This was just released by the AMS, source is here.
I’m reposting here in its entirety. h/t to Mark Johnson
Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change
AMS Headquarters has received several inquiries asking if the material made public following the hacking of e-mails and other files from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia has any impact on the AMS Statement on Climate Change, which was approved by the AMS Council in 2007 and represents the official position of the Society.
The AMS Statement on Climate Change continues to represent the position of the AMS. It was developed following a rigorous procedure that included drafting and review by experts in the field, comments by the membership, and careful review by the AMS Council prior to approval as a statement of the Society. The statement is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature. As with any scientific assessment, it is likely to become outdated as the body of scientific knowledge continues to grow, and the current statement is scheduled to expire in February 2012 if it is not replaced by a new statement prior to that.
The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results. This process, which is tied intrinsically to the procedures leading to publication of research results in the peer-reviewed literature, allows the scientific community to confirm some results while rejecting others. It also, in a sense, lessens the impact of any one set of research results, especially as the body of research on any topic grows. The AMS plays an important role in the scientific process through its peer-reviewed publications, as well as through its many other activities, such as scientific conferences. The Society strives to maintain integrity in the editorial process for all its publications.
For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.
The AMS encourages ethical behavior in all aspects of science and has established a record of affirming the value of scientists presenting their research results “objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the associated impacts” (see AMS Statement on the Freedom of Scientific Expression).
Keith L. Seitter, CCM
Executive Director
Headquarters: 45 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108-3693
DC Office: 1120 G Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington DC, 20005-3826
amsinfo@ametsoc.org Phone: 617-227-2425 Fax: 617-742-8718
© 2006 American Meteorological Society Privacy Policy and Disclaimer
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dear Mr Seitter
All well and good unless you have a daisy chain of like-minded researchers in charge patting each other on the back.
Cheers
Michael
The whole literature is skewed and a large part of it is tainted. And why is it so big?
I feel sorry for the large number of true scientists out there who have been prevented from doing their job.
Thank you Anthony.
Euan
A load of hooey if there ever was one. They are too embarrassed to acknowledge that they have been taken for a ride and have fallen for groupthink.
Dear Mr Keith L. Seitter, CCM Executive Director.
You’re an educated man. Tell me, is it one or two Bs in rubbish?
Peer reviewed seems to be the tainted phrase.
The CRU totally refuted opportunity to access and replicate their output.
” The AMS encourages ethical behavior in all aspects of science and has established a record of affirming the value of scientists presenting their research results “objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the associated impacts”
And I believe in God, love and rock’n’roll.
‘Encourages ethical behavior. Not ‘enforces’, encourages.’
I suppose ‘enforces’ would be too judgemental.’
“The statement is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature.”
Sounds reasonable.
However, by now, the AMS should have read in those emails how CRU and others have organized and perverted “peer review” over years.
Means one pillar has just disappeared.
Isn’t it about time to reconsider much earlier than 2012, just in case.
“The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results.”
I thought it depended on the smart people forming a consensus?
“objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the associated impacts”
Some of Mann’s emails show that he failed in this regard.
“The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results.”
Um, yeah, hasn’t that been the problem all along though? No one else can generate that kind of heat at room temperature. Err sorry, wrong scandal. Err, maybe not.
“The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results.”
Has this hypothesis been tested upon climate science yet?
Of course, no one knows the extent of any fraud but let’s not let that stand in the way of burying the problem.
It would have saved us all some time if he had simply said, “Move along; nothing to see here!” He really doesn’t say anything more than just that in the whole thing. I could only think of that movie scene with Leslie Nielsen as I read it! The statement is so devoid of meaningful content that saying anything more about it would give it much more attention than it deserves.
Clearly the peer review process has issues. How much peer reviewed material has recently been discovered to be false? How does that happen?
I was reading a local newspaper article a while back regarding a peer reviewed paper from a local University Professor. It was later shown to be false, partly because of the efforts of WUWT to review the science. I emailed the “reporter” asking her if she was going to do an update and she said as soon as there is a peer reviewed article showing the original peer reviewed article was false, she would consider revisiting the subject.
“As with any scientific assessment, it is likely to become outdated as the body of scientific knowledge continues to grow..”
Is it just me, or does it feel like a lot of statements are starting to get a little less absolutist? Not denial, but edging toward the exit a bit. Maybe they looked at the code too.
Also the idea that the impact of this on the science is small seems wrong to me too from what I’ve seen so far. This isn’t one study among peers, it is the basic calibrated temperatures that are calibrated in to most studies I’ve seen (not to mention the basis for the IPCC stuff). Eg. 92 proxy studies at NOAA:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/pcn/
“These files contain the PCN reconstructions calibrated to HadCRUT3v 5×5 degree temperature data.”
“the value of scientists presenting their research results “objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the associated impacts”
Would Mr Seitter like to look at the plethora of emails from the Climate Research Unit and tell us, in his considered, honest judgment, whether Phil Jones and his American colleagues have behaved:
Objectively?
Professionally?
Without sensationalising?
Without politicising the science?
After doing so, would he like to get down off that fence because the longer he stays up there, the more it is going to hurt.
Oddly enough the latest Monobiot rant in the Grauniad gets the idea better than this attempt to close ranks and insist nothing has changed.
What was it I said in another post? ‘as the walls of the sandcastle are washed away by the incoming tide’: or words to that effect.
The blogosphere has given this momentum so the MSM have been forced to report it however they may disparage it, and that in turn has revealed to people that all is not well and so they start looking for themselves.
It is a classic slow snowball of a story.
How far it will go and what effect it will have only time will tell.
Kindest Regards
“The AMS encourages ethical behavior in all aspects of science and has established a record of affirming the value of scientists presenting their research results “objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the associated impacts”.
Well what does the AMS do when American scientists such as Mann et. al. go off the scientific reservation (so to speak) and manNipulate the data and the peer review process that is supposed to be independent?
What about integrity AMS? That’s not part of your statement? Isn’t integrity of the scientists in the AMS important, or can they just do anything anyway they want hiding and corrupting the scientific method to their own ends?
Shame AMS, shame on you for not taking a hard firm stance for integrity in light of the alleged Climategate transgressions. Assuming the authenticity of the emails stands the alleged scientists involved need to be rebuked and expelled from the AMS for violating your rules, i.e. “sensationalizing [and] politicizing the associated impacts”.
If integrity isn’t an important part of the scientific method then we can’t trust the current “cult” of scientists. That reflects poorly upon you all. Expel the rotten apples forthwith.
As I mentioned in another thread, I just saw this issue discussed on CNN for the first time. The spin was amazing. They stated the old 2500 scientists support AGW and mentioned Obama was still planning on going to Copenhagen and committing to a 17% reduction in emissions by 2020 and 80% by 2050. They also quoted polls that stated 72% of Americans believed in AGW.
So, the game is on …
The AMS is as clueless as ever. No surprise there. They don’t get that the scientific process, particularly with regard to peer review has been corrupted. Climategate is just the tip of the iceberg, and the SS Warmatanic steams merrily along, completely oblivious to it.
This is a prime example of an institution under pressure carefully hedging its bets. Notice the ”Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case…” caveat and the reiteration of the proper scientific method: ”The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results.” Now why would the AMS want to say that at a time like this? :-))
Fraudulant theories have been exposed before, lots of times. Anyone remember Lysenko?
Hadley CRU is one of four major contributors to the global temperature record. Some of the damning emails are from NASA GISS, one of the other major contributors. That’s 50% of what the AMS relied on for its judgement about global warming.
“For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small.”
We’re not talking about one set of resarch results. We’re talking about 50% of the global temperature record over decades.
Dr. Phil Jones and Michael Mann are self-revealed frauds. That makes those who continue to back them either frauds themselves or fools. Which is the AMS?
last change at Copenhagen (maybe last dinner…)
http://i49.tinypic.com/2gy8w9v.jpg
who is the “Judas”
Yes, Mr. Setter appears to be relying on the peer-reviewed standard despite the lack of fidelity of that process as evidenced by the emails. Surely this merits investigation.
Does anyone know how many of the peer-reviewed global warming papers touch on the Hadley CRU temperature records?
Also do any of the prominent models *not* use the Hadley records for calibration and the like?
“The statement is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature.” I wonder if the AMS understands that the CRU boys have redefined “peer-review”. One has to wonder too how a “rigorous procedure that included drafting and review by experts in the field, comments by the membership, and careful review by the AMS Council” missed the poor quality of the computer programing. Probably never saw it. Everything hinged on the unsupported word of a few scientists no one had the least thought of questioning. This press release is a carefully worded dodge. In the end the AMS will have to condemn CRU just to remain a player. A whole lot of “Who knew?” startlement and “he was so smart and talented”. Sort of like: “The axe murderer down the street? Yeah I knew him, seemed like a nice guy. Who knew?” A lot of people, you just wouldn’t listen.