The CRU hack really made me stop and think about my views on global warming, in particular this article at The Register was interesting to me as a programmer because it points to some analysis of the data which is a pretty damning read. Specifically this analysis of the “Harry Readme file” is very fierce in its criticism — and rightly so, it looks like the source code and comments that we got to see were pretty awful.
But I think it helps to take a step back: We have no idea who the hackers were, but consider the possible range of their political motives. If they were lefties, it’s fair to say they wouldn’t have done it. It’s possible that they had no political motive but just wanted to get “the truth” out there. But it seems much more likely to me — especially given the timing just before Copenhagen and the impact they must have known it would have, that the hackers were climate-change deniers intent on causing as much disruption to the public impression of scientific consensus as possible. And it worked — it made me question what I had hitherto considered to be scientific fact.
Indeed their political motives seem to be reflected in the code and text the hackers chose to expose. Since they hacked the CRU’s fileserver, they would have had access to enormous amounts of data and code. And they managed to find some pretty nasty stuff in there. The problem is, any large project has a fair amount of bad code and confusing documentation, often not currently used but stored away in case bits of it might be useful later. So we almost certainly didn’t get a balanced view of the work that the CRU do, we just saw the darkest corners of their fileservers. If it is the current status quo, then the CRU has a big apology to make, and some serious data management and software engineering to learn, fast. But one must be very careful in making assumptions based on incomplete information.
So here’s an idea: why don’t the CRU balance out the bad code by releasing all their code, warts and all, under an open-source license? Then we’d know whether the source code that we got to see was indicative of a real problem — also we’d get to see whether the bad code released is still being used for modern climate modeling, or whether it’s been superseded by something of higher quality.
It helps to balance the arguments from the likes of The Register with this editorial from Nature. Coming from an academic background at Oxford University, it’s fair to say that in my experience academics are truth-seekers, and peer-reviewed journals are still the best way we’ve got to be rigorous about our science.
I’m sure the CRU have a lot to learn from this experience — the criticism may turn out to be valid, but it’s worth keeping in mind that they’re not the only scientific organisation pursuing this research. The scientific community consists of hundreds of thousands of individuals all over the globe dedicated to finding the truth through the correct application of the scientific method. I like to think that’s what sets science apart from politics, religion and the media — an eventual guarantee of quality due to peer review and challenging the status quo.
If the Internet has shown us anything it’s that when you get a load of paranoid skeptics together and let them communicate, they come up with very detailed ways to delude themselves into thinking they’ve found some terrible truth when in fact they’ve just conveniently found a massive number of easily-refutable co-incidences (which incidentally is a fantastic read for anyone who’s still suspicious about 9/11).
I for one think we should support our scientific community ahead of what’s going to be a deeply intensifying series of attacks against them, especially ahead of the U.S. climate bill being debated next year. There’s a lot of selfish conservatives who don’t want to admit that they might be responsible for the destruction of the lives and lands of poor people who live far away. I personally admit that when the CRU hack broke there was a part of me that wanted to believe that climate change was a global conspiracy so that I could continue driving my car when I could be cycling without feeling guilty. Unfortunately, that’s little more than a fair indicator of human nature.
Comments welcome. I still moderate manually for spam reasons so please give it some time for your comment to surface.
The thing to remember here is that all we loose by being cautious about pollution is a bit of luxury that we as a race have not had for long . What we stand to gain is the continued survival of humanity
and more importantly the other creatures we share this planet with.
So what if we turned out to have less energy resources than we had hoped for the next 20 years , do
we really need to develop as fast as we do ? If we play it safe we literaly have all the time in the world so whats the rush ?
One thing the climate change deniers fail to mention is how much they think is enough , aside from
the god bothering crackpots with their divine fixup nonsense , have you ever herd a workable strategy from a climate denier that isn’t just use with wild abandon ?
My feelings on the CRU hack are that it was another example of astroturf from the fossil fuels lobby.
Amias,
“So what if we turned out to have less energy resources than we had hoped for the next 20 years , do
we really need to develop as fast as we do ? If we play it safe we literaly have all the time in the world so whats the rush ?”
We in the Developed World have no particular rush, no. But, for those in the Developing World, more energy means fewer dead people. In just one example, more electricity means more fridges; more fridges mean more vaccines can be stored, and for longer; more and longer-lasting vaccines mean better immunisation programmes; better immunisation programmes mean fewer dead people.
Now, if you turn around and say to me, “who cares. They’re only ignorant Africans,” then I shall have a modicum of respect for your honesty. If that isn’t your view—and I would hope that it is not—then you need to go away and rethink how all of this energy doesn’t just make a comfortable life for us here in the West, but also how it can save millions of lives elsewhere.
You might not be in any hurry, but then it isn’t you or your family dying of entirely preventable diseases for want of the energy to run a fridge.
DK
P.S. Luke, to address your point about the politics of those posting the “hack”, it seems increasingly likely that the file was leaked and was collected in order to assess a response to Steve MacIntyre’s FoI request: a supposition that is bolstered by the file’s name—FoI2009.zip
DK
“My feelings on the CRU hack are that it was another example of astroturf from the fossil fuels lobby.”
Amias – I know these three ended divining twigs can be confusing but – astroturf? It’s not like anybody’s denying the veracity of the contents is it? I mean .. if the conclusions are so profoundly threatening to the human race – that doesn’t require embroidering does it?
Cold arithmetic dictates that human population expansion has limits – some societies have managed population successfully – we should be looking at them – but we’re not – because it’s not PC. It looks from where I’m stood that the numerate disciplines are being kept out of the discussions and that the squeaking wheels are getting greased. The lack of rigor and flagrant experimental bias displayed by CRU and many of their ilk coupled to a secretiveness about their sources and methods brings shame not only on their heads but taints the rest of us – I feel soiled by their contrivances and political collusion.
Tis time to put a house in order and get on with honest, open science – this has been a shameful episode and many innocent people have been damaged.
Hi DK,
“If that isn’t your view—and I would hope that it is not—then you need to go away and rethink how all of this energy doesn’t just make a comfortable life for us here in the West, but also how it can save millions of lives elsewhere.”
A bit of a straw man argument, I sense. You’re attacking the proposition that everyone, everywhere should stop using energy, including African medical centres. But no one’s really suggesting that African medical centres should stop using power for their fridges. Of course power is valuable, it’s what’s elevated us to the heights of technological prowess we now enjoy as a world. It’s our obligation to use it responsibly.
I think climate science — a very new discipline — clearly has a way to come before it can be trusted as well as many other branches of science. But even if there’s just a 50% (or 25%, or 10%) chance of global catastrophe — leading to more resource war and bloodshed than we’ve ever seen on the planet, it still makes sense to SERIOUSLY invest in clean power — we’re going to need it when the oil runs out anyway, so why not save ourselves the (probable) significant human and economic cost of 2-5 degrees of warming and invest in it NOW instead?
Unfortunately that kind of long-term thinking doesn’t match up with shareholder investment obligations nor political will, and that’s a failing of our capitalist/democratic system.
DK,
“It seems increasingly likely that the file was leaked and was collected in order to assess a response to Steve MacIntyre’s FoI request: a supposition that is bolstered by the file’s name—FoI2009.zip”
I think my point about not knowing anything about the motives of the hackers extends to a certain degree of cynicism regarding the veracity of the name they chose for the file.
Ho hum.
@Devils Kitchen: I think your argument about fridges is somewhat specious as adding up numbers of people who might die in such an arbitrary fashion serves no useful purpose , i could say that not
giving every african a car would condemn millions to death as they wouldnt be able to drive to a
hospital and it would be just a pointless but more obviously wrong. My view is that we have created an unstustainable way of life and need to fix it before the rest of the world tries to copy us., its
not our place to dictate what ideas and technologies are borrowed , we can only make sure we make
safe , open and appropriate technology . I definitely agree with luke that we are working to an artificially excellerated pace because of the demands of the big business growth at any cost doctrine. That doctrine is the result of the chicago school of ecomnomics in the the 20s and 30s
which Naomi Klein comprehensively rubbishes in the shock doctrine.
@tom: astroturf means fake grass roots , many large corporations have been caught funding people to run campaign groups that support their models in an attempt to make it look like real people agree with them. honest open science is definitely a good thing but until universities are able to fund
research projects without recourse to commercial funding its going to be very hard to get it.
We need to force our politians to listen to people and not big businesses , the only way i can see to do this with out getting smeared in there rhetorical shite is to take the upper hand and only
buy from responsible comnpanies , reject unsustainable businesses and demand good behaviour on pain of boycott.
> I personally admit that when the CRU hack broke there was a part of me that wanted to believe that climate change was a global conspiracy so that I could continue driving my car when I could be cycling without feeling guilty. Unfortunately, that’s little more than a fair indicator of human nature.
I wish we could get away from this idea that driving a car is the worst thing you can do to the environment. Every time I hear this said I’m now going to point out that you should in fact be feeling guiltier for eating beef. Transportation is a necessary evil and nobody has produced an alternative to the car that is significantly greener in any serious way, however eating beef produces an equivalent greenhouse effect but is completely unnecessary. Consequently you should be feeling much more guilty about eating beef because that is actually a completely unnecessary bourgeois indulgence.
Kieran, quite right. Feel free to replace “driving when I could be cycling” with “eating meat”, “not having double glazing”, or “leaving my computer on overnight” — all of which I’m guilty of.
As somebody who spends a considerable part of his working life in Africa and “undeveloped” countries I regularly feel that I’m looking the wrong way through a telescope. I know that the developed world isn’t that far away but it seems much further than looking in the opposite direction.
Africans can pull themselves up by their own bootlaces – the problem is the corruption and what’s known as aid – AIDS might be a better term for it. The idea that gubmints know best for their people is not one that has wide currency in Africa, it’s a notion that is losing credence in the developed world too. Practical, on the ground assistance on the “barn raising” level would be OK – as for the rest of it – it’s more to do with the aider’s motives than the benefit of the aided (I include the African gubmints with the aiders in this).
What’s this got to do with AGW eh? Well, desertification is progressing apace in Africa (from before industrial times) and crisis on a Biblical scale seems assured but it’s not on the political or media radar yet – we can see it from space….. It strikes me that AGW is a very narrow view of the planetary process and obsessed by the idea that everything that happens is down to humans and much effort is expended attempting to prove this. There have been many notable successes in science that have led us to more profound understanding of Nature – they have pretty much all relied on observation, my feeling is that when you have to fudge your (sketchy) observations to fit the theory you’re in trouble – deep trouble. When your interpretation of fudged data is taken up by witless self seeking morons and made into law, policy and quack religious prostheletizing – you’ve got a crisis.
Don’t get me wrong – I’d prefer that we got on with living in a sustainable world with tolerant, educated, stable, healthy (and free whatever that is) populations and harvested rather than mined most of our our natural resources. I look out the window and that fantasy goes for a Burton.
Notice that not once did I say the planet isn’t warming up. And – if mathematical models are so perfect – why do we need the LHC?
@Amias – I’m very familiar with PR Astroturf and its history, strategy and detailed implementation. The CRU leak doesn’t qualify on any level. It was embarrassingly timed though. Can’t personally stop thinking somebody at East Anglia was settling a grudge meself.
Hey Luke,
the register is great for techie stuff, but has a long and inglorious history of climate denial. Actually the ‘Harry Read Me’ file doesn’t actually pertain to the main HadCrut dataset, and there are other datasets which confirm the widely acknowledged warming trends over the last century or so. I’ve spent quite a lot of time over the past week digging into this crap. It’s a skillfully spun, but essentially shallow, web of bullshit. Much more, including links here
http://www.inmyhumbleetc.org.uk/2010/01/tsk-tsk-fisk-fisk/
See you soon
@Tom – If you don’t know enough about science to understand that the complete unrelatedness of the LHC to climate science, you really don’t know what you are talking about.
Woah—long time. Looking up an old post and realised that I hadn’t revisited…
Anyway, Luke…
“Of course power is valuable, it’s what’s elevated us to the heights of technological prowess we now enjoy as a world. It’s our obligation to use it responsibly.”
Yes, I agree with that.
“A bit of a straw man argument, I sense. You’re attacking the proposition that everyone, everywhere should stop using energy, including African medical centres. But no one’s really suggesting that African medical centres should stop using power for their fridges.”
*sigh*
This shows a rather naive view of the way that the world works. For instance, the EU will not fund coal- or nuclear-fuelled power stations in Africa (let’s ;eave aside whether aid is a good thing or not). It will fund solar PV, wind turbines, etc. The trouble is that these technologies are presently not enough to generate the power required.
The fridges example was taken from a real project: the EU released funds to enable a remote African hospital to have solar panels and a wind turbine—they had enough power to keep the fridge or, or the lights. When the doctor switched on the lights, the fridge cut out.
So, no, no one is “suggesting that African medical centres should stop using power for their fridges”, the rich countries are simply stopping Africans from getting a reliable source of energy to run those same fridges.
DK