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 As with any scientific assessment, it is likely to become outdated as the body of scientific knowledge continues to grow, and the current statement is scheduled to expire in February 2012 if it is not replaced by a new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.
Independent verification and replication? Now would be a good time to start. If the AMS is concerned about the integrity of science and the peer-review process, when exactly do they plan to start showing their concern?
The more I read, the more appalled I am that the science is so corrupted; and yet, I am not surprised either. This scandal is doing great damage to science–both the good scientists and the corrupt. Add in the money-grubbing politicians and I really worry about the future.
This is just the first round. More hacking or whistleblowers are needed. A lot more FOIs.
If you read the alarmist blogs, they are beyond even considering that they could be wrong. These folks are nuts! Not only that but the alarmist have a great deal invested, including the MSM. All of the major Universities.
American Association for the
Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of
Biological Sciences
American Meteorological
Society
American Society of
Agronomy
American Society of Plant
Biologists
American Statistical
Association
Association of Ecosystem
Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of
America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections
Alliance
Organization of Biological
Field Stations
Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic
Biologists
Soil Science Society of
America
University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research
All of these organizations have got to do a 360 and it is going to be painful.
One of the writers at The American Spectator has filed a FOI lawsuit against NASA to force them to reveal their raw data. Thats a start but we need to go after Trenberth and Mann as well.
One of the things I have noticed is that there is no one on the other side that would be happy at the thought of No Global Warming. Why? If you thought the world was coming to an end, the possibility of the science being wrong would be something to rejoice over.
Like I said, these people are nuts!
“Sort of like: “The axe murderer down the street? Yeah I knew him, seemed like a nice guy. Who knew?” A lot of people, you just wouldn’t listen.”
Right. The Wegman report should have been a caution flag to them about The Team, but they were too chicken-hearted, too infected by the AGW meme, and too committed to guild solidarity to heed it.
Sorry, this is only slightly OT:
How many expensive second order studies have been performed based on the GCMs that predict we wilol be cooked in 90 years?
The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.
Richard M (15:01:00) :
“As I mentioned in another thread, I just saw this issue discussed on CNN for the first time. The spin was amazing. They stated the old 2500 scientists support AGW.”
They keep saying something like this. Let’s someone please challenge them with “Names, please.” Not just the names CITED by the IPCC, but the names of scientists explicitly endorsing CAWG in all its glory. Monbiat or someone should send around a poll. It will be useful to get these guys to put their names on a dotted line, so they can’t scuttle away later.
One interesting question to ask on the questionnaire would be, “What material have you read from the climate critics camp?” (My guess is that most have only read stuff ABOUT it.)
(16:06:19) :
The previous classic “NASA understands…….”
In the interest of accuracy: NOAA, I believe. Can’t ask for precision from others…
So, Mr. Seitter,
How many studies exist that do not use hadcrut or GISSTEMP as the baseline for determining the precision of their own proxies?
I’ll be waitig over here when you have an answer for me.
Yawn.
[Note: your email address is not valid, a valid email address is required to continue posting here]
“For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small”
How do they get this one?
We have 4 temperature records, two are used by the IPCC witch comparing notes.
We have 1 place to get our CO2 readings from it’s Mauna Loa.
We have 1 source we get past CO2 from that are Ice cores.
We have 1 source for historical temperatures reconstruction from 12 trees, corals and lake sediments used as proxies for temperature.
I wouldn’t call that a very large sample.
Spending billions one would think they have at least 2 ore more CO2 measuring stations just for redundancy.
Perhaps find another way to determine the CO2 contend of the past other than Ice cores.
Come to think about it what did they do with all the grand money besides party in Bali.
mathman (15:16:56) :
“Last time I heard, the Sun is variable.”
Over a relevant period, say 100 years, TSI is so close to invariant that it doesn’t matter. Variation ~ 1 out of 1000. Precision in argumentation really is important. The opponent must never be given a free point on which to divert.
This blow out reminds me the housing melt down. Ohio’s AG is how suing the three security rating firms on behalf of the State’s pension funds for not during their jobs of “Do Diligent”.
Nicholas Harding is right. This may lead to a lot of lawsuits.
There will be a new meaning to “Do Diligent” in the science world.
AMS will reconsider their statement in 2012?!?
It’s worse than we thought! We must take action now!! By 2012 your organization will be thoroughly discredited.
“For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small.”
First, I bet they haven’t read or considered anything from outside the reservation, although there have been a couple of dozen books published critical of CAWGery. I doubt that they invited critics to give presentations or provide input when they were formulating their position on the matter. Not being familiar with the critics’ case, the ACS can’t really be sure how solid their position really is. (I think their supposed confidence in their stance is largely based on sociological & psychological factors, primarily a nose-up, indirectly self-flattering marginalization of deviants & uncredentialed outsiders.)
But the more important point (putting aside the hockey stick) isn’t about the inaccuracy of the HADCRUT temperature record. It’s correct about the general shape of the trend of the temperature record of the past 150 years or so. Their little fiddlings with it don’t amount to much.
The important thing is that the top guys in the field were willing to fiddle at all. They had their thumb on the scale, undetected and unsuspected by the “peers.” IOW, there seems to be a pervasive bias towards alarmism in the field, and an end-justifies-the-means attitude, along with an uncritical, bandwagon mentality.
So there needs to be a fresh look at the entirety of so-called climate science by panels of uninvolved scientists. How “robust” is it, really? We deserve to know, before we commit economic hari kari.
Someone mentioned four sources of historical temperature data, two of which now appear compromised, perhaps fatally. What are the other two?
“… The [AMS] statement is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature. …”
Well there’s your problem right there!
Seldom have I read such a blatant ass covering snow job as this apart from the UEA ass covering snow job, it could have come from a bent conglomerate excusing their dodgy baby walker or poisoned food product.
Are they trying to con us or themselves here?
They fell for the scam, they were taken in like prize mugs, they bought into the lies and fraud and now the scam has been uncovered they run for hills, bolt the doors and stick their fingers in their ears.
I suspect that a great many gullible useful idiot groups taken in and used are going to be red faced now, a lazy approach to the science at the very least taking the word of a small group of scientists at face value with no quality control checks and then using this unchecked polluted data as a central plank of their own corporate narrative. They built their castle on sand, sold to them by fraudsters and who is ultimately to blame for that?
Keith Seitter is saying precisely nothing in answer to the inquiries concerning Climategate.
John Skookum: Satellite based UAH and RSS, but only since 1979.
Richard M (15:01:00) wrote:
“… Obama was still planning on going to Copenhagen and committing to a 17% reduction in emissions by 2020 and 80% by 2050. They also quoted polls that stated 72% of Americans believed in AGW.”
No U.S. president can be a U.S. signatory to any international treaty without congressional approval, which for this case, currently has little to no chance in the Senate. Obama is just going to look like he did when he failed to secure the Olympics for Chicago. When his handlers got wind of Climategate, they hurriedly queued up his teleprompter with this message about a 17% reduction by 2020 fearing that time was running out for pulling the wool over all the sheeple – but it’s just all talk and no substance. Also I’m not sure of the percentage, but more than 50% of U.S. citizens do not believe in AGW.
…the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small – Keith L. Seitter
However, if the HADCRUT temp sereies turns out to be non-reliable then all papers and models that relied on HADCRUT will need to be revisited.
And all the papers and models that relied on the previous set will need to be revisited.
And all the papers and models that relied on the second set………..
Or am I greatly mistaken?
‘Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited’ – Keith L. Seitter
I just wish I was smart enough to know how to predict the final outcome without knowing any of the results from the intermediate steps.
With that sort of ability I could become a …..yeah, a climatologist!!!
” The statement is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature…..”
….originating at Hadley CRU.
So pi$$ off, peasants.
So the science is fake but the conclusions are real?
Scientists by their very nature may become so involved in stats and data, charts, etc. that they sometimes can’t see the forest for the info. My point being
that despite co2 rising for the last few years, temps have remained the same or declined. So, as claims for catastrophic heat continues to come from the august heights, I suggest we start to prepare for colder weather. Then, I suggest we use all the suspect charts and data to build a great bonfire. After that I suggest we start over collecting climate data to be reviewed equally by warmists and deniers. It seems that 10 years of stable temps demand a very hard look at the emperors wardrobe.
The AMS through its press release just made a political forecast:
ClimateGate is a class 0.01 hurricane and will soon blow over. The clouds will part. The sun will shine. And we will soon resume our rightful place in politically correct society.
I hope the AMS is better at predicting weather than predicting public response. The AMS better hope they’re not.