Things you can and cannot do with data. **UPDATED**

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

if you this isn’t good enough for you as a source, here’s the source where the figures came from. As we scientists know, you pretty much just need the figures in order to determine if a person knows what they’re talking about.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-02.pdf

I think you’ll find it’s not just another rant; these people used models to remove past warming periods and reconstruct temperatures that pre-dated our records, and when the models no longer fit the current measurements of temperatures, they did some really un-kosher shit, including truncating the models at subjective points and then merging the models with new data to make it agree with the current temp measurements, and then lying about what they did and didn’t do with computers when they published it.
That last bit there is the kicker. I’ve spent the past 2 weeks sitting in front of a computer, fitting my data, constructing a model that I hope will be consistent with reality. That is really the goal of all science: doing good experiments to produce results that are consistent with our model of reality. There are many “tricks” and not all tricks are synonymous with deceptions. What is deceptive, however, is not disclosing what tricks you use, and that is why this important. I said it two weeks ago, and I’m bringing it up again now because the integrity of my practice, science, in the entirety of the scientific community, is very, very important to me: you simply do not massage data and then lie about what you did to it.

It may be hard for a non-scientist to understand, but most science uses some kind of trick. This is because science is not reality, but rather, a model for reality. Sciencing – as I like to call it – involves searching for the best model out there – the one that is most consistent with our view of reality. Using a trick, a computational algorithm for example, to create a model is normal. It is acceptable. I use a trick of dampening my sub 1-Angstrom signal prior to fitting my data because the fitting program I use to get the parameter I need for my model will spit back gibberish if I ask it to fit data in the sub 1-Angstrom region of my spectrum. But this is ok, because I disclose the dampening of such data, and can justify it. See, the data – which is a plot of the R-space (real space) distribution – shows the bond distances in real space from the atom which absorbed an x-ray photon to the atoms surrounding it. The sub 1-angstrom signal in my sample, however, is not real, because none of the bonds in my sample are known to be less than 1-angstrom. It is therefor ok for me to tell the computer not to fit that data.

That’s how it is done, folks. What’s wouldn’t be cool would be for me to dampen my signal and then say that I did not dampen my signal and then make claims about my fit. That’s deception, and it’s the worst kind you’ll see in science.

Nevermind that if the models that they used to create the hockey stick graph needed to be massaged this seriously, that is, fraudulently truncated and merged together to suit the authors, in order to prove their consistency with actual temperature trends, it basically means that the models were shitty and that you have to throw the whole “reconstructed trends” in the garbage. These guys simply cannot have it both ways. They cannot both tout the models as being accurate for current temperature trends and the accuracy of the hockey stick graph, and also cherry-pick and discard parts of the models when they deviate from the current measurements. Because they had to f*** with the model the way they did – truncating and merging with new data at the very point where the models deviated from temperature trends – in order to maintain their claim in consistency with the hockey stick trends, it means we must question the accuracy of the these models for the rest of the temperatures they are purportedly predicting. That’s what you do when you are a scientist. Check – that’s what you are supposed to do, if you are a good scientist.

Anyways, read it yourself. It’s particularly appropriate to the moment because these faux-scientists are making their presence felt at Coppenhagen with the rest of the world leaders.

**Update**

Judd sez:

I love the rhetorical question the Kool-Aid drinkers ask about why scientists might overstate things to make conditions look worse than they are. That my cue I’m dealing with a non-science type. You and I both understand that university research is the closest thing to legalized prostitution that exists in this country today. Scare the crap out of enough Congresscritters and you’ve got funding for your research group to last your entire career, data be damned.

That, and anyone who can be convinced of the “reality” of AGW based on the data available thus far is someone who obviously didn’t make it through freshman science classes or at least didn’t understand them (thank you very much, need to separate young adults from their parent’s money) and so I have no time for them.

**Updated, again**

Dr. Boyfriend sez:

I got this link from the American Thinker article. It explains a bit of the
computer code that was released with the CRU emails.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/0000000000000790
As the blogger points out, there is no proof that this code was used in the
models that generated the famous hockey stick graph, but we sure don’t know
because they won’t release those models (which in and of itself is
disturbing). Do you personally know any scientists who have code on their
computers whose only possible function is to fudge data? I actually did a
decent amount of computer data analysis in my work and I don’t have anything
like that in my stable of programs. :-/

The fact that we can’t prove and don’t know which codes they used is completely besides the point here. The real point is that we will never know which codes they used to generate their models because the CRU refuses to release those models. That much – what they have refused disclose – is known. As the above linked article states at the end, the complete modelling codes, along with documentation, haven’t been disclosed. The CRU needs to do that. (And, no, LarryE, that is not too much to ask. You’re requried to disclose your data analysis programs in your research when you publish it. )

Ugggh! I cannot express through blogging how angry this makes me. The best I can do is embolden it – above – and point at it, and hope that people aren’t as stupid as to believe that this is not important. The CRU won’t release the models they’ve used. But they’ve published the models in high-impact journals. That’s incredibly fishy. If you disagree, well, I’m going to go the Judd route and say that I don’t have time to explain science to you. I will say this, though: not making the modeling programs – the codes – available so that other scientists can judge them is akin to religious people saying “we aren’t going to prove to you that god created the universe, but we know it to be correct,” and then demanding that others take them seriously.

To further emphasize my disgust as a scientist, I’m going to write this in all caps. REFUSAL TO DISCLOSE THE CODES USED TO MASSAGE DATA, MERELY SAYING IN YOUR PUBLISHED RESEARCH YOU THAT USED A COMPLEX COMPUTER ALGORITHM AND NOT DISCLOSING WHAT THAT ALGORITHM WAS, IS A GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING AWEFUL PIECE OF SHIT SHITTY FUCKING PRACTICE AND IS 100% UNSCIENTIFIC.

ASSHOLE.

That is the most I have ever sworn without polite use of asterisks on this blog. I should add, since I have just railed on AGW for the first time which remaining silent on the issue formerly, that I am an environmentally concerned person. I am a green energy and renewable energy, and sustainable energy researcher (green, renewable, and sustainable have things in common but are not necessarily the same, and yes, my research involves all three: cleaner fuels with less waste products that require less energy for turning them into power – green, conservation of alternative fuels and use of fuels that wont stress our resources- renewable, and alternative non-platinum fuel cell catalysts so that the technology can be scaled up – sustainable). I believe it is important to decrease reliance on oil because our growing energy needs are surpassing the availability of fuels and the affordability of such fuels. I believe we are poluting our environment and depleting precious resources, and that we need to be more conscientious about chemical waste in our air and water supply. This, however, does not require me to support AGW. And, as Judd said….

Coup de gras:

The Proof behind the CRU climategate debacle: Because computers DO lie when humans tell them to.

As I’ve mentioned on other sites today, the “naysayers” – as they are called by AGW-suckers proponents (both deniers and proponents could actually be call “AGW-suckers” imo), are no longer a bunch of joe-six-packs chanting unknowingly that “it was all a hoax”. Nope, as I predicted two weeks ago, this would stir the waters of the scientific community. Well, the boats they are a rockin’ now! Scientists and engineers have begun to devote their own personal attentions into the kosherness of the practices of the CRU scientists. The naysayers, as they are being called by some here, are no longer the same naysayers the AGW-proponents are used to dealing with, and it would be wise for certain leftists in particular to wise up to the fact that not everyone who fails to acquiese to their belief in AGW is an uneducated, ball-less signwaver, as they are so being portrayed.

Glad to see that I wasn’t the only one who found themselves all hot and bothered by this. I was shot down then – two weeks ago – and even accepted that perhaps I was being a little too defeatest. I relinquished my zeal for the moment, under the promise that I would wait and see what else surfaced. I now predict that more scientists will take it upon themselves to call this issue into play. As they should, since shoddy practices like refusing to disclose data or maintain and provide documents of the data analysis used for published and government funded research threaten the integrity of the scientific community, are harmful to fellow scientists and also to the relationship between the scientist and their respective societies. This seems to be the sentiment that is emerging among other scientists as well.