CRU to have old papers peer reviewed again
When you’ve worked in radio and television news for 30 years as I have, you get an eye for spotting rubbish. My rubbish detector went full tilt when I read this press release (see below) from UEA announcing they were going to have an “independent external reappraisal” of their peer reviewed publications.
I suppose that they think this move will be a “double plus good” public relations win for their work and for the organization. Perhaps it will be seen that way by a select few. But, review by the Royal Society, which has in the past done little if any significant questioning of its own about climate research, and in fact has a web page full of statements that are in line with the findings of many CRU papers, suggests that the Royal Society cannot be objective in this matter. It suggests that the investigation’s outcome is predetermined and only an exercise for the benefit of bolstering the appearance of high scientific standards via name dropping. It suggests a whitewash. I hope I’m wrong.
UEA/CRU would have gained much more public trust and avoided criticsms like this by choosing a truly independent review organization that has not made any public statements about their position on climate change.
Here’s what the Royal Society Climate Change web page has on it:
Debunking climate change myths
Scientists give their personal opinions on climate change
For example, the Royal Society has this on their web page under the heading: Misleading Arguments.
Misleading argument 4: ’Temperature observations don’t support the theory’
The central issue about CRU which led to the Climategate affair, which has led to this supposedly independent investigation, is that CRU wouldn’t share the temperature data and took illegal steps to suppress FOI requests from those who wanted to replicate the work to determine whether or not “Temperature observations don’t support the theory”. In fact if you follow that link at the Royal Society, they don’t question surface measurements at all, but discuss instead why satellite measurements don’t agree with surface measurements. The message is that the Royal Society does not question the surface record.
With Royal Society having statements like that on their web page which already don’t question the central issue from which the investigation arose, I suspect the outcome statement will be something like this:
“While it is clear that requests for data sharing and FOI requests were handled improperly, our independent review team found that the research conducted by CRU has been done properly, within correct standards consistent with the scientific practices recognized by the Royal Society, and the conclusions are robust”.
Meanwhile, we still don’t have what has been asked for in the first place: full data, procedures, and code. You won’t find a release like that on the UEA press page.
From the University of East Anglia press office:
New scientific assessment of climatic research publications announced
Thu, 11 Feb 2010
An independent external reappraisal of the science in the Climatic Research Unit’s (CRU) key publications has been announced by the University of East Anglia.
The Royal Society will assist the University in identifying assessors with the requisite expertise, standing and independence.
“Published papers from CRU have gone through the rigorous and intensive peer review process which is the keystone for maintaining the integrity of scientific research,” said Professor Trevor Davies, the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Enterprise and Engagement. “That process and the findings of our researchers have been the subject of significant debate in recent months. Colleagues in CRU have strenuously defended their conduct and the published work and we believe it is in the interests of all concerned that there should be an additional assessment considering the science itself.”
The independent reassessment will complement Sir Muir Russell’s Review of the key allegations about the handling of data arising from the publication of a series of e-mails hacked from CRU. Sir Muir’s Review is expected to announce its finding in Spring 2010.
The reassessment of CRU’s key publications will be completed at the earliest date the assessors can manage. The findings will be made public
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony,
“I suppose that they think this move will be a “double plus good” public relations win for their work and for the organization.”
Scandals are best dealt with via a prompt admission of guilt to some minor infraction and a few voluntary firings. Endless efforts to proclaim innocence merely keep one in the negative headlines.
From a PR standpoint the best thing would be for Phil Jones to resign in disgrace and quietly take up work as Prince Charles’s personal climatologist or something. The monarchy is pretty good about making sure those that fall on their sword are taken care of.
Marvin (09:15:23) :
To get specific instances, you’d want to ask over on E M Smith’s site. (Chiefio)
or at Climate Audit. In one of Smith’s earlier postings, he mentioned he had found the data he used on their sites, mentioning that it was there for those with the patience to dig for it.
As mentioned by others above, some of the data made available has already been “adjusted”. Smith or McIntyre could tell you explicitly, but you may have difficulty understanding the specifics.
” ,,,Anthropogenic Co2 in our atmosphere amounts to 0.117%, ,,,”
David, I think your arithmetic is off a bit. There currently are 388.63 ppm (source: http://www.co2now.org) which amounts to .039%. Something like 23% of that is from human sources (since 1900). So that would mean that human created CO2 in the atmosphere today is something like .009% of all the atmosphere.
The rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently about 2 ppm. So if we assume that humans are causing even 50% of that 2 ppm, then annual human activity accounts for .0001% of the total atmosphere. Warmest want humans to reduce that by 20% to “save the planet”. So we are now talking about .00008% of the atmosphere driving the temperature in the rest of the atmosphere.
Amazing how powerful CO2 is, huh? More amazing is how many humans believe that by controlling .00008% of the atmosphere will have such a huge impact on the global temperatures. I liken it to trying to influence the speed of a vehicle by tugging on the windshield wiper.
This is why I am an AGW skeptic.
Sorry it is OT, but this could really be the start of something
Dave McK (18:46:21) :
http://www.epalawsuit.com/
“Representing 13 U.S. Representatives, 17 companies and associations and itself, the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) today filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, challenging the Endangerment Finding on carbon dioxide emissions issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in December 2009. In December,”
“Further investigation – as well as review of recent disclosures by a whistleblower at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Copenhagen conference failures, and “Climategate” disclosures of alleged data fraud – reveal that the matter of human-caused (anthropogenic) climate change is anything but “settled science.””
The data already got outed, it spoke, and it has “Fabro-Manipulation Cherry Pick” written all over it.
So, I have a new one for the Climate Steering Commitees:
Global WarmSteering causes Climate Institutional Squealing.
(psst…hey buddy…. is that your stuck pig over there, or did someone Gore your Ox?)
This is just UK politics aka. post-normal science at work as usual. In spite of the fact that we, the public, pay for all this crap, we are not allowed to know that it is crap. Whitewash doesn’t disguise crap for very long.
Ray (09:25:41) :
Anything with the word Royal in it is no good… with the exception, of course, of Crown Royal scotch, a fine Canadian scotch.
Try Royal Lochnagar 12years old, if you can. There’s also Royal Brackla (still producing), and there used to be Glenury Royal (which is now very rare). Not everything called ‘Royal’ is bad, but some of the people aren’t too hot.
Here’s a thought … in Ravetz’s essay, he indicates that he has an overall grasp of Climategate, its antecedents etc (which is perhaps why on first glance it appears so beguiling and refreshing). Tallbloke wrote (in response to Willis’s concerns – which many of us share):
“[Ravetz] has willingly embarked on a personal deprogramming exercise of his own accord. In salvaging his intellectual wealth from the mess of his mistaken convictions, he has seen that the principles of PNS actually describe what the sceptical blogosphere has been up to and what it is demanding quite well. Good work brought forward by unconventional non ‘normal-science’ means, utilising leaked documents and investigative journalism to clear a path for it’s elevation to equal status with entrenched dogma”.
If tallbloke – who obviously has engaged Ravetz more than any of us – is correct, and Ravetz really has “deprogrammed” himself, and really is on our side – perhaps now is the time for Ravetz to strongly and publicly advocate that this is a perfect opportunity for the Royal Society to apply his concept of “extended peer review”, so as to ensure that the voices that should really should be heard, are in fact given the weight they deserve.
The Royal Society has already made up its collective mind on climate change and CO2 – see its web page referenced at the start of this blog and its helpful(sarc) guide to “misleading arguments”
Published papers from CRU have gone through the rigorous and intensive peer review process which is the keystone for maintaining the integrity of scientific research,” said Professor Trevor Davies, the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Enterprise and Engagement.
No worries, it’s another “Post-Normal” Peer Review, so what could possibly go wrong? My god, doesn’t anyone around here want to save the World?
Just post it on the internet and allow public comments. Require a user to register before posting if desired.
I think you should remember that it was publication by Briffa in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society and their absolute requirement that details of the data in his paper be disclosed that gave Steve McIntyre the first insight into how conclusions were formed from the Yamal tree ring data. If it had not been for this policy of the Royal Society Steve McIntyre might still be waiting and “Climategate” might not have happened. The Royal Society may be blinkered in their approach to climate change but they have done those questioning the science surrounding climate change a considerable service.
Raven (09:51:19) :
Meanwhile, the “independent” investigation which was supposed to investigate the emails has annouced to the world that it is a sham with no interest in getting to the truth by appointing panel members which are already on record saying there is nothing of significance in the emails.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/11/russell-review-under-way.html
…Dr Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief for Nature journal has stepped down from the panel after a Channel 4 journalist found out he had already dismissed the UAE email debacle as “not a scandal” in an interview.
Great start then for the “inquiry”.
Phil Cambell resigns from CRU enquiry!
Anthony says ‘….suggests that the Royal Society cannot be objective…..’
Absolutely correct and for 1 good reason……the Royal Society relies upon what it quaintly calls ‘Parliamentary Grant in Aid’ for 68.2% of its funding.
It hardly augers as a truly ‘independent’ organisation, does it?
I have been reading a bit lately about Robert Hook and the early years of the Royal Society.
Hook was happy to question everybody and everything, like even Newton. We need more like him now. We need a recognition that science needs to be rigorous.
Today we simply have toadying.
That should be Phil Campbell editor of Nature.
@Henry Chance
Enron was audited by Anderson CPA’s. Anderson Consulting had around 25 million dollar contract to run IT for Enron. So it was Anderson CPA’s auditing Anderson Consulting. (now named Accenture)
It is a legal ethics failure for a CPA to both prepare financials and to audit them.
Although the situation described could potentially be a conflict of interest, there are problems with these statements from a historical accuracy perspective, not to mention missing the better comparison to Aurthur Andersen.
Andersen Consulting and Aurthur Anderson had their roots in the same company, but Andersen Consulting, now Accenture, was a completely independent organization starting in 1989. It paid an annual royalty for the use of the Andersen name, at least until 1998 when it launched its initial breach of contract claims against Aurthur Andersen who started competing division.
By the time the whole Enron scandal broke, Accenture was already the Andersen Consulting trade name. Believe me when I say, Aurthur Andersen would have taken great joy in showing the people at Andersen Consulting to be utter buffoons. Here’s the thing though, Andersen Consulting did not prepare the financials for Enron. Enron did that themselves, as most major Fortune 500s do. Aurthur Andersen audited them. Andersen Consulting was strictly an IT Services provider.
Enron’s downfall was mostly around the decision of a small number of Enron employees to account for special interest entities (SPEs) as fully autonomous. The problem came in that the entities had parental debt guarantees that were not being consolidated on to Enron’s books. As a result, they were reaping windfall profits with no formal declaration of the exposure to Enron’s shareholders, giving the false appearance of sustainable arbitrage. They were minting money.
As a point of technical interest, from a FASB accounting rules standpoint, Enron was GAAP compliant because they had met a rediculously low standard for entity capitalization, which was ~3% at the time. The problem came when an Aurthur Andersen accountant realized the shell game that was going on and decided to halt the gravy train. She basically said, “There is a very material, undisclosed risk here. It needs to be reported or we cannot sign off on you financials.”
At that point, the group which had been using this loophole immediately realized the implications. The majority of their net worth was tied up in the value of Enron stock. Full disclosure would essentially bankrupt them, make it so that they could never retire and open them up for public ridicule. They could also kiss the chance of ever getting another high profile job somewhere else goodbye. Faced with this reality, they did what most people of their ilk would. They covered it up.
That’s where the real comparison to Enron lies. CRU leadership and their “co-conspirators” met the technical definition of compliance for their peer-reviewed literature. They spun a story that brought them fame and international notoriety. Following from that were grants. Much of it went on in an unquestioned manner for several years. Then Climate Audit happened. When the cracks started to appear, e.g. data being questioned, math errors, allegations of improper application of statistics, gaming the peer review system, etc… they denied it was a problem and covered it up. Because it threatened not only their financial stability, but their professional credentials. Their most valued possession. The one thing they will fight to preserve the most, even when they may be in the wrong.
Now here’s the final kicker. Although Hubris brought down Enron, the investments made in most of the SPEs were not bad ones. Most of them still are running today, creating wealth for the people that bought them. The fact is, Enron management actually made good decisions, based on strong analyses. But when public confidence was rocked, the value of Enron plummeted to something far below its actual value. Enron stock values would and should have fallen when the disclosure was made, but to nowhere near the levels that it did. By covering it up, they lost the ability to provide guidance around the scope of the omission and contain the damage.
In the end, that may be what happens to the people involved in the CRU crisis/scandal. Enron was not making as much money on a risk adjusted basis as was being reported, but make no mistake, they were making money. This is very akin to CRU which has shown broad based global warming. The warming may be there. Some or all of it may be anthropogenic. However, many people will not be able to have confidence in the answer until the question of “whether there is global warming, and to what extent” is being answered by those not involved in the cover-up(s). To be a high value institution again, CRU will require new leadership, regardless of whether prior leadership was actually doing a good job or not.
Ian:
The Royal Society may be blinkered in their approach to climate change but they have done those questioning the science surrounding climate change a considerable service.
I know what you mean, but isn’t that what they’re supposed to do as regular Science? I guess maybe we’ll just have to wait to find out whether they will continue to do so or whether Post Normal “thinking” prevails.
They haven’t invented the Whitewash yet that hides the smell.
Don’t fence me in.
The ‘dead giveaway’ is when you see reviewers fleeing from the stricken institution holding their noses.
As Jim Carey would say, “Whew…! Do not go in there”.
Absolutely would not trust these fancy “investigative” panels to deliver beans. Bureaucratic departments disbursing monies over decades have no more interest in disclosing their ideological subtexts on behalf of a self-interested Big Government partisan agenda that in flying to the moon. Over decades, these distinguished gentlemen now occupying committee seats have made exactly zero effort to ensure the integrity –nevermind the common sense or even objective rationality– of their organizations’ multi-trillion dollar Luddite prognostications. How could they, when the data-inputs, evaluative techniques, conclusions are literal fabrications, prima facie deceitful and inept, indicative of nothing save a willingness to churn out alarmist propaganda of the most destructive sort?
In mathematical and physical fact, linear extrapolations from complex dynamic systems, any global “atmospheric greenhouse effect” anthropogenic or otherwise, are impossible. “Climate science” is not an empirical, experimental discipline, but a hindsight-oriented botanical exercise, no more amenable to projection than are species mutations per Mendel. The fact that ineluctable long-term cycles indeed are well-defined, tending to recurrent patterns which make nonsense of Climate Cultists’ “expert” claims, is proof enough that context and perspective necessarily trump self-important “mere opinion”.
The 1.8 – 2.6 million-year Pleistocene Era probably has some 12 – 14+ million years to run. Ice Age remissions such as our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch typically last some 12,250 years. Absent a 1,500-year “cold shock” known as the Younger Dryas which ended c. BC 8800, the Holocene would likely have terminated about AD 500, coincident with the Fall of Rome. Now as Earth enters on a 20-year chill phase, perhaps a 70-year “dead sun” Maunder Minimum, odds are that another 102,000-year Ice Time is long overdue.
I must have lost my marbles. But havn’t these guys deleted all of their raw data? Isn’t that how they got out of the pickle they were in. FOA’s won’t work, all the data is gone. How can anybody perform a peer review of anything they have done, when none of the original data exists!!! Why in the world would the Royal Society agree to peer review the [self-snip] that these guys publish?
Slowly but surely the truth is comeing out, even the weather is against these guys, or do they really think the sheeple will continue to swallow warmist propaganda in the face of ongoing cold weather.
The high temp where I live today is forcast to be 22 degrees below the normal high, and it does not look like it will be that warm. I could use a little global warming, and I can’t imagine what my heating bill would be if cap and trade were in effect!!!
They’re drinking too much of Prince Charles’ herbal hair tonics if they think we will ever trust the Royal Society or UEA again.
Like Smersh investigating NKVD role in Katyn shooting. They have no shame.
Although it is widely held that the Royal Society is the gold standard of scientific review I know that several FsRS have already decided that Anthoprogenic Global Warming is an established fact. Taken with the participation of the editor of Nature, whose bias is already apparent is several recent editorials and the presence of David Eyton, BP Research Director, the bias in favour of a whitewash becomes overwhelming.
It is of interest that BP recently renewed a contract with Princeton to investigate climate change that ran from 2000 to 2010, now extended to 2015.
See: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/10/17/21842/
Eyton is clearly not going to be easily persuaded that this expenditure was a complete waste of shareholder’s money.
“The challenge of climate change requires policy development at all levels: global, national and local,” Eyton said. “Our work with Princeton is an example of BP’s commitment to collaborative research, and has already provided a vital contribution to the pace of policy development.”
A kind of King Tut’s malediction it’s stalking them….they’re just trying to get the hell out of it!