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 As with any scientific assessment, it is likely to become outdated as the body of scientific knowledge continues to grow, and the current statement is scheduled to expire in February 2012 if it is not replaced by a new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
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
“… 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.
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.
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
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.
Can you say “CYA”
Sucks to be them!
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.
‘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.
Frank K. (16:59:49) :
More significantly, he is the Director of the NCDC, see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/welcomefromdirector.html
He also invited Anthony Watts to talk about the surface stations project.
See also:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/10/more-flubs-at-the-top-of-the-climate-food-chain-this-time-ncdcs-karl/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/ncdc-changes-from-national-record-keeper-to-advocacy-group/
“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?
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.
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.
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.”
Dear Executive Director:
You’re in a hole, Keith. Stop digging.
That should be long term warming.
DaveE.
“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?
“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.
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.
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.
“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
They come off sounding like the Pet shop owner in the monty python sketch, when John Cleese brings back the dead bird.
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.
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.
“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.
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.