This was just released by the AMS, source is here.
I’m reposting here in its entirety. h/t to Mark Johnson
Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change
AMS Headquarters has received several inquiries asking if the material made public following the hacking of e-mails and other files from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia has any impact on the AMS Statement on Climate Change, which was approved by the AMS Council in 2007 and represents the official position of the Society.
The AMS Statement on Climate Change continues to represent the position of the AMS. It was developed following a rigorous procedure that included drafting and review by experts in the field, comments by the membership, and careful review by the AMS Council prior to approval as a statement of the Society. The statement is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature. As with any scientific assessment, it is likely to become outdated as the body of scientific knowledge continues to grow, and the current statement is scheduled to expire in February 2012 if it is not replaced by a new statement prior to that.
The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results. This process, which is tied intrinsically to the procedures leading to publication of research results in the peer-reviewed literature, allows the scientific community to confirm some results while rejecting others. It also, in a sense, lessens the impact of any one set of research results, especially as the body of research on any topic grows. The AMS plays an important role in the scientific process through its peer-reviewed publications, as well as through its many other activities, such as scientific conferences. The Society strives to maintain integrity in the editorial process for all its publications.
For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.
The AMS encourages ethical behavior in all aspects of science and has established a record of affirming the value of scientists presenting their research results “objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the associated impacts” (see AMS Statement on the Freedom of Scientific Expression).
Keith L. Seitter, CCM
Executive Director
Headquarters: 45 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108-3693
DC Office: 1120 G Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington DC, 20005-3826
amsinfo@ametsoc.org Phone: 617-227-2425 Fax: 617-742-8718
© 2006 American Meteorological Society Privacy Policy and Disclaimer
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
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
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”.
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.
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.
“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?
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.”
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..
HA,
Ask the AMS who asked them to make this statement.
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…
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!
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…….”
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?
@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!
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”.
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.
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 ; ).
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.
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.
I’m a climatologist; trust me 🙂
2012?
Well, I guess we’ll never know.
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.
“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.
“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.
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.