Climatic Research Unit update – November 24, 3.30pm
The University of East Anglia has released statements from Prof Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Prof Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, and from CRU.
Statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research
The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity. The interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice mean that the strongly-increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do not produce a uniform year-on-year increase in global temperature. On time-scales of 5-10 years, however, there is a broad scientific consensus that the Earth will continue to warm, with attendant changes in the climate, for the foreseeable future. It is important, for all countries, that this warming is slowed down, through substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the most dangerous impacts of climate change. Respected international research groups, using other data sets, have come to the same conclusion.
The University of East Anglia and CRU are committed to scientific integrity, open debate and enhancing understanding. This includes a commitment to the international peer-review system upon which progress in science relies. It is this tried and tested system which has underpinned the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is through that process that we can engage in respectful and informed debate with scientists whose analyses appear not to be consistent with the current overwhelming consensus on climate change
The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change. We are committed to furthering this debate despite being faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal breach of our security systems and our concern to protect colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to the publication of personal information.
There has been understandable interest in the progress and outcome of the numerous requests under information legislation for large numbers of the data series held by CRU. The University takes its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and the Data Protection Act 1998 very seriously and has, in all cases, handled and responded to requests in accordance with its obligations under each particular piece of legislation. Where appropriate, we have consulted with the Information Commissioners Office and have followed their advice.
In relation to the specific requests at issue here, we have handled and responded to each request in a consistent manner in compliance with the appropriate legislation. No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information. Where information has not been disclosed, we have done so in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and have so informed the requester.
The Climatic Research Unit holds many data series, provided to the Unit over a period of several decades, from a number of nationally-funded institutions and other research organisations around the world, with specific agreements made over restrictions in the dissemination of those original data. All of these individual series have been used in CRU’s analyses. It is a time-consuming process to attempt to gain approval from these organisations to release the data. Since some of them were provided decades ago, it has sometimes been necessary to track down the successors of the original organisations. It is clearly in the public interest that these data are released once we have succeeded in gaining the approval of collaborators. Some who have requested the data will have been aware of the scale of the exercise we have had to undertake. Much of these data are already available from the websites of the Global Historical Climate Data Network and the Goddard Institute for Space Science.
Given the degree to which we collaborate with other organisations around the world, there is also an understandable interest in the computer security systems we have in place in CRU and UEA. Although we were confident that our systems were appropriate, experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into apparently secure systems. Highly-protected government organisations around the world have also learned this to their cost.
We have, therefore, decided to conduct an independent review, which will address the issue of data security, an assessment of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests, and any other relevant issues which the independent reviewer advises should be addressed.
Statement from Professor Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia.
In the frenzy of the past few days, the most vital issue is being overshadowed: we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet.
One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.
That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice.
Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Center in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.
We have been bombarded by Freedom of Information requests to release the temperature data that are provided to us by meteorological services around the world via a large network of weather stations. This information is not ours to give without the permission of the meteorological services involved. We have responded to these Freedom of Information requests appropriately and with the knowledge and guidance of the Information Commissioner.
We have stated that we hope to gain permission from each of these services to publish their data in the future and we are in the process of doing so.
My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues.
We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest.
CRU statement
Recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have been posted on various sites on the web. The emails relate to messages received or sent by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) over the period 1996-2009.
A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present an unrealistic picture of global warming.
This conclusion is entirely unfounded and the evidence from CRU research is entirely consistent with independent evidence assembled by various research groups around the world.
There is excellent agreement on the course of temperature change since 1881 between the data set that we contribute to (HadCRUT3) and two other, independent analyses of worldwide temperature measurements. There are no statistically significant differences between the warming trends in the three series since the start of the 20th century. The three independent global temperature data series have been assembled by:
• CRU and the Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRUT3) in the UK.
• The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC, USA.
• The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in New York.
The warming shown by the HadCRUT3 series between the averages of the two periods (1850-99 and 2001-2005) was 0.76±0.19°C, and this is corroborated by the other two data sets.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 4th Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007 concluded that the warming of the climate system was unequivocal. This conclusion was based not only on the observational temperature record, although this is the key piece of evidence, but on multiple strands of evidence. These factors include: long-term retreat of glaciers in most alpine regions of the world; reductions in the area of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) snow cover during the spring season; reductions in the length of the freeze season in many NH rivers and lakes; reduction in Arctic sea-ice extent in all seasons, but especially in the summer; increases in global average sea level since the 19th century; increases in the heat content of the ocean and warming of temperatures in the lower part of the atmosphere since the late 1950s.
CRU has also been involved in reconstructions of temperature (primarily for the Northern Hemisphere) from proxy data (non-instrumental sources such as tree rings, ice cores, corals and documentary records). Similar temperature reconstructions have been developed by numerous other groups around the world. The level of uncertainty in this indirect evidence for temperature change is much greater than for the picture of temperature change shown by the instrumental data. But different reconstructions of temperature change over a longer period, produced by different researchers using different methods, show essentially the same picture of highly unusual warmth across the NH during the 20th century. The principal conclusion from these studies (summarized in IPCC AR4) is that the second half of the 20th century was very likely (90% probable) warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely (66% probable) the warmest in the past 1300 years.
One particular, illegally obtained, email relates to the preparation of a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999. This email referred to a “trick” of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The requirement for the WMO Statement was for up-to-date evidence showing how temperatures may have changed over the last 1000 years. To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month. The use of the word “trick” was not intended to imply any deception.
Phil Jones comments further: “One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This is well known and is called the ‘decline’ or ‘divergence’. The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure. It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series up to 1960 in the WMO Statement.”
The ‘decline’ in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data. As for the tree-ring decline, various manifestations of this phenomenon have been discussed by numerous authors, and its implications are clearly signposted in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report.
Included here is a copy of the figure used in the WMO statement, together with an alternative version where the climate reconstructions and the instrumental temperatures are shown separately.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
” well they would say that wouldn’t they”
Warmists use the word “consensus” like “whatever!”. So annoying.
Is it possible that an agreement with a third party can over ride national law. Why the need for permission from third parties to share the data. In essense it was never possible to keep to those agreements given the presense of the FOI act. This is an error on CRU’s part and shouldn’t be used to restrict others from getting access to the data.
I think it is important that we understand the motivation for these “constructs” used by IPCC researchers. The problem they faced is that the sea temperatures and the land temperatures diverge: there is increasing temperature on land, and static temperature in the seas.
The problem with land temperatures is that the “heat island” effect “might” be the source of increasing temperatures. As cities grow larger, the additional mass with walls at height, more transportation heat and CO2 emissions, leads to higher temperatures locally. Include the fact that there are few city temperature measurements that are not biased by their contructions in asphalt parking lots, etc.
The essential issue with using proxies for temperature measurement with time is that the “heat island” effect cannot analytically be integrated with the sea temperature measurements, thus forcing climatologists to use proxies, isolated from civilization, to make imputed judgements about global temperature.
The problem with sea temperatures is that these do not support the thesis of AGW, at all, and must be disclaimed because of the problem with land temperatures, thus (illogically) neither sea nor land temperatures can be used to justify AGW.
The fact of using tree ring widths and x-ray densities from isolated areas like northern Russia and Alaska, should take care of the problem since trees are “assumed” averaging temperature proxies and there are no nearby cities to confound the data.
So, now, the reseachers can defend against using land and sea temperature databases because of the land “heat island” effect. They can abandon the sea temperatures that do no support their AGM theory because of the conflict with land temperatures.
So, we have a group of researchers who, in desperation, use tree ring data (and other arcane data like sea shell annual growth widths and oxygen isotope ratios, annual deposition of sediments in northern rivers, etc.) to prove their cases.
The beauty of this focus, accepted by the IPCC who have little or no scientific knowledge, and completely acceptable to the general public who have no scientific knowledge, is that once invoked, there are few that can counter their claims since the science is incredibly arcane and limited.
Frankly, the focus on tree ring width and x-ray density as proxies for temperature was a master stroke since no one in the science community knows anything about these supposed scientifically-based observations.
The only reason they were caught out, was that Steve McIntyre, et al, fortunately had both the time and skill to show that the IPCC research was a scam of huge, monumental proportions.
By all means, keep Phil Jones. Please. It just makes things easier.
“I AM OZ! THE GREAT! THE POWERFUL! YOU MUST SURRENDER YOUR ECONOMY TO ME! ONLY I KNOW THE TRUTH AND CAN SAVE THE PLANET…Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! Stop tugging on my pant cuff, nasty little dog…Didn’t you hear me? I am Oz…”
[emphasis mine]
They just can’t get away from this “consensus” B.S. Science is not done by consensus.
…and that “consistent manner” is to stonewall releasing anything under FOI until the corpse of AGW is twisting slowly in the wind.
…but not until we have rammed through legislation to produce astronomical taxes on any CO2 produced throughout the world.
/rant off
I notice that they are not even bothering to suggest that the material might be falsified in any way.
Anyway, the reputation of the University of East Anglia must be plumetting, so I’ll give them some gratuitous advice. Hide the Decline!
Oh my God, these people are in full denial. How incredibly vain do you have to be to claim that:
>
> The publication of a selection of stolen data is the
> latest example of a sustained and, in some instances,
> a vexatious campaign which may have been designed
> to distract from reasoned debate
>
“Reasoned debate?” The emails show that this is precisely what these people were trying to stop! They wanted to stifle anyone who disagreed with them.
This idiot then goes on:
>
> the nature of the urgent action which world
> governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt
> to, climate change.
>
thus justifying what the skeptics have been claiming, that is, that they are not doing dispassionate, objective
science, but are looking for data, facts, and possible interpretations that justify an ideological goal.
I can only say, “wow,” this is absolutely pathological.
–DD
Robert Townshend (15:33:56) :
To quote Francis Urquart: “He would say that, wouldn’t he?”
‘You might very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment’
They love spouting “consensus” whenever they can. Don’t they?
Where’s the updated graph that is supposed to show what the WMO report front cover would look like if the proxy record was fully plotted?
Statement at CRU linked at the beginning of the article is all text, with both figures missing.
Ignore/delete my post. I just figured out that somehow I had triggered the “high contrast” mode on the CRU website.
“stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)”
No, the data was leaked, the millions upon millions spent on this farce was stolen.
“some of the published emails do not read well.”
No, elementary school poetry does not read well. Some of the published e-mails are evidence of fraud, intent to violate the law regarding Freedom of Information, and intent to circumvent tax law (and then depend on data from tax criminals).
Oh, and Trevor Davies is what is commonly known as a liar. I for one am tired of the politesse, dude is just plain lying.
Hide the Decline (hide the decline) -Climategate Hit Material:
I think UEA assigns this textbook in its Climatology classes.
A cautious response.
Having worked for a couple of decades in some highly technical fields (electrochemistry, petroleum refining, petrochemicals production, and associated engineering of those), I can somewhat relate to the concept of not having to take the time to explain every last detail to everyone who asks. Instead, one merely hopes to explain sufficient detail to others who are reasonably competent in the subject so that one’s work can be verified or not.
U.S. patent law has a similar standard, that is, a patent must be written so that it discloses sufficient detail so that a person of “ordinary skill in the art” will understand and be able to make and use the invention. The exact language of the patent statute, 35 USC 112, is “The [patent] specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains…to make and use the same. . . ”
Having said that, it appears that what Drs. Jones, Mann, and the others have done is to simply say the equivalent of “trust me,” as they refused for years to produce their data or methods.
I am reminded of the “science” behind the “cold fusion” breakthrough of a few years ago. Bad science was exposed, and no fusion occurred.
Gee, it sure is getting colder lately. As CO2 continues to increase.
Btw…here is a link to a PhD climate researcher who writes that CO2 was between 1000 and 2000 ppm 40 million years ago, and that many ice ages came and went during those 40 million years. Odd, isn’t it, that the earth did not catastrophically heat up with CO2 at 2000 ppm. Especially odd, knowing that the climate warmists today insist that doubling CO2 to 700 ppm will cause catastrophic warming. see
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/golden_spike_in_ice_core/spoergsmaal_svar1/
“I never had sex with that woman!”
….”where did you you get that blue dress from?”
The great beneficiary of all this are all those compulsory English classes at school that still use George Orwell novels. Makes it easier to explain the meaning of Doublespeak to our youth and enables them to better understand that all of this is Not Evil, Just Wrong…and just a little paranoid, vindictive and massively arrogant.
It will be interesting how many A-list politicians get flu preventing them from attending Copenhagen given the propensity for politicos to launch ships rather than sink with them.
Mac (09:04:52) :
The Hockey Stick re-appears as evidence for the defence. That simply beggars belief.
What a stupid stance by UAE and CRU, it makes them look incompetent.
They may realize it’s better to be thought of as incompetents than as accomplices.
Expose the code and bust the Anti-Trust Climate Team
Busted not Robust!
Shiny
Edward
Phil Jones: “In the frenzy of the past few days, the most vital issue is being overshadowed: we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet.”
Translated: “Look at the ball. Don’t look at my hands, focus on the ball. Look at the amazing magical ball.”
@ur momisugly Cromagnum (09:41:14) :-SNIP- Is Obama’s Climate Czar Holdren involved? Is he in the emails CC?
—–
Oh yeah. Just search on Holdren (or any other word or phrase you like) at: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/search.php
Holdren gets you six emails – and recall, there’s another 100MB or so of zipped data yet to be released supposedly, so this may not be all. In the first, Holdren is emailing the CRU as if he’s one of the boys, right in the circle. I’ve copied that below, its an arrogant smarmy email about how he’s proceeded to smear two of his Harvard colleagues – to the entire school from the sounds of it – who dared to write a paper contrary to the accepted position, while supporting Mann et al.
He’s just sending it along for their entertainment, now isn’t that nice? (lookie here, I just demolished a couple of your enemies for you and humiliated them to the entire university! Aren’t I a great guy, isn’t this fun?!!) Ad hominem, appeal to apparent authority/credibility in the climatology community, all the standard stuff [of two year olds in the sand box].
The others are him being cc’d on some emails early this year where they are scrambling around desperately trying to come up with some plausible rationale for why temperatures haven’t been rising the past decade – this set postulating that perhaps increased SO2 emissions from China and India may account for an offsetting cooling to the obviously still occurring Global Warming. I don’t know the players well enough, however, to be sure how the person(s) who cc’d him fit into all of this.
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Malcolm Hughes , Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa , Kevin Trenberth , Caspar Ammann , rbradley@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, tcrowley@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@ur momisuglyu.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford , p.jones@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley
Subject: Fwd: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas views on climate
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:43:41 -0400
Dear All,
Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been
kind enough to pass along…
mike
Delivered-To: mem6u@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Sender: jholdren@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:53:08 -0400
To: “Michael Mann” , “Tom Wigley”
From: “John P. Holdren”
Subject: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas
views on climate
Michael and Tom —
I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in
the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my
“Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows
concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty
and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science
and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or
less self-explanatory.
Best regards,
John
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:02:24 -0400
To: schrag@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, oconnell@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, holland@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx,
pearson@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, eli@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, ingalls@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx,
mlm@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, avan@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, moyer@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx,
poussart@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, jshaman@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, sivan@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx,
bec@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, saleska@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: “John P. Holdren”
Subject: For the EPS Wednesday breakfast group: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson
coverage of Soon / Baliunas views on climate
Cc: jeremy_bloxham@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, william_clark@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx,
patricia_mclaughlin@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Bcc:
Colleagues–
I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying
to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think
that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me,
correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which
he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.
While it is sometimes a mistake to get into these exchanges (because one’s interlocutor
turns out to be ineducable and/or just looking for a quote to reproduce out of context
in an attempt to embarrass you), there was something about this guy’s formulations that
made me think, at each round, that it might be worth responding. In the end, a couple
of colleagues with whom I have shared this exchange already have suggested that its
content would be of interest to others, and so I am sending it to our “environmental
science and policy breakfast” list for your entertainment and, possibly, future
breakfast discussion.
The items in the correspondence are arranged below in chronological order, so that it
can be read straight through, top to bottom.
Best,
John
At 09:43 PM 9/12/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Dr. Holdren:
In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my
website [1]www.techcentralstation.com, you are quoted as saying:
My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much attention is
paid to a flawed analysis, but that s what happens when something happens to support the
political climate in Washington.
Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?
Best,
Nick
Nick Schulz
Editor
TCS
1-800-619-5258
From: John P. Holdren [[2]mailto:john_holdren@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 11:06 AM
To: Nick Schulz
Subject: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
Dear Nick Schultz —
I am sorry for the long delay in this response to your note of September 12. I have
been swamped with other commitments.
As you no doubt have anticipated, I do not put Mann et al. in the same category with
Soon and Baliunas.
If you seriously want to know “Why not?”, here are three ways one might arrive at what I
regard as the right conclusion:
(1) For those with the background and patience to penetrate the scientific arguments,
the conclusion that Mann et al. are right and Soon and Baliunas are wrong follows from
reading carefully the relevant Soon / Baliunas paper and the Mann et al. response to it:
W. Soon and S. Baliunas, “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000
years”, Climate Research, vol. 23, pp 89ff, 2003.
M. Mann, C. Amman, R. Bradley, K. Briffa, P. Jones, T. Osborn, T. Crowley, M. Hughes, M.
Oppenheimer, J. Overpeck, S. Rutherford, K. Trenberth, and T. Wigley, “On past
temperatures and anomalous late-20th century warmth”, EOS, vol 84, no. 27, pp 256ff, 8
July 2003.
This is the approach I took. Soon and Baliunas are demolished in this comparison.
(2) Those lacking the background and/or patience to penetrate the two papers, and
seriously wanting to know who is more likely to be right, have the option of asking
somebody who does possess these characteristics — preferably somebody outside the
handful of ideologically committed and/or oil-industry-linked professional
climate-change skeptics — to evaluate the controversy for them. Better yet, one could
poll a number of such people. They can easily be found by checking the web pages of
earth sciences, atmospheric sciences, and environmental sciences departments at any
number of major universities.
(3) The least satisfactory approach, for those not qualified for (1) and lacking the
time or initiative for (2), would be to learn what one can about the qualifications
(including publications records) and reputations, in the field in question, of the
authors on the two sides. Doing this would reveal that Soon and Baliunas are,
essentially, amateurs in the interpretation of historical and paleoclimatological
records of climate change, while the Mann et al. authors include several of the most
published and most distinguished people in the world in this field. Such an
investigation would also reveal that Dr. Baliunas’ reputation in this field suffered
considerable damage a few years back, when she put her name on an incompetent critique
of mainstream climate science that was never published anywhere respectable but was
circulated by the tens of thousands, in a format mimicking that of a reprint from the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in pursuit of signatures on a petition
claiming that the mainstream findings were wrong.
Of course, the third approach is the least satisfactory because it can be dangerous to
assume that the more distinguished people are always right. Occasionally, it turns out
that the opposite is true. That is one of several good reasons that it pays to try to
penetrate the arguments, if one can, or to poll others who have tried to do so. But in
cases where one is not able or willing to do either of these things — and where one is
able to discover that the imbalance of experience and reputation on the two sides of the
issue is as lopsided as here — one ought at least to recognize that the odds strongly
favor the proposition that the more experienced and reputable people are right. If one
were a policy maker, to bet the public welfare on the long odds of the opposite being
true would be foolhardy.
Sincerely,
John Holdren
PS: I have provided this response to your query as a personal communication, not as
fodder for selective excerpting on your web site or elsewhere. If you do decide that
you would like to propagate my views on this matter more widely, I ask that you convey
my response in its entirety.
At 11:16 AM 10/13/2003 -0400, you wrote:
I have the patience but, by your definition certainly, not the background, so I suppose
it s not surprising I came to a different conclusion. I guess my problem concerns what
lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily much more heavily, given
the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?
Falsifiability for the claims of Mann et. al. requires but a few examples, does it
not? Soon/Baliunas make claims that have no such burden. Isn t that correct?
Best,
Nick
From: John P. Holdren [[3]mailto:john_holdren@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 5:54 PM
To: Nick Schulz
Subject: RE: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
Nick–
Yes, I can see how it might seem that, in principle, those who are arguing for a strong
and sweeping proposition (such as that “the current period is the warmest in the last
1000 years”) must meet a heavy burden of proof, and that, because even one convincing
counter-example shoots the proposition down, the burden that must be borne by the
critics is somehow lighter. But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing —
it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.
To choose an extreme example, consider the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Both of these are “empirical” laws. Our confidence in them is based entirely on
observation; neither one can be “proven” from more fundamental laws. Both are very
sweeping. The first law says that energy is conserved in all physical processes. The
second law says that entropy increases in all physical processes. So, is the burden of
proof heavier on somebody who asserts that these laws are correct, or on somebody who
claims to have found an exception to one or both of them? Clearly, in this case, the
burden is heavier on somebody who asserts an exception. This is in part because the
two laws have survived every such challenge in the past. No exception to either has
ever been documented. Every alleged exception has turned out to be traceable to a
mistake of some kind. This burden on those claiming to have found an exception is so
strong that the US Patent Office takes the position, which has been upheld in court,
that any patent application for an invention that violates either law can be rejected
summarily, without any further analysis of the details.
Of course, I am not asserting that the claim we are now in the warmest period in a
millennium is in the same league with the laws of thermodynamics. I used the latter
only to illustrate the key point that where the burden is heaviest depends on the state
of prior evidence and analysis on the point in question — not simply on whether a
proposition is sweeping or narrow.
In the case actually at hand, Mann et al. are careful in the nature of their claim.
They write along the lines of “A number of reconstructions of large-scale temperature
changes support the conclusion” that the current period is the warmest in the last
millennium. And they write that the claims of Baliunas et al. are “inconsistent with
the preponderance of scientific evidence”. They are not saying that no shred of
evidence to the contrary has ever been produced, but rather that analysis of the
available evidence as a whole tends to support their conclusion.
This is often the case in science. That is, there are often “outlier” data points or
apparent contradictions that are not yet adequately explained, but still are not given
much weight by most of the scientists working on a particular issue if a strong
preponderance of evidence points the other way. This is because the scientists judge it
to be more probable that the outlier data point or apparent contradiction will
ultimately turn out to be explainable as a mistake, or otherwise explainable in a way
that is consistent with the preponderance of evidence, than that it will turn out that
the preponderance of evidence is wrong or is being misinterpreted. Indeed, apparent
contradictions with a preponderance of evidence are FAR more often due to measurement
error or analysis error than to real contradiction with what the preponderance
indicates.
A key point, then, is that somebody with a PhD claiming to have identified a
counterexample does not establish that those offering a general proposition have failed
in their burden of proof. The counterexample itself must pass muster as both valid in
itself and sufficient, in the generality of its implications, to invalidate the
proposition.
In the case at hand, it is not even a matter of an “outlier” point or other seeming
contradiction that has not yet been explained. Mann et al. have explained in detail why
the supposed contrary evidence offered by Baliunas et al. does NOT constitute a
counterexample. To those with some knowledge and experience in studies of this kind,
the refutation by Mann et al is completely convincing.
Sincerely,
John Holdren
At 08:08 AM 10/15/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Dr. Holdren:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time.
You are quite right about the laws of thermodynamics. And you are quite right that Mann
et al is not in the same league as those laws and that s not to take anything from their
basic research.
You write to those with knowledge and experience in studies of this kind, the refutation
by Mann et all is completely convincing. Since I do not have what you would consider
the requisite knowledge or experience, I can t speak to that. I ve read the Mann papers
and the Baliunas Soon paper and the Mann rebuttal and find Mann s claims based on his
research extravagant and beyond what he can legitimately claim to know. That said, I m
willing to believe it is because I don t have the tools necessary to understand.
But if you will indulge a lay person with some knowledge of the matter, perhaps you
could clear up a thing or two.
Part of the confusion over Mann et al it seems to me has to do not with the research
itself but with the extravagance of the claims they make based on their research.
And yet you write: Mann et al. are careful in the nature of their claim. They write
along the lines of A number of reconstructions of large-scale temperature changes
support the conclusion that the current period is the warmest in the last millennium.
And they write that the claims of Baliunas et al. are inconsistent with the
preponderance of scientific evidence .
That makes it seem as if Mann s not claiming anything particularly extraordinary based
on his research.
But Mann claimed in the NYTimes in 1998 that in their Nature study from that year Our
conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely tied to
emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors.” Does that
seem to be careful in the nature of a claim? Respected scientists like Tom Quigley
responded at the time by saying “I think there’s a limit to how far you can ever go.” As
for using proxy data to detect a man-made greenhouse effect, he said, “I don’t think
we’re ever going to get to the point where we’re going to be totally convincing.” These
are two scientists who would agree on the preponderance of evidence and yet they make
different claims about what that preponderance means. There are lots of respected
climatologists who would say Mann has insufficient scientific basis to make that claim.
Would you agree? The Soon Baliunas research is relevant to that element of the debate
what the preponderance of evidence enables us to claim within reason. To that end, I
don t think claims of Soon Baliunas are inconsistent with the preponderance of
scientific evidence.
I ll close by saying I m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could be
punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question How much
hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the lives of
millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by
definition beyond the reach of those people?
All best,
Nick
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:46:23 -0400
To: “Nick Schulz”
From: “John P. Holdren”
Subject: RE: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
Nick–
You ask good questions. I believe the thoughtfulness of your questions and the progress
I believe we are making in this interchange contain the seeds of the answer to your
final question, which, if I may paraphrase just a bit, is whether there’s any hope of
reaching reasonable public-policy decisions when the details of the science germane to
those decisions are impenetrable to most citizens.
This is a hard problem. Certainly the difficulty is not restricted to climate science
and policy, but applies also to nuclear-weapon science and policy, nuclear-energy
science and policy, genetic science and policy, and much more. But I don’t think the
difficulties are insurmountable. That’s why I’m in the business I’m in, which is
teaching about and working on the intersection of science and technology with policy.
Most citizens cannot penetrate the details of what is known about the how the climate
works (and, of course, what is known even by the most knowledgeable climate scientists
about this is not everything one would like to know, and is subject to modification by
new data, new insights, new forms of analysis). Neither would most citizens be able to
understand how a hydrogen bomb works (even if the details were not secret), or what
factors will determine the leak rates of radioactive nuclides from radioactive-waste
repositories, or what stem-cell research does and promises to be able to do.
But, as Amory Lovins once said in addressing the question of whether the public deserved
and could play a meaningful role in debates about nuclear-weapon policy, even though
most citizens would never understand the details of how nuclear weapons work or are
made, “You don’t have to be a chicken to know what to do with an egg.” In other words,
for many (but not all) policy purposes, the details that are impenetrable do not matter.
There CAN be aspects of the details that do matter for public policy, of course. In
those cases, it is the function and the responsibility of scientists who work across the
science-and-policy boundary to communicate the policy implications of these details in
ways that citizens and policy makers can understand. And I believe it is the function
and responsibility of citizens and policy makers to develop, with the help of scientists
and technologists, a sufficient appreciation of how to reach judgments about
plausibility and credibility of communications about the science and technology relevant
to policy choices so that the citizens and policy makers are NOT disenfranchised in
policy decisions where science and technology are germane.
How this is best to be done is a more complicated subject than I am prepared to try to
explicate fully here. (Alas, I have already spent more time on this interchange than I
could really afford from other current commitments.) Suffice it to say, for now, that
improving the situation involves increasing at least somewhat, over time, the scientific
literacy of our citizens, including especially in relation to how science works, how to
distinguish an extravagant from a reasonable claim, how to think about probabilities of
who is wrong and who is right in a given scientific dispute (including the question of
burden of proof as you and I have been discussing it here), how consulting and polling
experts can illuminate issues even for those who don’t understand everything that the
experts say, and why bodies like the National Academy of Sciences and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deserve more credibility on the question of
where mainstream scientific opinion lies than the National Petroleum Council, the Sierra
Club, or the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
Regarding extravagant claims, you continue to argue that Mann et al. have been guilty of
this, but the formulation of theirs that you offer as evidence is not evidence of this
at all. You quote them from the NYT in 1998, referring to a study Mann and co-authors
published in that year, as saying
“Our conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely
tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors.”
and you ask “Does that seem to be careful in the nature of a claim?” My answer is:
Yes, absolutely, their formulation is careful and appropriate. Please note that they
did NOT say “Global warming is closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans
and not any of the natural factors.” They said that THEIR CONCLUSION (from a
particular, specified study, published in NATURE) was that the warming of THE PAST FEW
DECADES (that is, a particular, specified part of the historical record) APPEARS (from
the evidence adduced in the specified study) to be closely tied… This is a carefully
specified, multiply bounded statement, which accurately reflects what they looked at and
what they found. And it is appropriately contingent –“APPEARS to be closely tied” —
allowing for the possibility that further analysis or new data could later lead to a
different perspective on what appears to be true.
With respect, it does not require a PhD in science to notice the appropriate boundedness
and contingency in the Mann et al. formulation. It only requires an open mind, a
careful reading, and a degree of understanding of the character of scientific claims and
the wording appropriate to convey them that is accessible to any thoughtful citizen.
That is why I’m an optimist.
You go on to quote the respected scientist “Tom Quigley” as holding a contrary view to
that expressed by Mann. But please note that: (1) I don’t know of any Tom Quigley
working in this field, so I suspect you mean to refer to the prominent climatologist Tom
Wigley; (2) the statements you attribute to “Quiqley” do not directly contradict the
careful statement of Mann (that is, it is entirely consistent for Mann to say that his
study found that recent warming appears to be tied to human emissions and for Wigley to
say that that there are limits to how far one can go with this sort of analysis, without
either one being wrong); and (3) Tom Wigley is one of the CO-AUTHORS of the resounding
Mann et al. refutation of Soon and Baliunas (see attached PDF file).
I hope you have found my responses to be of some value. I now must get on with other
things.
Best,
John Holdren
JOHN P. HOLDREN
—————————————————————————–
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy
& Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy,
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
John F. Kennedy School of Government
—————————————————————————-
Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy,
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
—————————————————————————-
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
—————————————————————————-
mail: BCSIA, JFK School, 79 JFK St, Cambridge, MA 02138
phone: 617 495-1464 / fax 617 495-8963
email: john_holdren@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx
assistant: Patricia_McLaughlin@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, 617 495-1498
——————————————————————————
JOHN P. HOLDREN
—————————————————————————–
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy
& Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy,
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
John F. Kennedy School of Government
—————————————————————————-
Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy,
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
—————————————————————————-
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
—————————————————————————-
mail: BCSIA, JFK School, 79 JFK St, Cambridge, MA 02138
phone: 617 495-1464 / fax 617 495-8963
email: john_holdren@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx
assistant: Patricia_McLaughlin@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, 617 495-1498
“”” Roger Sowell (21:08:53) :
A cautious response.
Having worked for a couple of decades in some highly technical fields (electrochemistry, petroleum refining, petrochemicals production, and associated engineering of those), I can somewhat relate to the concept of not having to take the time to explain every last detail to everyone who asks. Instead, one merely hopes to explain sufficient detail to others who are reasonably competent in the subject so that one’s work can be verified or not.
U.S. patent law has a similar standard, that is, a patent must be written so that it discloses sufficient detail so that a person of “ordinary skill in the art” will understand and be able to make and use the invention. The exact language of the patent statute, 35 USC 112, is “The [patent] specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains…to make and use the same. . . ” “””
So Roger,
How many patents have you read that comply with 35 USC 112 (to the letter) ?
Well a lot of Optics (Lens design) patents do, because they literally list the complete optical element prescription of the lens. If they don’t, they don’t survive the Examiner’s red pencil; and of course , only that exact prescription is protected; so they aren’t a whole lot of use. They can however reveal the success of some new architecture from what has been seen in the past.
I designed a special type of scanning lens for a TV set; and then had to pass it over to a new designer, because I was not able to follow the task to completion because of prior agreement obligations. The new designer went ape, because I happened to use a particular architecture that was totally unknown for that type of lens application; so I had to explain to him why I used it (the optimisation routines said it worked better than the classical architecture).
Then of course there are always those folks who say; “if this “new” idea isn’t obvious to you, then you clearly don’t have “ordinary skill” in the art.
Now there is a “peer review” process for you; the US patent office.
@ur momisugly Cromagnum (09:41:14) :-SNIP- Is Obama’s Climate Czar Holdren involved? Is he in the emails CC?
—–
Oh yeah. Just search on Holdren (or any other word or phrase you like) at: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/search.php
Holdren gets you six emails – and recall, there’s another 100MB or so of zipped data yet to be released supposedly, so this may not be all. In the first, Holdren is emailing the CRU as if he’s one of the boys, right in the circle. I’ve copied that below, its an arrogant smarmy email about how he’s proceeded to smear two of his Harvard colleagues – to the entire school from the sounds of it – who dared to write a paper contrary to the accepted position, while supporting Mann et al.
He’s just sending it along for their entertainment, now isn’t that nice? (lookie here, I just demolished a couple of your enemies for you and humiliated them to the entire university faculty (or more even?) all under the guise of trying to so graciously help educate some num-nut! Aren’t I a great guy, isn’t this fun?!!) Ad hominem, appeal to apparent authority/credibility in the climatology community, all the standard stuff [of two year olds in the sand box /sarc off].
The others are him being cc’d on some emails early this year where they are scrambling around desperately trying to come up with some plausible rationale for why temperatures haven’t been rising the past decade – this set postulating that perhaps increased SO2 emissions from China and India may account for an offsetting cooling to the obviously still occurring Global Warming. I don’t know the players well enough, however, to be sure how the person(s) who cc’d him fit into all of this.
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Malcolm Hughes , Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa , Kevin Trenberth , Caspar Ammann , rbradley@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, tcrowley@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@ur momisuglyu.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford , p.jones@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley
Subject: Fwd: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas views on climate
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:43:41 -0400
Dear All,
Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been
kind enough to pass along…
mike
Delivered-To: mem6u@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Sender: jholdren@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:53:08 -0400
To: “Michael Mann” , “Tom Wigley”
From: “John P. Holdren”
Subject: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas
views on climate
Michael and Tom —
I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in
the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my
“Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows
concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty
and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science
and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or
less self-explanatory.
Best regards,
John
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:02:24 -0400
To: schrag@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, oconnell@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, holland@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx,
pearson@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, eli@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, ingalls@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx,
mlm@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, avan@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, moyer@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx,
poussart@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, jshaman@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, sivan@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx,
bec@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, saleska@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: “John P. Holdren”
Subject: For the EPS Wednesday breakfast group: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson
coverage of Soon / Baliunas views on climate
Cc: jeremy_bloxham@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, william_clark@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx,
patricia_mclaughlin@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Bcc:
Colleagues–
I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying
to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think
that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me,
correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which
he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.
While it is sometimes a mistake to get into these exchanges (because one’s interlocutor
turns out to be ineducable and/or just looking for a quote to reproduce out of context
in an attempt to embarrass you), there was something about this guy’s formulations that
made me think, at each round, that it might be worth responding. In the end, a couple
of colleagues with whom I have shared this exchange already have suggested that its
content would be of interest to others, and so I am sending it to our “environmental
science and policy breakfast” list for your entertainment and, possibly, future
breakfast discussion.
The items in the correspondence are arranged below in chronological order, so that it
can be read straight through, top to bottom.
Best,
John
At 09:43 PM 9/12/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Dr. Holdren:
In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my
website [1]www.techcentralstation.com, you are quoted as saying:
My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much attention is
paid to a flawed analysis, but that s what happens when something happens to support the
political climate in Washington.
Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?
Best,
Nick
Nick Schulz
Editor
TCS
1-800-619-5258
From: John P. Holdren [[2]mailto:john_holdren@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 11:06 AM
To: Nick Schulz
Subject: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
Dear Nick Schultz —
I am sorry for the long delay in this response to your note of September 12. I have
been swamped with other commitments.
As you no doubt have anticipated, I do not put Mann et al. in the same category with
Soon and Baliunas.
If you seriously want to know “Why not?”, here are three ways one might arrive at what I
regard as the right conclusion:
(1) For those with the background and patience to penetrate the scientific arguments,
the conclusion that Mann et al. are right and Soon and Baliunas are wrong follows from
reading carefully the relevant Soon / Baliunas paper and the Mann et al. response to it:
W. Soon and S. Baliunas, “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000
years”, Climate Research, vol. 23, pp 89ff, 2003.
M. Mann, C. Amman, R. Bradley, K. Briffa, P. Jones, T. Osborn, T. Crowley, M. Hughes, M.
Oppenheimer, J. Overpeck, S. Rutherford, K. Trenberth, and T. Wigley, “On past
temperatures and anomalous late-20th century warmth”, EOS, vol 84, no. 27, pp 256ff, 8
July 2003.
This is the approach I took. Soon and Baliunas are demolished in this comparison.
(2) Those lacking the background and/or patience to penetrate the two papers, and
seriously wanting to know who is more likely to be right, have the option of asking
somebody who does possess these characteristics — preferably somebody outside the
handful of ideologically committed and/or oil-industry-linked professional
climate-change skeptics — to evaluate the controversy for them. Better yet, one could
poll a number of such people. They can easily be found by checking the web pages of
earth sciences, atmospheric sciences, and environmental sciences departments at any
number of major universities.
(3) The least satisfactory approach, for those not qualified for (1) and lacking the
time or initiative for (2), would be to learn what one can about the qualifications
(including publications records) and reputations, in the field in question, of the
authors on the two sides. Doing this would reveal that Soon and Baliunas are,
essentially, amateurs in the interpretation of historical and paleoclimatological
records of climate change, while the Mann et al. authors include several of the most
published and most distinguished people in the world in this field. Such an
investigation would also reveal that Dr. Baliunas’ reputation in this field suffered
considerable damage a few years back, when she put her name on an incompetent critique
of mainstream climate science that was never published anywhere respectable but was
circulated by the tens of thousands, in a format mimicking that of a reprint from the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in pursuit of signatures on a petition
claiming that the mainstream findings were wrong.
Of course, the third approach is the least satisfactory because it can be dangerous to
assume that the more distinguished people are always right. Occasionally, it turns out
that the opposite is true. That is one of several good reasons that it pays to try to
penetrate the arguments, if one can, or to poll others who have tried to do so. But in
cases where one is not able or willing to do either of these things — and where one is
able to discover that the imbalance of experience and reputation on the two sides of the
issue is as lopsided as here — one ought at least to recognize that the odds strongly
favor the proposition that the more experienced and reputable people are right. If one
were a policy maker, to bet the public welfare on the long odds of the opposite being
true would be foolhardy.
Sincerely,
John Holdren
PS: I have provided this response to your query as a personal communication, not as
fodder for selective excerpting on your web site or elsewhere. If you do decide that
you would like to propagate my views on this matter more widely, I ask that you convey
my response in its entirety.
At 11:16 AM 10/13/2003 -0400, you wrote:
I have the patience but, by your definition certainly, not the background, so I suppose
it s not surprising I came to a different conclusion. I guess my problem concerns what
lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily much more heavily, given
the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?
Falsifiability for the claims of Mann et. al. requires but a few examples, does it
not? Soon/Baliunas make claims that have no such burden. Isn t that correct?
Best,
Nick
From: John P. Holdren [[3]mailto:john_holdren@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 5:54 PM
To: Nick Schulz
Subject: RE: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
Nick–
Yes, I can see how it might seem that, in principle, those who are arguing for a strong
and sweeping proposition (such as that “the current period is the warmest in the last
1000 years”) must meet a heavy burden of proof, and that, because even one convincing
counter-example shoots the proposition down, the burden that must be borne by the
critics is somehow lighter. But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing —
it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.
To choose an extreme example, consider the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Both of these are “empirical” laws. Our confidence in them is based entirely on
observation; neither one can be “proven” from more fundamental laws. Both are very
sweeping. The first law says that energy is conserved in all physical processes. The
second law says that entropy increases in all physical processes. So, is the burden of
proof heavier on somebody who asserts that these laws are correct, or on somebody who
claims to have found an exception to one or both of them? Clearly, in this case, the
burden is heavier on somebody who asserts an exception. This is in part because the
two laws have survived every such challenge in the past. No exception to either has
ever been documented. Every alleged exception has turned out to be traceable to a
mistake of some kind. This burden on those claiming to have found an exception is so
strong that the US Patent Office takes the position, which has been upheld in court,
that any patent application for an invention that violates either law can be rejected
summarily, without any further analysis of the details.
Of course, I am not asserting that the claim we are now in the warmest period in a
millennium is in the same league with the laws of thermodynamics. I used the latter
only to illustrate the key point that where the burden is heaviest depends on the state
of prior evidence and analysis on the point in question — not simply on whether a
proposition is sweeping or narrow.
In the case actually at hand, Mann et al. are careful in the nature of their claim.
They write along the lines of “A number of reconstructions of large-scale temperature
changes support the conclusion” that the current period is the warmest in the last
millennium. And they write that the claims of Baliunas et al. are “inconsistent with
the preponderance of scientific evidence”. They are not saying that no shred of
evidence to the contrary has ever been produced, but rather that analysis of the
available evidence as a whole tends to support their conclusion.
This is often the case in science. That is, there are often “outlier” data points or
apparent contradictions that are not yet adequately explained, but still are not given
much weight by most of the scientists working on a particular issue if a strong
preponderance of evidence points the other way. This is because the scientists judge it
to be more probable that the outlier data point or apparent contradiction will
ultimately turn out to be explainable as a mistake, or otherwise explainable in a way
that is consistent with the preponderance of evidence, than that it will turn out that
the preponderance of evidence is wrong or is being misinterpreted. Indeed, apparent
contradictions with a preponderance of evidence are FAR more often due to measurement
error or analysis error than to real contradiction with what the preponderance
indicates.
A key point, then, is that somebody with a PhD claiming to have identified a
counterexample does not establish that those offering a general proposition have failed
in their burden of proof. The counterexample itself must pass muster as both valid in
itself and sufficient, in the generality of its implications, to invalidate the
proposition.
In the case at hand, it is not even a matter of an “outlier” point or other seeming
contradiction that has not yet been explained. Mann et al. have explained in detail why
the supposed contrary evidence offered by Baliunas et al. does NOT constitute a
counterexample. To those with some knowledge and experience in studies of this kind,
the refutation by Mann et al is completely convincing.
Sincerely,
John Holdren
At 08:08 AM 10/15/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Dr. Holdren:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time.
You are quite right about the laws of thermodynamics. And you are quite right that Mann
et al is not in the same league as those laws and that s not to take anything from their
basic research.
You write to those with knowledge and experience in studies of this kind, the refutation
by Mann et all is completely convincing. Since I do not have what you would consider
the requisite knowledge or experience, I can t speak to that. I ve read the Mann papers
and the Baliunas Soon paper and the Mann rebuttal and find Mann s claims based on his
research extravagant and beyond what he can legitimately claim to know. That said, I m
willing to believe it is because I don t have the tools necessary to understand.
But if you will indulge a lay person with some knowledge of the matter, perhaps you
could clear up a thing or two.
Part of the confusion over Mann et al it seems to me has to do not with the research
itself but with the extravagance of the claims they make based on their research.
And yet you write: Mann et al. are careful in the nature of their claim. They write
along the lines of A number of reconstructions of large-scale temperature changes
support the conclusion that the current period is the warmest in the last millennium.
And they write that the claims of Baliunas et al. are inconsistent with the
preponderance of scientific evidence .
That makes it seem as if Mann s not claiming anything particularly extraordinary based
on his research.
But Mann claimed in the NYTimes in 1998 that in their Nature study from that year Our
conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely tied to
emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors.” Does that
seem to be careful in the nature of a claim? Respected scientists like Tom Quigley
responded at the time by saying “I think there’s a limit to how far you can ever go.” As
for using proxy data to detect a man-made greenhouse effect, he said, “I don’t think
we’re ever going to get to the point where we’re going to be totally convincing.” These
are two scientists who would agree on the preponderance of evidence and yet they make
different claims about what that preponderance means. There are lots of respected
climatologists who would say Mann has insufficient scientific basis to make that claim.
Would you agree? The Soon Baliunas research is relevant to that element of the debate
what the preponderance of evidence enables us to claim within reason. To that end, I
don t think claims of Soon Baliunas are inconsistent with the preponderance of
scientific evidence.
I ll close by saying I m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could be
punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question How much
hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the lives of
millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by
definition beyond the reach of those people?
All best,
Nick
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:46:23 -0400
To: “Nick Schulz”
From: “John P. Holdren”
Subject: RE: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
Nick–
You ask good questions. I believe the thoughtfulness of your questions and the progress
I believe we are making in this interchange contain the seeds of the answer to your
final question, which, if I may paraphrase just a bit, is whether there’s any hope of
reaching reasonable public-policy decisions when the details of the science germane to
those decisions are impenetrable to most citizens.
This is a hard problem. Certainly the difficulty is not restricted to climate science
and policy, but applies also to nuclear-weapon science and policy, nuclear-energy
science and policy, genetic science and policy, and much more. But I don’t think the
difficulties are insurmountable. That’s why I’m in the business I’m in, which is
teaching about and working on the intersection of science and technology with policy.
Most citizens cannot penetrate the details of what is known about the how the climate
works (and, of course, what is known even by the most knowledgeable climate scientists
about this is not everything one would like to know, and is subject to modification by
new data, new insights, new forms of analysis). Neither would most citizens be able to
understand how a hydrogen bomb works (even if the details were not secret), or what
factors will determine the leak rates of radioactive nuclides from radioactive-waste
repositories, or what stem-cell research does and promises to be able to do.
But, as Amory Lovins once said in addressing the question of whether the public deserved
and could play a meaningful role in debates about nuclear-weapon policy, even though
most citizens would never understand the details of how nuclear weapons work or are
made, “You don’t have to be a chicken to know what to do with an egg.” In other words,
for many (but not all) policy purposes, the details that are impenetrable do not matter.
There CAN be aspects of the details that do matter for public policy, of course. In
those cases, it is the function and the responsibility of scientists who work across the
science-and-policy boundary to communicate the policy implications of these details in
ways that citizens and policy makers can understand. And I believe it is the function
and responsibility of citizens and policy makers to develop, with the help of scientists
and technologists, a sufficient appreciation of how to reach judgments about
plausibility and credibility of communications about the science and technology relevant
to policy choices so that the citizens and policy makers are NOT disenfranchised in
policy decisions where science and technology are germane.
How this is best to be done is a more complicated subject than I am prepared to try to
explicate fully here. (Alas, I have already spent more time on this interchange than I
could really afford from other current commitments.) Suffice it to say, for now, that
improving the situation involves increasing at least somewhat, over time, the scientific
literacy of our citizens, including especially in relation to how science works, how to
distinguish an extravagant from a reasonable claim, how to think about probabilities of
who is wrong and who is right in a given scientific dispute (including the question of
burden of proof as you and I have been discussing it here), how consulting and polling
experts can illuminate issues even for those who don’t understand everything that the
experts say, and why bodies like the National Academy of Sciences and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deserve more credibility on the question of
where mainstream scientific opinion lies than the National Petroleum Council, the Sierra
Club, or the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
Regarding extravagant claims, you continue to argue that Mann et al. have been guilty of
this, but the formulation of theirs that you offer as evidence is not evidence of this
at all. You quote them from the NYT in 1998, referring to a study Mann and co-authors
published in that year, as saying
“Our conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely
tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors.”
and you ask “Does that seem to be careful in the nature of a claim?” My answer is:
Yes, absolutely, their formulation is careful and appropriate. Please note that they
did NOT say “Global warming is closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans
and not any of the natural factors.” They said that THEIR CONCLUSION (from a
particular, specified study, published in NATURE) was that the warming of THE PAST FEW
DECADES (that is, a particular, specified part of the historical record) APPEARS (from
the evidence adduced in the specified study) to be closely tied… This is a carefully
specified, multiply bounded statement, which accurately reflects what they looked at and
what they found. And it is appropriately contingent –“APPEARS to be closely tied” —
allowing for the possibility that further analysis or new data could later lead to a
different perspective on what appears to be true.
With respect, it does not require a PhD in science to notice the appropriate boundedness
and contingency in the Mann et al. formulation. It only requires an open mind, a
careful reading, and a degree of understanding of the character of scientific claims and
the wording appropriate to convey them that is accessible to any thoughtful citizen.
That is why I’m an optimist.
You go on to quote the respected scientist “Tom Quigley” as holding a contrary view to
that expressed by Mann. But please note that: (1) I don’t know of any Tom Quigley
working in this field, so I suspect you mean to refer to the prominent climatologist Tom
Wigley; (2) the statements you attribute to “Quiqley” do not directly contradict the
careful statement of Mann (that is, it is entirely consistent for Mann to say that his
study found that recent warming appears to be tied to human emissions and for Wigley to
say that that there are limits to how far one can go with this sort of analysis, without
either one being wrong); and (3) Tom Wigley is one of the CO-AUTHORS of the resounding
Mann et al. refutation of Soon and Baliunas (see attached PDF file).
I hope you have found my responses to be of some value. I now must get on with other
things.
Best,
John Holdren
JOHN P. HOLDREN
—————————————————————————–
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy
& Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy,
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
John F. Kennedy School of Government
—————————————————————————-
Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy,
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
—————————————————————————-
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
—————————————————————————-
mail: BCSIA, JFK School, 79 JFK St, Cambridge, MA 02138
phone: 617 495-1464 / fax 617 495-8963
email: john_holdren@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx
assistant: Patricia_McLaughlin@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, 617 495-1498
——————————————————————————
JOHN P. HOLDREN
—————————————————————————–
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy
& Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy,
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
John F. Kennedy School of Government
—————————————————————————-
Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy,
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
—————————————————————————-
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
—————————————————————————-
mail: BCSIA, JFK School, 79 JFK St, Cambridge, MA 02138
phone: 617 495-1464 / fax 617 495-8963
email: john_holdren@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx
assistant: Patricia_McLaughlin@ur momisuglyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, 617 495-1498
George E. Smith,
“So Roger,
How many patents have you read that comply with 35 USC 112 (to the letter) ?”
George, I have read many hundreds of patents and patent law cases, as my intent upon entering law school was to be a patent attorney. I have had several patent law classes in law school, and today follow the subject as best I can given certain time constraints. I found a higher calling, though, as I endeavor to repeal climate change and global warming laws. I am not a patent attorney at this time.
My belief is that almost all the patents issued in the U.S. comply with 35 USC 112 – and those that do not are challenged. The reported cases on this subject are rather esoteric (but fascinating to me). The central questions become: 1) what is adequate disclosure under 112 to enable one to make and use the invention – and there is a further court-added requirement, of “without undue experimentation.” 2) what is the expected knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art? Patent attorneys argue these things at great lengths.
Under US patent law, the inventor seeking a patent is not required to reveal every minute detail, and thus a mild amount of experimentation is expected for those who want to copy the patent. The question becomes how much experimentation is reasonable, and at what point does the experimentation burden become “undue.”
see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2164_01.htm
What moral fibre has that professor got. He wants us to commit to an enormously expensive world changing policy but says he needs approval to release data. He knows everyone has been looking for it for years – why would the people who submitted it want it covered up. Spare me professor – the issue is too big to hide behind niceties and precious protocols. Peer review means nothing, zilch, zippo without data – he knows it and all his cronies know it. The prof should sleep easy now because he knows the game is up – he doesn’t have to cover up anything now – what a relief