Statement on CRU hacking from the American Meteorological Society

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  As with any scientific assessment, it is likely to become outdated as the body of scientific knowledge continues to grow, and the current statement is scheduled to expire in February 2012 if it is not replaced by a new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

About these ads
This entry was posted in Announcements, Climategate. Bookmark the permalink.

130 Responses to Statement on CRU hacking from the American Meteorological Society

  1. Michael says:

    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

  2. euan mearns says:

    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

  3. ShrNfr says:

    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.

  4. Perry Debell says:

    Dear Mr Keith L. Seitter, CCM Executive Director.

    You’re an educated man. Tell me, is it one or two Bs in rubbish?

  5. Henry chance says:

    Peer reviewed seems to be the tainted phrase.

    The CRU totally refuted opportunity to access and replicate their output.

  6. Arthur Glass says:

    ” 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.’

  7. jaypan says:

    “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.

  8. Larey says:

    “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?

  9. imapopulist says:

    “objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the associated impacts”

    Some of Mann’s emails show that he failed in this regard.

  10. Robin says:

    “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.

  11. Jason says:

    “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?

  12. Fred says:

    Of course, no one knows the extent of any fraud but let’s not let that stand in the way of burying the problem.

  13. Optimizer says:

    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.

  14. Steve says:

    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.

  15. Robin says:

    “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.”

  16. Cassandra says:

    “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.

  17. a jones says:

    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

  18. pwl says:

    “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.

  19. Richard M says:

    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 …

  20. Bruce Cobb says:

    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.

  21. Terry says:

    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? :-))

  22. David Corcoran says:

    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?

  23. BOTO says:

    last change at Copenhagen (maybe last dinner…)

    http://i49.tinypic.com/2gy8w9v.jpg

    who is the “Judas”

  24. The Iconoclast says:

    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?

  25. Dave The Engineer says:

    “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.

  26. Vanguard says:

    I like the guy who called this statement a bunch of hooey. It’s all well and good to laud the peer review process. But that makes the assumption that the guardians at the doorway are being objective in their reviews. What if all the papers that are pro-global warming get a hardy backslap as they pass through the gate, but any anti-global warming papers get a knife in the back?

    It also makes the assumption that under most circumstances, all other things being equal, that both pro- and anti-global warming research efforts are equally likely to get funded. But this is demonstrably not the case. Rather, there is a decided bias with regards to government funding of anti-global warming research.

    How can you write a paper if you can’t get the funding to do the research? So the whole process is phony. They can point to a large body of research only because there is a large amount of government directed funding available.

  27. BOTO says:

    Robin (14:57:09) :

    studie among “peers”

    don`t you know meenwhile, what peer review means in climate “science”

    if m. mann is reviewing briffe or schmidt or someone else inside the club, what does it mean, hmmm?

    forget “review”, try to get the raw date and do never believe anybody involved in this science criminalism, thank you.

  28. Richard M says:

    These are the guys that we need to focus on. They should be called out on fox news and asked directly whether their statements match reality. Place one of the code segments in front of their faces and ask them directly for their opinion.

    I also hope someone is building a tree of research papers that reference papers done by the CRU crew, Mann, etc.

  29. Aber says:

    The beauty of science ! AMO is one of the 18 leading US scientific organizations who send a letter to the U.S.A Senate, (21st Oct.2009) , saying: “As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view…….. it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. “ .The entire letter at: : http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/pdf/Climate_Letter.pdf

    Is science beautiful if it is unable to define climate but is telling the general public that: “Climate change means the change of climate…”, as recently discussed at The Air Vent; http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/

  30. evanmjones says:

    Yes, it would appear that “peer review” in the mouth of CRU is like the word “love” in the mouth of a prostitute.

  31. mathman says:

    “A rigorous procedure?”
    Who, outside of the perpetrators (excuse me, authors) has peer-reviewed the code for the publications?
    “A robust body of research?”
    How robust is the body of research of 10 trees were cherry-picked to provide the dendrochronological results over the past 20 years?
    “Independent verification and replication?”
    Where is the verification? I must have missed it.
    “Freedom of scientific expression?”
    Just how many papers have been rejected for the simple reason of failing to adhere to the stipulated political viewpoint?
    This AMS statement is hollow and has no verifiable content whatever.
    You can be certain, that were any of the assertions above demonstrable, the AMS would have published an ample body of bibliography.
    Where, by the way, is the documentation to confirm the assertion that carbon dioxide alone is the principal component of global warming? Where is the correlation between the documented increase in carbon dioxide and the documented decrease in temperature? Where is the demonstration that water vapor and cloud cover are irrelevant? Where is the computation proving that incident solar radiation (in all spectra) is 100% constant, and that the variability of the Sun is unrelated to global temperature? Last time I heard, the Sun is variable.
    Where is the carbon dioxide worldwide budget? How much is absorbed by land and ocean plant life, and how much released from the same sources?
    Where is the computer model which accurately forecasts cloud cover?
    Ever seen a cat try to cover up its mess on linoleum?
    The Hadley Centre leak constitutes a first-magnitude mess.
    And the AMS has no defense against the charge that they have willingly participated in the propagation of scientific fraud, for reasons of the continued supply of government grant money.

  32. popcorn says:

    “and the current statement is scheduled to expire in February 2012 if it is not replaced by a new statement prior to that.” Left themselves an out… “if it is not replaced by a new statement prior to that.”

    We’ll see.

  33. John Cooper says:

    “…the current statement is scheduled to expire in February 2012 if it is not replaced by a new statement prior to that.”
    So then the truth expires in Feb. 2012, and may be replaced by a new truth at that time?

    Does this statement strike anyone as curious?

  34. Phil says:

    “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” – Robin

    One of the problems we have getting AGW discounted is that pretty much all the “reputable” scientific organisations and journals have publicly signed up to and pushed the man-made climate change line. Now I’m sure (okay, I profoundly hope!) that at least some of the scientists there are now squirming as horribly as we are at what they’re seeing and wondering how the devil they’re going to get out of this mess without totally trashing the reputation of science.

    I’m guessing there’s 3 ways this can go. One is they all say “la-la-la-we-can’t-hear-you, the Emperor’s clothes look marvellous – HEY SQUIRREL!” and pretend nothing has changed. One is that there comes a tipping point and a sudden domino collapse as they all pick a scapegoat or three for “deceiving them”.

    More likely, I think, is we’ll see a steady continued affirmation of support for the scientific process whilst they simultaneously crack down on peer review and data openness in climate science. Except we can be pretty sure that AGW papers will then start getting rejected (or else more crass science come to light) and sceptic papers will start getting published, shifting the pendulum and reopening the argument. Plus if there’s then a domino collapse of support they can look all innocent and claim credit for their “scientific process” in helping reveal this.

    (In all fairness, whilst they’ve been a useful idiot for the warmists, AIUI it was the Royal Society’s insistance on seeing some data that brought the Yamal scandal to light. So perhaps this was already in process…)

    — Hide the decline!

  35. Skeptic Tank says:

    Global warming is indeed man-made.

    And it was made by surprisingly few men.

  36. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    Positioneering to facilitate a tactical retreat later. Read his lips, it’ll be something like:
    we didn’t know this was going on, hence nothing to do with us, gov.

  37. BOTO says:

    Robin (14:48:58) :

    “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.

    Ähmm,

    never forgett, we are talking about some 1/10 °C in decades. Do you know what that means? I think, you don`t. You believe, that this is catastrophical and unusual, but you have no knowledge about climate stuff. If you go on like this, you will find your religion here:

    http://i49.tinypic.com/2gy8w9v.jpg

  38. Ray says:

    ” the current statement is scheduled to expire in February 2012″

    I did not know science had an expiration date.

  39. Reed Coray says:

    According to the AMS press release: “The statement [The AMS statement on climate change] is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature

    Have they read any of the hacked/leaked E-mails? Warren Meyer said it perfectly: “We are now learning that when alarmist scientists claim that there is little peer-reviewed science on the skeptic’s side, this is like the Catholic Church enforcing a banned books list and then claiming that everything in print supports the Church’s position.”

    Sounds more like “mirror-reviewed” than peer-reviewed.

  40. Terryskinner says:

    What none of these sort of statements tackle is that a lot of people, a lot of scientists, have formed their views on the assumption that experienced scientists have told the truth and know what they are doing. The world is full of things that we can never check out ourselves so our world view starts with the assumption that we are being told the truth by people we trust.

    How many climate change studies start from the premise that AGW is true and go on from there? We keep getting press releases along the lines that if temperature goes up 6 degrees in the next hundred years then disaster. Nothing there validates AGW, it simply assumes it is established and is looking at what happens next.

    Another class of evidence is the evidence that things have warmed up. This includes melting ice sheets, changing animal and plant environments and milder winters. None of this provides evidence for AGW.

    But I have lost count of the number of people on discussion forums who think that ‘deniers’ are denying that it got warmer in the last few decades of the 20th century. They think that ‘deniers’ are stupid, perverse and wrong because they are denying something for which there is a lot of evidence and is common knowledge.

    They don’t appreciate that the ‘both sides’ recognise that warming has occurred and that the difference between them is what has caused the warming and how it fits into natural climate fluctuations, not the warming itself.

  41. Ray says:

    Robin (14:57:09) :

    They did not just do a calibration of the thermometers based on tree rings (where it should be the other way around) but they also applied a high-pass filter, cutting out all the low temperatures and letting through just the high (and convenient) ones. Its scientific artifice, bamboozlement, barratry, cheat, chicane, chicanery, con, craft, deceit, double-dealing, dupery, duplicity, extortion, fake, flimflam, fourberie, fraudulence, graft, guile, hanky-panky, hoax, hocus-pocus, hoodwinking, hustle, imposture, misrepresentation, racket, scam, shakedown, sham, sharp practice, skunk, smoke, song and dance, spuriousness, sting, string, swindle, swindling, and treachery.

  42. Jeremy says:

    “The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results.”

    Unbelievable. Isn’t that EXACTLY what the ENTIRE CRU scandal is about. (I mean who cares if they are gleeful about the death of a sceptic)

    This cabal of leading climate scientists did absolutely EVERYTHING in their power to PREVENT independent verification and replication that would have confirmed their research results (in this case probably would have debunked the entire scam).

    Request for independent verification were met with obfuscation, dissimulation, out right refusal to provide raw data. Attempts to avoid FOI included the Head of CRU actually giving written instructions to DELETE emails…

    But that is not all…they clearly INTERFERED with the Peer Review process too!!

    OMG. Are they NO ETHICS in society at all anymore?

    How can Keith Seitter claim that their position remains unchanged in light of a major cornerstone of Climate science having been completely undermined.

    The ONLY possible ETHICAL answer would be for the AMS leadership to say that they continue to review their position in light of all new scientific evidence and that, as yet, it is far too early to speculate how the CRU scandal will affect their position. (This would be what any decent Scientist would say….sure I will look at this new evidence but I won’t change my position until I have had time to weigh up all this recent additional information)

  43. Telboy says:

    If Keith L. Seitter is so keen on peer-review of data, perhaps he should peer a little closer at the data coming out of the CRU files and consider reviewing his stance. When the cold waves of truth comes swirling round his ankles he may wish he’d chosen a different place to make a stand.

  44. hunter says:

    The writers know that if the AMS ‘demanded’ ethical behavior from scientists, that would cut out basically every AGW promoter on the planet.
    All too many progfessional organizations have been highjacked by tiny self-selecting groups of mostly lefties who have taken over the public poisitions of the membership in ways that do not at all represent the membership at large.
    Sorry to see the AMS go this route.

  45. Jim Cole says:

    These statements are not unexpected. Government money has simply become too seductive to ignore, regardless of principles of scientific investigation.

    Eisenhower had it right in his farewell address in 1961. Everyone has been constantly reminded of his concern about the “military-industrial complex”, but almost no one knows what he said next.

    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

    “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”.

    He also said, “Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity”.

    Well, as Uncle Walter C. used to say, “And that’s the way it is”.

    I resigned my membership in several earth-science professional organizations after commenting on “issue statements”, only to see them come out written like something from RealClimate.

    Cut off the money. It’s the only way to make “change”.

  46. Ray says:

    BOTO (15:07:12) :

    Good one!

  47. Tilo Reber says:

    “The statement is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature.”

    Which robust body of research would that be. This is one of those silly statements that they use as though it had meaning when in fact it does not. If they cannot point to any specific research from which they can derive their statement then they are just making meaningless geneneralizations about what they wish were the case, not about what represents reality. The facts are that the undermining of CRU data as well as that of all the research associates of Jones and his AGW in crowd does in fact knock the very base out of the AGW debate. You can’t build a case for global warming being a man made phenomena that threatens the earth without this group. This “robust body of research” that they constantly refer to has simply become an accepted myth, much like the myth that the climate debate is over.

  48. Mike M says:

    If one organization, the CRU, is guility of cooking the data to suit a political agenda then is it not logical to conclude, given the enormous sums of hard earned taxpayer dollars being wasted to employ such people, the possibility of the very same thing is being done by other climate data gathers/researchers? Should it be discovered that the egregious behavior is also happening within NASA, NOAA, the EPA, etc., (and who denies little wisps of smoke have appeared from them from time to time?) – then is it not the role of the Supreme Court of the United States to review its CO2 decision and examine the possibility that testimony they heard may have been in fact perjurious? AGW is the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on humanity – and the ones who perpetuated it ought to be punished.

  49. jh says:

    “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””

    Even they can see the elephant in the room.

  50. George E. Smith says:

    What about the peer review process that has systematically excluded the publication of scientific results that might if they ahd been pubished alter Mr Seitter’s opinion of the status of the science, or that of the membership in his society.

    Seems like the Society’s position at least deserves an asterisk, rather than waiting till the Mayan calendar expires.

  51. edward says:

    Keith Seitter says:
    “The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results”

    Phil Jones cannot even replicate the production of his temperature product without fudging the computer code and the results how could any one independently verify the temp record much less the studies that rely upon it?

    Expose the code and publish the data. Even Hansen in an interview today say there must be complete transparancy.
    Thanks
    Ed

  52. Onion says:

    What proportion of IPCC-approved global warming ‘science’ is dependent on findings that have yet to be replicated by other groups?

    Can we all get a look at the raw data?

    I don’t trust the scientists anymore

  53. fred says:

    What a load of ****! They’d have done better to just say they are looking into the matter and will issue a statement later.

    Brings to mind the old observation, “I could carve a better man out of a banana”.

  54. Tom T says:

    Hardly know what to say. This is just B.S. The whole peer review process is in question now because of the fraud at CRU and other places.

  55. BernieL says:

    AMS in classic damage control — contain the damage and retreat to principles — and it might work if the damage weren’t so extensive.

    Committees are always slower to respond than individual — and this is why they respond so badly when caught off guard.

    But check out George ‘Jones-has-got-to-go’ Monbiot this evening (UK time) :
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

    He describes this sort of behaviour (by CRU, who knew 3 days before) as “a rabbit in the headlights, waiting for disaster to strike.” In a post called “Pretending the climate email leak isn’t a crisis won’t make it go away” he says:

    “Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial.”

    You have got to give the man credit for responding as he has.

    As for:
    “I have seldom felt so alone.”

    I say…

    Well George, imagine what it would be like to be an environmentalist for 30 years and watch this apocalypism take-over to the detriment of the real issues, knowing that one day this will be used to discredit the whole movement. You wake up one morning and the movement is led by egoistic jokers like Flannery and Gore. And all the good folks are sucked alone in the wake of these piped pipers from…where? And when you dare question it all, your friends wont listen – wont dare look at the evidence – presuming you have gone over to THE OTHER SIDE.

    The truth can be tough and lonely place, George, but welcome. And all credit to you! Keep hammering at the denial in your own ranks. And maybe in this process you will learn something about our innate tendency in us all to wishful apocalypism and how this established much of the foundation to your own career success.

  56. DickF says:

    “When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?”
    –attributed to John Maynard Keynes

    What an utter dodge. Seitter’s statement begs the question: Since the integrity of CRU’s data, processes and scientists are now in serious doubt, does the AMS foresee any need to review its climate change statement before 2012?

  57. JP says:

    After translating the AMS’s PR Doublespeak one comes out with this:

    “No Comment -let’s not even go there.”

    Can you blame them? Under attack is the climate community’s ability to independently peer review its own literature. The AMS is saying, “The Team made thier bed a long time ago. Now let them sleep in it.”

  58. SandyInDerby says:

    Is

    “These files contain the PCN reconstructions calibrated to HadCRUT3v 5×5 degree temperature data.”

    This HadCRUT3v ?

    22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim’s labyrinthine software
    suites – let’s have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the
    definitive failure of the entire project..

  59. steven mosher says:

    HA,

    Ask the AMS who asked them to make this statement.

  60. I just love the bit on “The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results. ”

    And this is why we delete emails and don’t pass any data, so as to ease replication and analysis…

  61. PaulS says:

    Apologies for the O/T, but I would like some advice please!

    I have been looking at several sets of data at NCDC. I have spotted a commonality in all studied so far (not many, as I have just started). The commonality appears to be data recored in early years (early 1900’s for example) have regular TMIN and TMAX information, however, the later years (1990 onwards for example) have regular info for TMAX, but not TMIN.

    Can anyone give a reasonable insight as to why this would be and, if it has any effect on deriving mean temperatures?

    Many thanks!

  62. K says:

    That is truly an astonishing and embarrassing demonstration of self esteem.

    They remind me of children playing adults. They gaze into a huge mirror and chant

    “The AMS stands for truth, justice, and er, science. Lots of good science. Yes we do. We know we do.”

    The previous classic “NASA understands…….”

  63. yonason says:

    Sounds familiar

    “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.”

    Does Monbiot write their material for them?

  64. The Iconoclast says:

    @telboy “If Keith L. Seitter is so keen on peer-review of data, perhaps he should peer a little closer at the data coming out of the CRU files and consider reviewing his stance. ”

    Brilliant!

  65. Optimizer says:

    My subtle point earlier was really that this statement is so flagrantly disingenuous that it’s downright Orwellian. If this guy believed half the high-minded principles of how science should be performed that he has the nerve to lecture us about, he would be extremely disturbed about ClimateGate. Here you not only have the most prominent and influential scientists in their field conspiring to violate every single principle he mentions, but also engaging in the criminal act of intentionally destroying data (an act which could also be called a “crime against science”).

    This is obviously a huge disaster for the scientific community as a whole. This guy’s statement only shows that he clearly has political, economic, or ideological reasons for engaging in this level of denial.

    Maybe a better analogy would be if I had compared him to “Bagdad Bob”.

  66. Leon Brozyna says:

    I’ll scratch your back and you’ll scratch mine — now all is just peachy and we’ve been peer-reviewed.

    This press piece is fluff issued by a third-rate bureaucrat, too comatose to realize what an idiotic picture he presents, talking about peer review while everyone’s read how peer review is a closed process which excludes all non-conforming scientists, editors, and journals.

  67. debreuil says:

    BOTO (15:20:47)

    Actually I (Robin (14:48:58)) was (subtly!) trying to compare this scandal with the Cold Fusion scandal. Big news, but then no one could replicate the experiment (or as famously said then, ‘why is it that only univeristies with good football teams can replicate these results”). In the CRU case no one could replicate the results either, at least not with out adding a lot of magic numbers to the data. Now that we see the code and the magic numbers in it, that explains itself… Maybe they just needed to release

    [0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75

    I guess I was too subtle. Or maybe you just missed it too, not sure. Or maybe you weren’t even born then as I am almost old. Ah well, at least its nice to see people from all walks of life concerned about this ; ).

  68. debreuil says:

    People are talking legal action, but if there’s one thing these people aren’t going to be afraid of, its a jury of their peers.

  69. paul revere says:

    It appears to me that Nikita Khrushchev was correct when he pounded his shoe on the table and stated ,”We will burry you.” The commies have buried science, I just hope it is not to late to dig it out.

  70. Robert Wood of Canada says:

    I’m a climatologist; trust me :-)

  71. D. King says:

    2012?
    Well, I guess we’ll never know.

  72. Nicholas Harding says:

    As an environmental lawyer I have always had the view that no one could get AGW admitted in evidence in a trial under the Daubert V. Merrill Dow test. Now every study, every “expert” who offers testimony based on any report linked to or citing to the CRU files should be precluded from offering testimony.

    The “robust literature” needs to be reviewed to delete all the papers by crew CRU and all the papers that rely on papers by crew CRU. After that exercise maybe AMS can then make a statement about the size of the “robust literature”. But making that statement before that exercise shows a lack of sense or scientific thinking.

    To the extent that the IPCC relies on crew CRU and their running dogs, all the IPCC studies belong on the trash heap of history.

    This fraud is so much larger than that of Bernie Maddof, so much larger. He only took billions. These people were/are after liberty too.

  73. jae says:

    “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.”

    LOL. I would like to see a list of the other “bodies of scientific knowledge” that demonstrate AGW. We know CO2 has increased, and we THINK that our homoginized, normalized, gridded, adjusted, infilled, padded, filtered, etc… measurements show that temperature has increased slightly over 100 years (until the last 15 years, anyway :) ). Can someone please explain to me what else we KNOW that leads us to conclude, with a certainty that warrants the expenditure of trillions of dollars, that mankind is increasing the temperature significantly?

    And how does that knowledge reconcile with the fact that we now KNOW, from hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific publications, that the MWP (and probably the RWP, also) was as warm or warmer than it is today?

    IMHO, the AMS is just another political group, like IPPC–and knows very little about science.

  74. Bill Hunter says:

    “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.”

    Kind of sounds like the defense of reconstructions built on (pick one) Yamal, Stripbarks, upside down varves.

    I would suggest the hypothesis above remains completely untested.

  75. Bruce Cobb says:

    BernieL:
    Notice what Monbiot says about the “opponents”, i.e. skeptics and climate realists:
    By comparison to his opponents, Phil Jones is pure as the driven snow. Hoggan and Littlemore have shown how fossil fuel industries have employed “experts” to lie, cheat and manipulate on their behalf. The revelations in their book (as well as in Heat and in Ross Gelbspan’s book The Heat Is On) are 100 times graver than anything contained in these emails.

    Once a Moonbat, always a Moonbat. His supposed interest in the truth, and in the Alarmists holding themselves to a higher standard is nothing but self-serving posturing.

  76. Ray (15:29:12) :… Its scientific artifice, bamboozlement, barratry, cheat, chicane, chicanery, con, craft, deceit, double-dealing, dupery, duplicity, extortion, fake, flimflam, fourberie, fraudulence, graft, guile, hanky-panky, hoax, hocus-pocus, hoodwinking, hustle, imposture, misrepresentation, racket, scam, shakedown, sham, sharp practice, skunk, smoke, song and dance, spuriousness, sting, string, swindle, swindling, and treachery.

    hahaha

    BernieL (15:46:48) :

    Well said, thanks Bernie

  77. Bill Thomson says:

    “… as the body of scientific knowledge continues to grow…” It seems to me that the body of scientific knowledge has shrunk considerably in the last few days. It is melting in the intense heat.

  78. I like this whole thread. After a week of OMGIWTWT stroboscopic sensation and rants wrt goggling at the emails, this thread is once again, it seems to me, sifting wisdom and science more than sensation. Thanks everyone and WUWT.

    Well, I have to confess, I did goggle as much as anyone, feeling swamped reading the flood of reports. Perhaps it was necessary. Perhaps, also, this foolish clerk’s statement was also the likeliest thing in the circumstances – but I think we expect better next time, before 2012, and with a bit of help from those who have been excluded and have found refuge here at WUWT.

  79. Frank K. says:

    FYI – One name that appears many times in the CRU e-mails is Tom Karl. Who is Tom Karl?

    http://ametsoc.org/amsnews/bios/karl.html

  80. Mike McMillan says:

    I’d recommend we all contact out local AMS-certified TV weather guys and ask how they feel about the CRU scandal. They may not know about it, given the network blackout.

    TV weathermen are in a great position to bring the matter to the general public’s attention.

  81. Jeff L says:

    Can you say “CYA”

    Sucks to be them!

  82. Ric Werme says:

    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.

    Dr Fred Ward, a longtime Boston area met, now retired, had very harsh words for the AMS at state climate/conservation meeting we both attended. The comments by the membership were mostly after the statement had been adopted by the Council – they adopted it without letting the membership (i.e. peers) vote on it or even read it beforehand.

    I’ve heard similar complaints from Joe D’Aleo and other meteorologists.

  83. Peter says:

    ‘Peer review’ sounds a lot like peer pressure nowadays. Shouldn’t science strive for ‘critical review’ instead? There is no honor of withstanding the review by Mann if your name is Johnson. There would be a lot of honor if Mann was critically, and positively reviewed by McIntyre. Just dreaming.

  84. joe says:

    “The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results.”

    Since global warming according to AMS is verifiable and understood, why has every climate model has failed?

  85. DaveE says:

    jae (16:33:22) :

    E.M. Smith on his chiefio site has demonstrated that in long reporting stations, there is little if any warming.

    DaveE.

  86. Fred N. says:

    I would like to see the “body of research in the literature” that proves CO2 driven climate change, rather than have it as its initial assumption. And what portion of the “body of research in the literature” has “The Team’s” body of work as a reference or has had “The Team” as part of the peer-review process.

  87. Dave in Delaware says:

    In light of the CRU revelations, and the AMS statement relying on Peer Review, I am reminded of this old joke:

    Awhile back in the Wild Wild West a horse thief was finally captured. The small Western community was glad this horse thief was finally caught. Within a few days his trial would begin. The Sheriff asked the horse thief a simple question: “Do you want to be tried by a judge or by a jury of your peers?” The horse thief unsure of the questioned asked back, “What do you mean jury of my peers?” The Sheriff replied saying, “A jury, you know people like you!” The horse thief quickly responded, “I’ll take the judge; I don’t want to be tried by a bunch of horse thieves.”

  88. John F. Hultquist says:

    Dear Executive Director:
    You’re in a hole, Keith. Stop digging.

  89. DaveE says:

    That should be long term warming.

    DaveE.

  90. tornadomark says:

    “Does anyone know how many of the peer-reviewed global warming papers touch on the Hadley CRU temperature records?”

    MORE IMPORTANTLY: We need to compile ALL of the AGW studies that Mann, Jones, et al have advise on, co-authored, infleunced, etc. Then we can add that to all of the studies that are based on hockey-stick algorithms, cherry picked tree barks, spliced climate stations, and flawed HadCRUT3 & NASA GISS Temperature records. Anyone ant to take this one on?

  91. Gary says:

    “Peer review” is a fiasco when insiders can manipulate the process to block out those they don’t like. Until “peer review” is a completely open process, it has no credibility any more. All it now means is that you pals still think you’re part of their Team.

    Let’s have all data, code, analysis, and discussion out in the open, on the internet for anybody to look at. The truth will come out. Will it be messy? Sure; at first. But soon groups of knowledgeable people will organize into review squads that can do a lot better job of checking and testing than happens now.

  92. royfomr says:

    George E. Smith (15:38:24) :
    What about the peer review process that has systematically excluded the publication of scientific results that might if they ahd been pubished alter Mr Seitter’s opinion of the status of the science, or that of the membership in his society.

    Seems like the Society’s position at least deserves an asterisk, rather than waiting till the Mayan calendar expires.
    Your first sentence is spot-on, as always, your second is priceless!
    Unless, I misremember badly, you had more than a tangential role in the development of Charge Coupled Devices. As far as i’m concerned your role in today’s CCD is core to Climate Change Demolition!
    End of the Mayan Calendar (note to self, remove all palatable liquids before perusing your posts)
    Thanks.

  93. Matt says:

    You can only make the comments Keith is making here if you have not seriously read the emails in climategate.

    Whitewashing poor scientific practices by repeating platitudes and restating your position is nauseating.

    1. The emails show data manipulation
    2. The emails show potentially criminal activity in relation to FOI requests.
    3. The emails show a concerted effort to pervert the peer review process to suppress dissenting points of view.

  94. “The beauty of the Titanic is that it depends on multiple bulkheads….

    “For unsinkability, the Titanic is very large and the dependence on any one bulkhead is very, very small….

    “The AMS now encourages all you guys to help me rearrange the deck chairs. We might take a look at that gash below the waterline in 2012, objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the impact with that iceberg.” (see AMS Statement on not making a mad dash for the lifeboats).”

    Keister Fence Sitter, CJM
    Executive Detractor

  95. boballab says:

    They come off sounding like the Pet shop owner in the monty python sketch, when John Cleese brings back the dead bird.

  96. Detestible says:

    What is interesting in all these statements being issued, is the fact that none of them are saying that the e-mails and the data and code are out right false and fudged.

    This is all posturing, outside they are standing with their backs straight and with confidence, on the inside they are crying and shaking nervous on the verge of having a nervous breakdown.

    Kind of a really interesting predicament they are in. On one hand if they come out and say, the e-mails and data have been fudged, then they need to produce the “unaltered” code and everything in order to prove it. If they accept full responsibility for the data and code then they are up the creek without a paddle. So really there is no defense except spin and that really isn’t working, not to mention all the lawsuits they open themselves up too.

  97. jae says:

    Please keep in mind that the AMS, the APS, API, Chamber of Commerce, etc., etc. etc. are, FIRST AND FOREMOST, TRADE ASSOCIATIONS. Therefore, their FIRST order of business is self-preservation. Which leads to their second order of business, which is protection of the FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THOSE MEMBERS THAT PAY THE MAJORITY OF THE DUES, WHICH ALLOWS THE ASSOCIATION TO EXIST, AND WHICH PRESERVES THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS. All these associations have some sort of Board of Directors that determines the “policy” that will be shown to the public and Congress. That decision is simply made in a way that keeps the association as intact as possible. If a few dues-payers pay the majority of the dues (the normal situation), then the policies of those dues-payers wishes will be the policy of the organization (witness the current Chamber of Commerce problems). It is an even more corrupt system than the Congress of the USA, which these days is getting very corrupt. I guess what I’m trying to say is that an official statement from the AMERICAN METEROLOGICAL SOCIETY or any other “society” HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE. IT’S ALL ABOUT POLITICS!! Now most of those reading this know this, but there are still some naieve folks out there that really think that entities like the AMS are benevolent, gate-keepers of truth, dedicated to the betterment of mankind, just like Superman :) Sorry to disappoint you, but that line of reasoning is the same as: “the Democrats are for the working people and the children.”

    Oh, perhaps I should mention that I was an officer in a major trade association in another life.

  98. theduke says:

    “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.”

    It’s time for the A.M.S. to convene a panel of experts to evaluate their previous statements given the revelations of the past week. The science needs to be reviewed and re-evaluated. It needs to be determined how many of the canonical papers are now discredited or damaged and exactly how much evidence for for anthropogenic warming remains, if any.

    They should also do a review of the output of their own scientists to see if similar bad behavior and crimes against the scientific method and scientific ethics have occurred.

    This scandal will continue to seed doubts about the integrity of scientists in all fields where government research money is awarded in abundance to researchers who use alarmist hypotheses to attract funding.

  99. Paul Coppin says:

    Ray (15:21:31) :

    ” the current statement is scheduled to expire in February 2012″

    I did not know science had an expiration date.

    Someone should tell them theirs has already passed its “best before” date.

  100. starzmom says:

    Independent verification and replication? Now would be a good time to start. If the AMS is concerned about the integrity of science and the peer-review process, when exactly do they plan to start showing their concern?

    The more I read, the more appalled I am that the science is so corrupted; and yet, I am not surprised either. This scandal is doing great damage to science–both the good scientists and the corrupt. Add in the money-grubbing politicians and I really worry about the future.

  101. Tom Roberts says:

    This is just the first round. More hacking or whistleblowers are needed. A lot more FOIs.
    If you read the alarmist blogs, they are beyond even considering that they could be wrong. These folks are nuts! Not only that but the alarmist have a great deal invested, including the MSM. All of the major Universities.
    American Association for the
    Advancement of Science
    American Chemical Society
    American Geophysical Union
    American Institute of
    Biological Sciences
    American Meteorological
    Society
    American Society of
    Agronomy
    American Society of Plant
    Biologists
    American Statistical
    Association
    Association of Ecosystem
    Research Centers
    Botanical Society of America
    Crop Science Society of
    America
    Ecological Society of America
    Natural Science Collections
    Alliance
    Organization of Biological
    Field Stations
    Society for Industrial and
    Applied Mathematics
    Society of Systematic
    Biologists
    Soil Science Society of
    America
    University Corporation for
    Atmospheric Research

    All of these organizations have got to do a 360 and it is going to be painful.
    One of the writers at The American Spectator has filed a FOI lawsuit against NASA to force them to reveal their raw data. Thats a start but we need to go after Trenberth and Mann as well.
    One of the things I have noticed is that there is no one on the other side that would be happy at the thought of No Global Warming. Why? If you thought the world was coming to an end, the possibility of the science being wrong would be something to rejoice over.
    Like I said, these people are nuts!

  102. Roger Knights says:

    “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.”

    Right. The Wegman report should have been a caution flag to them about The Team, but they were too chicken-hearted, too infected by the AGW meme, and too committed to guild solidarity to heed it.

  103. Gary Plyler says:

    Sorry, this is only slightly OT:

    How many expensive second order studies have been performed based on the GCMs that predict we wilol be cooked in 90 years?
    The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.

  104. Roger Knights says:

    Richard M (15:01:00) :

    “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.”

    They keep saying something like this. Let’s someone please challenge them with “Names, please.” Not just the names CITED by the IPCC, but the names of scientists explicitly endorsing CAWG in all its glory. Monbiat or someone should send around a poll. It will be useful to get these guys to put their names on a dotted line, so they can’t scuttle away later.

    One interesting question to ask on the questionnaire would be, “What material have you read from the climate critics camp?” (My guess is that most have only read stuff ABOUT it.)

  105. acementhead says:

    (16:06:19) :

    The previous classic “NASA understands…….”

    In the interest of accuracy: NOAA, I believe. Can’t ask for precision from others…

  106. jryan says:

    So, Mr. Seitter,

    How many studies exist that do not use hadcrut or GISSTEMP as the baseline for determining the precision of their own proxies?

    I’ll be waitig over here when you have an answer for me.

  107. TJ says:

    Yawn.

    [Note: your email address is not valid, a valid email address is required to continue posting here]

  108. Christian Bultmann says:

    “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”

    How do they get this one?
    We have 4 temperature records, two are used by the IPCC witch comparing notes.
    We have 1 place to get our CO2 readings from it’s Mauna Loa.
    We have 1 source we get past CO2 from that are Ice cores.
    We have 1 source for historical temperatures reconstruction from 12 trees, corals and lake sediments used as proxies for temperature.

    I wouldn’t call that a very large sample.

    Spending billions one would think they have at least 2 ore more CO2 measuring stations just for redundancy.
    Perhaps find another way to determine the CO2 contend of the past other than Ice cores.
    Come to think about it what did they do with all the grand money besides party in Bali.

  109. acementhead says:

    mathman (15:16:56) :

    “Last time I heard, the Sun is variable.”

    Over a relevant period, say 100 years, TSI is so close to invariant that it doesn’t matter. Variation ~ 1 out of 1000. Precision in argumentation really is important. The opponent must never be given a free point on which to divert.

  110. old construction worker says:

    This blow out reminds me the housing melt down. Ohio’s AG is how suing the three security rating firms on behalf of the State’s pension funds for not during their jobs of “Do Diligent”.
    Nicholas Harding is right. This may lead to a lot of lawsuits.
    There will be a new meaning to “Do Diligent” in the science world.

  111. Bart Nielsen says:

    AMS will reconsider their statement in 2012?!?

    It’s worse than we thought! We must take action now!! By 2012 your organization will be thoroughly discredited.

  112. Roger Knights says:

    “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.”

    First, I bet they haven’t read or considered anything from outside the reservation, although there have been a couple of dozen books published critical of CAWGery. I doubt that they invited critics to give presentations or provide input when they were formulating their position on the matter. Not being familiar with the critics’ case, the ACS can’t really be sure how solid their position really is. (I think their supposed confidence in their stance is largely based on sociological & psychological factors, primarily a nose-up, indirectly self-flattering marginalization of deviants & uncredentialed outsiders.)

    But the more important point (putting aside the hockey stick) isn’t about the inaccuracy of the HADCRUT temperature record. It’s correct about the general shape of the trend of the temperature record of the past 150 years or so. Their little fiddlings with it don’t amount to much.

    The important thing is that the top guys in the field were willing to fiddle at all. They had their thumb on the scale, undetected and unsuspected by the “peers.” IOW, there seems to be a pervasive bias towards alarmism in the field, and an end-justifies-the-means attitude, along with an uncritical, bandwagon mentality.

    So there needs to be a fresh look at the entirety of so-called climate science by panels of uninvolved scientists. How “robust” is it, really? We deserve to know, before we commit economic hari kari.

  113. John Skookum says:

    Someone mentioned four sources of historical temperature data, two of which now appear compromised, perhaps fatally. What are the other two?

  114. F. Ross says:

    “… The [AMS] statement is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature. …”

    Well there’s your problem right there!

  115. Cassandra King says:

    Seldom have I read such a blatant ass covering snow job as this apart from the UEA ass covering snow job, it could have come from a bent conglomerate excusing their dodgy baby walker or poisoned food product.
    Are they trying to con us or themselves here?
    They fell for the scam, they were taken in like prize mugs, they bought into the lies and fraud and now the scam has been uncovered they run for hills, bolt the doors and stick their fingers in their ears.
    I suspect that a great many gullible useful idiot groups taken in and used are going to be red faced now, a lazy approach to the science at the very least taking the word of a small group of scientists at face value with no quality control checks and then using this unchecked polluted data as a central plank of their own corporate narrative. They built their castle on sand, sold to them by fraudsters and who is ultimately to blame for that?

  116. Phillip Bratby says:

    Keith Seitter is saying precisely nothing in answer to the inquiries concerning Climategate.

  117. Phillip Bratby says:

    John Skookum: Satellite based UAH and RSS, but only since 1979.

  118. noaaprogrammer says:

    Richard M (15:01:00) wrote:

    “… 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.”

    No U.S. president can be a U.S. signatory to any international treaty without congressional approval, which for this case, currently has little to no chance in the Senate. Obama is just going to look like he did when he failed to secure the Olympics for Chicago. When his handlers got wind of Climategate, they hurriedly queued up his teleprompter with this message about a 17% reduction by 2020 fearing that time was running out for pulling the wool over all the sheeple – but it’s just all talk and no substance. Also I’m not sure of the percentage, but more than 50% of U.S. citizens do not believe in AGW.

  119. Tony Hansen says:

    …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 – Keith L. Seitter

    However, if the HADCRUT temp sereies turns out to be non-reliable then all papers and models that relied on HADCRUT will need to be revisited.
    And all the papers and models that relied on the previous set will need to be revisited.
    And all the papers and models that relied on the second set………..
    Or am I greatly mistaken?

  120. Tony Hansen says:

    ‘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’ – Keith L. Seitter
    I just wish I was smart enough to know how to predict the final outcome without knowing any of the results from the intermediate steps.
    With that sort of ability I could become a …..yeah, a climatologist!!!

  121. Lazarus Long says:

    ” The statement is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature…..”

    ….originating at Hadley CRU.

    So pi$$ off, peasants.

  122. John Galt says:

    So the science is fake but the conclusions are real?

  123. Kelly Meek says:

    Scientists by their very nature may become so involved in stats and data, charts, etc. that they sometimes can’t see the forest for the info. My point being
    that despite co2 rising for the last few years, temps have remained the same or declined. So, as claims for catastrophic heat continues to come from the august heights, I suggest we start to prepare for colder weather. Then, I suggest we use all the suspect charts and data to build a great bonfire. After that I suggest we start over collecting climate data to be reviewed equally by warmists and deniers. It seems that 10 years of stable temps demand a very hard look at the emperors wardrobe.

  124. Reed Coray says:

    The AMS through its press release just made a political forecast:

    ClimateGate is a class 0.01 hurricane and will soon blow over. The clouds will part. The sun will shine. And we will soon resume our rightful place in politically correct society.

    I hope the AMS is better at predicting weather than predicting public response. The AMS better hope they’re not.

  125. Ron Beattie says:

    When it comes to research funding, shouldn’t we be questioning our respective representatives (Governments) as to why pro-AGW receive/received the bulk of funds to prove the scare rather fund scientists to test and/or disprove. As a layperson, it seems to me that our goverments are complicit.

    Ron O’Knox Melb Australia

  126. dadgervais says:

    > Skeptic Tank (15:19:09) :
    >
    >Global warming is indeed man-made.
    >
    >And it was made by surprisingly few men.

    When the most extreme among the warming-alarmists have shouted that the only and final solution is a drastic reduction of the population, I recoiled in Horror! There are over 6 billion (that is US billion) people; the thought is abhorrent!

    If they only meant a drastic reduction of the population of top climate scientists, I might come on-board.

  127. Wondering Aloud says:

    Missing the entire point here the AMS hits us with:

    “The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results”

    The colusion and manipulation here has been preventing this statement from being anything other than wishful thinking for many years.

  128. RockyRoad says:

    David above stated: “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.”

    The other two databases are from satellite observations, which are calibrated to the two terrestrial databased–the Hadley CRU and NASA GISS, for crying out loud.

    That means 100% of the databases are fraudulent. 100 PERCENT!

    Where’s Scotland Yard when you need them?

  129. andersm says:

    The new meaning of peer review:
    CRU scientist: “Hey Eddie, look this over – I’m sending it off to Scientific American in the morning.”

    Eddie (putting on his coat to leave at the end of the day): “Uh, sure.” Scans it over quickly. “Did you spell check?”

    CRU Scientist: “Yup, even checked the thesaurus to replace a couple words I used too repetitively.”

    Eddie: “Gotta run, have to grab a quick bite at home and get the kids to hockey practice.”

    CRU Scientist: “Can I put down your name as a reviewer?”

    Eddie (on his cell to his wife whose asking him about dinner): “Sure, cook up anything you like. I’m easy.”

    And thus was cooking of climate data born.

Comments are closed.