look", which he would
> have done in all good faith, and found what he did.
>
> Now, before you think I
> am in any way suggesting that this was what happened, let me
> say right now that I don't think this happened.  It
> is just that my conspiracy theory fits all the observations
> just as well as Eschenbach's.  Arguably mine is a
> simpler explanation - it just involves one individual making
> an alteration to the data, and not a supposed conspiracy of
> hundreds of climate scientists in different areas over the
> globe.
> But... like I say, I
> most definitely do NOT favour my conspiracy theory, or
> Eschenbach's because both of them are infinitely
> flexible and can explain just about anything.  I think
> my proposed conspiracy theory is absolutely preposterous,
> and casts unwarranted moral aspersions on the characters of
> those involved.  I think exactly the same about
> Eschenbach's conspiracy theory.  It's a very
> nasty piece of insinuation.
>
> So what I shall continue
> to do is to attempt to examine the data, hopefully with some
> input from Rich, to see if we can come up with a scientific
> explanation (or evidence of an innocent error in the data -
> many of which I've found in my own career)  before
> jumping to any conclusion about conspiracy theories.
> To close, I'll add
> that one of the points I made in my post before, about
> thinking that the step changes of 2/3 of a degree and 4/3
> was "suspicious".  I now realise why this
> peculiar faction arose, and it's just a
> coincidence.  It has to do with the fact that the
> temperature data are discretized in units of 0.1 degrees
> C.  There is a slightly different correction applied in
> each of the twelve months (presumably due to seasonal
> differences), and the total correction came to exactly 8.0
> degrees in this year, which resulted in an average
> adjustment of 8/12 degrees, or 2/3.  Likewise the 1962
> total correction came to 16.0 degrees.
>
>
>
> Iain
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:46 PM, John Walley
> <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Iain,
>  
> I applaud you for your honesty in undertaking the
> attempt to replicate and reporting your feedback on
> Eschenbach's article. I was also awaiting feedback on
> that from Rich and since we haven't heard back from him
> after he initially stated that the smoking gun was
> Eschenbach's, I agree with you that that is a tacit
> admission that he was wrong and Eschenbach was right.
>  
> My rejection of the reasonableness assertion when
> applied to me is that I can't possibly live up to other
> people's criteria for  objectivity so as a rule I
> don't let myself fall into that trap nor do I try to
> impose it on others. I am sure Mann's defense of the
> emails would be interesting but I have just not seen it
> anywhere. I am not avoiding it or opposed to reading it but
> I reject the conclusion that because I haven't read it,
> I still can't deduce a pattern of
> deception and coverup clearly shown in the emails.
>
>  
> Keep in mind we have had a long series of data points
> for any objective observer to arrive at this conclusion like
> Al Gore's CO2/Temp relation in AIT, the various hockey
> stick corrections, the station siting issues, and now
> finally the CRU emails. Yes Mann may have some response on
> this but there is much more for me to base my conclusions on
> than just Mann. And from the attempts I have heard from the
> others on this, sorry but I don't buy that
> "trick" and "hiding the decline" and
> "fudging the data" do not mean what they say. I
> don't trust them and those explanations. I think it is
> inconsistent with the rest of the evidence and entirely
> predictable from someone in that situation.
>  
> Finally, maybe you saw the email that Janice sent
> using your objection to the American faith preacher on TV
> jumping around doing the bunny hop as a vallid exercise in
> using our spiritual discernment and dismissing the guy out
> of hand. I could have appealed to you to go to his web site
> and read some explanation he has on why he does the bunny
> hop, and with enough empathy then you too would agree with
> him and maybe even start doing the bunny hop yourself. 
> But apparently you had seen enough already and you were
> convinced that by your definition of
> "reasonableness", the guy had already crossed that
> line and nothing more needed to be said. Although we may
> draw the line at different places and have different
> levels of thresholds, that is how I feel about all of the
> examples above including the leaked emails.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> John
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Iain
> Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
> To: John
> Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> Cc: John
> Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>;
> asa <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent:
> Mon, December 14, 2009 2:49:56 AM
>
> Subject: Re:
> [asa] Climate Progress
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:30 AM,
> John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> That's fine Iain. But this is the same ploy as
> "engaging the data" when someone else gets to
> decide what the data is. I have to submit to your criteria
> of objectivity to prove my "reasonableness"
> to you.
>
>
> I'll just say that I spend my life analysing data, and
> I NEVER take it at face value.  One should always
> question what one finds in datasets - examine for outliers,
> or just plain errors in the recording of it.  That
> clearly isn't accepting what someone else has decided
> what the data is. Occasionally, as properly skeptical
> investigation proceeds, this involves changing your mind.
>
> This happened in the case of the Eschenbach article. 
> I examined the data initially and found no evidence for
> Eschenbach's assertions.  Then someone pointed me
> at the dataset that had been used to generate
> Eschenbach's graphs, and I was able to regenerate them
> as well, and reported this to the list.  I could have
> chosen to remain silent about it, but in the spirit of
> reasonableness and openness I presented what I had
> found.  Eschenbach's graphs are not a complete
> fabrication.  I presented what I thought might be a
> reasonable
> alternative explanation for those data, but I did still
> allow that it could also be interpreted as someone cooking
> the books, and that I was hoping that someone could explain
> what was going on.  No other explanation has been
> forthcoming so far, so as far as I'm concerned this is
> something that so far has not received a sensible
> explanation.
>
>  And you seem to think that I am being unreasonable in
> this, just because I think you should pay more attention to
> an article which was the subject of this thread, instead of
> ranting and getting puffed up and making huffy statements
> like "continuous and gratuitous use of ...." etc?
>
> One thing is certain: we definitely do have very different
> ideas of what constitutes "reasonableness".
>
> Iain
>
> --
> -----------
> Non timeo sed caveo
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> Non timeo sed caveo
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 15 00:09:41 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 15 2009 - 00:09:42 EST