Bueno, pues nada, yo metería esto en un subforo de política en lugar de en uno sobre climatología, porque los mails que van saliendo no veo que aporten nada sobre ciencia climática, esto me parece puro cotilleo
.
Así que hablemos de política, que parece que es lo único interesante que han encontrado los hackers en la privacidad de los científicos (no me gusta enfrascarme en conversaciones políticas, así que es posible que sólo ponga este comentario sobre este tema
): a mí esto me parece más de lo mismo que hemos leído muchas veces en RealClimate y otros sitios: que la mayoría de los científicos no consideran que haya ninguna base científica en los artículos escépticos y que en muchos casos los consideran tergiversaciones que difícilmente pueden ser accidentales (el ejemplo más reciente
McLean et al 2009). Por eso se insiste tanto en que el peer review es una condición necesaria pero
insuficiente, porque se están colando artículos subestándar que afirman cosas que no se desprenden de su trabajo (de nuevo
McLean 2009) o que salen de análisis erróneos de nivel de primaria (ej. McKitrick y Michaels 2004 que
confunden grados con radianes). Esta queja a mí al menos no me resulta nada nuevo, vaya. Así que la mayoría de los mails seleccionados pretenden que no se cuelen documentos como estos en algo que se supone que debería dar un estándar mínimo de calidad como es el peer review. Es una cuestión de estrategia con métodos legítimos (presionar no enviando documentos, hablar con otros colegas, etc.) contra determinadas publicaciones que en su opinión no cumplen criterios mínimos de calidad. No se rechazan por sus conclusiones, se rechazan porque en su opinión no cumplen un criterio de calidad.
En la mayoría de los casos es difícil interpretar los comentarios porque están totalmente fuera de contexto. Creo que las quejas al final se basan más en suposiciones e imaginaciones que en lo realmente publicado (p.ej. en e-mails supestamente borrados (aunque no tenga mucho sentido que borres información sobre un tema y no borres el mail en el que te piden que borres información sobre ese tema (al menos si realmente es ilegal borrarla, puesto que estás dejando precisamente la prueba más evidente y que sobre todo incrimina a quien lo envía)).
O en palabras
de RealClimate:
Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.
Comment: The paper and journal in question were indeed a scandal. But the scandal was that it was ever published. Six editors of the journal resigned in protest at the publication, not because of pressure. - gavin
Y en este sentido, de la selección de diablo (gracias por ahorrarnos el tiempo de revisar tanto texto!), destaco:
deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’ PhD is at the same level)
Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which surely is the only way to go — complex and wordy responses will be counter productive).
I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response.
the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, [...]. Yes, there are reasons — but many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden.
helped me to realize that I shouldn’t be wasting time reading the blogs
Kaufman:
the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the calibration [...] but not acknowledging an error might come back to bite us. I suggest that we nip it in the bud and write a brief update showing the corrected composite (Nick’s graph) [...]
When the FOI requests began here [...] It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA [...] became very supportive
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! [...] I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal
The stuff on the website is awful. I’m really sorry you have to deal with that kind of crap.
RealClimate también comenta el truco de Mann y el problema con las temperaturas marinas de mitad de siglo:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline
the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip.
This relates to the known problem in the SST records (as discussed here) related to changes in measuring technology and attempts to assess how important it is. The reworked raw data with corrections for this has not yet been released, and so people want to have a heuristic that might help see what impact they will have on any analysis that relied on the original (uncorrected data). - gavin
NOTA LEGAL: obviamente, las comunicaciones por correo del trabajo NO son públicas. El derecho al secreto de las comunicaciones no desaparece en el trabajo. El acceso a estos e-mails constituye DELITO, sin duda. Creo que la reproducción tampoco estaría amparada (aunque hayan sido divulgados por el hacker), porque la comunicación sigue siendo privada y se supone que estás facilitando el acceso a ella, aunque de esto no estoy muy seguro. Aquí tenéis los artículos relevantes:
http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Penal/lo10-1995.l2t10.html#c1*Ya sé que yo también he reproducido, pero es lo que tiene la falta de eficacia en la aplicación de las normas jurídicas
. Además, en el remotísimo caso de que me denunciasen, creo que podría hasta conseguir el consentimiento posterior (ratificación) de los autores de las comunicaciones. Entiendo que Markel se preocupe más, porque Meteored es responsable de lo que se publica en su servidores.
Salut!
819 Respuestas
244665 Vistas