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
♪♪♪
I’m gonna lay down my heavy load
Down by the riverside
Down by the riverside
Down by the riverside
I’m gonna lay down my heavy load
Down by the riverside ♪♪♪
Dr Mr Fox. I hope this message finds you well. If I could just ask a favour? Whilst my husband and I are on our well deserved annual junket-fest would you be so kind as to check the security of our chicken-coop from time to time? Thanks in advance, Tabitha Puddleduck.
If anyone has been to a Royal Society meeting they would know that it nowadays truly is the most prominent insane asylum being run by its lunatic inmates. Their group-think herd mentality borders on mass hysteria.
I am not trying to be funny. This is become war and everything is fair. I would expect nothing less from the vested interests involved in assuring and indoctrinating the riff-raff that mankind is evil and deserves to pay in blood for expecting reward for his labours.
From the removal of posts on the Grauniad because they may let some light into that midden of offensive creepy-crawlies, to the positioning of bought and paid for lackeys in the committees of the formerly respected scientific institutions. From the spittle flecked rantings of the true believers to the carefully crafted machinations of clever and sophisticated heads of commerce. From the baaing of the sheep to the baying of the wolves.
A bit dramatic? War? Surely not?
‘Fraid so old chap. Their inflation busting, pension fund rescuing, bailout redeeming, futures marketing depends solely upon the trillions of dollars that will flood the carbon commodity exchanges of their collective fantasy. Even the Chinese recognise this.
There is no other bubble of that magnitude anywhere in sight. The final frontier is as of this week, a thing of the past. The WWW is already invented. Y3K is 990 years away. Anyone attempting to rock their boat and rob them of their dream by seeking such frivolities as truth and openness is their enemy.
Does anyone else here think that the only way we are ever going to make an indent is to hit the politicians where it really hurts … no not there! …. in the ballot box.
Now here in the UK, they are just about to have an election, and there’s no doubt that there’s a left-right bias on the climate.
If people started standing in marginal Conservative seats … the kind they could loose by a few hundred votes … and the climate skeptics were threatening to get a few hundred votes, it’d really piss off the Tories off and could even loose them the election.
We don’t have long to start this threat rolling, but if the Tories see we are serioius about taking this issue to marginal tory seats, they may do the maths and work out it’s better to follow the populus and become, show their, climate sceticism.
The cost is relative low – a full campaign + party registration could be run for as little as £1500/seat.
If you go to the RSoc website (given above), you will see that they are totally dacoure with the AGW dogma. As a Brit’, I am shocked and embarassed that so illustrious a body as this displays such a shallow knowledge of the subject, even compared to CRU, et al. Their explanation of how CO2 acts as a “greenhouse” gas doe’s not meet the standards I would expect of a High School graduate. Their review of UEA’s CRU work will be no more that old pals scratching each-others’ backs. It seems that in matters such as AGW, winning the scientific argument is not the challenge, but overcoming close-minded ignorance is.
RS 1: agreed – the isotope eveidence is cinvincing
RS2: unproven. We have been, on average, warming up from tje LIA for centuries
RS3: CO2 that long ago is irrelevant.
RS4: same point – recvery from LIA
RS5: in spades. the models say constant temp since 1000AD (new evidence shows the MWP and the LIA were global), and that temps would be rocketing by now. THEY ARE NOT.
RS6: agreed
RS7: Herschel spotted the sunspot influemce on weather/climate 200 years ago.
RS8: It’s cheapet to mitigate climate change than to reversrse it.
Two out of eight wouldn’t impress Meatloaf.
The comparisons to Enron and the WMD fiascos are instructive. I also think the situation is similar to the CIA and the NSA taken by complete surprise when the Soviet Union imploded. The primary missions of these organizations were to monitor and report on the Soviet Threat, so of course they couldn’t even conceive of the possibility that the Threat was about to vanish… Similarly people who are employed to monitor and analyze human induced climate change will not conclude that human induced climate change is not a grave problem.
On the 24th November the Royal Society issued a joint press statement with the Met Office on Climate Science. I can only assume this is in the wake of the CRU e-mail hack and was an attempt to assure the public on the veracity and openness of Climate Science
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091124a.html
Authors were :-
Prof. Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist, Met Office
Prof. Alan Thorpe, Chief Executive, Natural Environment Research Council
Lord Rees, President, the Royal Society
This statement included the following passage:-
“Year-on-year the evidence is growing that damaging climate and weather events — potentially intensified by global warming — are already happening and beginning to affect society and ecosystems. This includes:
In the UK, heavier daily rainfall leading to local flooding such as in the summer of 2007.”
Anybody reading this passage is left with the strong impression that Scientific Evidence existed that proved the summer floods of 2007 were caused by Climate Change or were part of likely climate change scenarios for the UK. I am further confused because the next line down says that the summer drought and heat wave of 2003 was also part of likely climate change scenarios. So according to the statement a cool wet summer in UK and a hot dry summer are both indicators of trends caused by CO2 induced climate change !!!!!!!
I was unlucky enough to be directly involved in the 2007 Avon/Severn flooding, I got my feet wet! so I did, out of interest, keep up to date with any science reporting of the likely cause.
An excellent scientific analysis was produced on the 2007 floods by CEH a part of Prof. Alan Thorpe’s Natural Environment Research Council.
http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news/news_archive/2008_news_item_05.html
And I quote from the press release for this report:
Lead author, Terry Marsh, comments: “The river floods of summer 2007 were a very singular episode, which does not form part of any clear historical trend or show consistency with currently favoured climate change scenarios.”
Mr Marsh adds: “The exceptional river flooding last summer fuelled speculation that flood risk is increasing due to global warming. Due to the inherent variability of the UK climate, any extreme hydrological event cannot readily be linked directly to climate change.”
So what do I make of all of that! The President of the Royal Society chooses to assure me of the veracity of Climate science with an illustration of a climate event where the scientific evidence says the event is not connected to climate change.
I’ve just been checking the marginal seats, and there are around 14 target seats the Tories would be hoping to take over from Labour, which another party taking less than 400 votes from the Tories could cause to be lost to the Tories at the election.
Bearing in mind Labour have quite a big majority of 57 at the moment, and 14 seats not going Tory and staying Labour, would mean e.g. a change from a majority of 28 into a hung parliament, then a miniscule vote of just 6000 people spread over 14 well chosen seats could basically threaten to unseat the next Tory government!!!!
400 votes – a marginal party could easily get that in a single ward in a council election – getting that in a general election is Monster raving loony easy!
That would be a threat they simply couldn’t ignore!
Here’s my current list of target seats:
Wakefield
Lincoln
Pudsey
Waveney
Norwich North
Reading West
Conwy
Blackpool North and Fleetwood
Brentford and Isleworth
Bolton North East
Dudley South
Keighley
Northampton North
Morecambe and Lunesdale
IsoTherm (14:03:22) :
In the current political climate (8~) I would wager that someone standing for the WeLoveCO2 party in a marginal constituency could end up with a member of parliament. Peter Snow would be a sight to behold on that night.
One of the guys here keeps saying that any mainstream party that breaks ranks first would gain a landslide. Some people back away when he says “even the Labour party”. I am a sceptic but I wouldn’t bet aginst him on that.
I wonder if it could be mobilized swiftly enough.
The consequences stemming from the cover up are always worse than the consequences of the original crime. UEA and the Royal Society are just digging a deeper hole.
Mike Ramsey
Terry, “I wonder if it could be mobilized swiftly enough.”
According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7963814.stm) you need a constitution, £150, a leader and a treasurer. Would you prefer treasurer or leader?
Seriously it is that simple!
On top of that you might want a website – £25.
To stand at election you need £500 for the deposit, and most people will print 20,000 or so leaflets which will be delivered for free by the post office – that’s about £500. Another few hundred for posters, and even a couple of people willing to knock on doors and you could easily swing a marginal seat.
The great thing with the plan, is that the aim is not to stand! And if you don’t stand all you loose is £150. Yes, £150, is all you need to “encourage” the Tories to follow their brains and become scientifically sceptical of Weather of Mass Destruction scaremongerers.
Oops — I meant to de-indent that 2nd para.
If the assertions by University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor that the “published papers from CRU have gone through the rigorous and intensive peer review” and that defense of CRU “conduct and the published work” has been so strong – why would it be of interest to all concerned that there should be an additional “independent” assessment?
It is well past time for these guys to admit that 1) it isn’t at ALL unreasonable – in a matter of this import – to ‘show your work’ and 2) the personal and professional behaviors over many years by the LEADERS in this work has dealt Climate Science, CRU, EAU, and – perhaps more broadly – science itself – and collosal blow.
Someone in charge in the UK must have some ethics – where the hell ARE they ? This is so damn obvious!
Show me the data, show me the corrections (and why), tie the base data to geography, and then demonstrate how the data tie to your grid.
It aint rocket science boys.
Thanks layne Blanchard (10:59:38)
I’ll try wrap my head around specifics when I get more answers. I’m wading into the marshes as we speak. So far I’ve been more inclined to agree with CAGW lately. It’s beginning to make sense (sorry fellow skeptics).
Dan Lee (09:29:31) :
This is how respectable science societies and science journals will end up following the daily newspaper into slow oblivion. Their currency is credibility, and if they lose that they will have nothing left of value.
————-
No. You have it backwards. The learned societies and peer reviewed journals are ‘protesting’ their own credence vigorously.
For them, the scientific case for AGW is inherently weak and unconvincing. This lack of conviction resides with those experts, themselves. It is they who feel compelled to posture. It is they who proclaim their own credibility as the fundamental basis for strengthening their argument.
They have already lost the debate. It is the scientific version of “Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies”.
Sure they got caught with their pants down, but does anyone really think that they will roll over and admit it without real coercion? They will obfuscate and whitewash in any way possible – they have huge funding to protect as well as their not-so-valuable reputations.
My email to the CRU leadership, as well as the media and the FOI office:
Professor Trevor Davies
Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and Knowledge Transfer
Dear Professor Davies:
You are inviting the Royal Society to conduct an “independent inquiry” of the CRU scandal? Are you kidding? They are one of the largest supporters of the AGW theory, of course they will whitewash the results entirely.
What are you guys thinking? If you want to have any hope of restoring your shredded credibility, find somebody to do the inquiry who has not stated many times that they think the CRU is blameless and that the CRU data is valid. Find someone whose web site doesn’t say that they have already bought your story, hook, line and sinker. Their web site has a section saying “Debunking climate change myths”, and you think they are “independent”? Get real! Get someone who is actually independent.
You know, someone neutral. I know this is a strange idea to you, but putting the fox in charge of the hen-house is generally not seen as an “independent inquiry”
Whoever designed this farrago is tone-deaf. All this is doing is getting your institution laughed at all over the world. Is that truly what you want?
You guys truly f*cked me regarding my FOI request … but now you’re f*cking yourselves with this nonsense. Strange as it may seem, as a scientist, I would like to see you regain your credibility, which has been destroyed by Phil Jones and his monumental stupidity. Your actions have damaged all of science, and I would love to see you get back on course.
But you will never regain your credibility by having your friends investigate your misconduct. That’s what got Phil into trouble in the first place, having his friends peer-review his papers … and you want to do it all over again? Really?
See my description of your many examples of scientific malfeasance, and how you illegally and immorally denied my FOI request, at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole…/
Please, please, don’t do this. You have already caused immense damage to science, and now you are setting out to do more damage. Get someone independent to do your inquiry, the Royal Society is neither neutral nor independent in this matter.
Interesting blog drawing parallels between AGW and the eugenics movement in the first half of the 20th century. He makes a good point that when science is politicised it soon stops becoming science and instead becomes propaganda and belief, :
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html
Note that if the raw data is deleted and the ‘science’ can not be reproduced, it is invalid.
In no other branch of science could raw data be deleted and so making the conclusion simply a ‘claim’ without any proof. [eg. CERN ‘we discovered the Higgs boson. We deleted the data, but we did, honest, just trust us. We’re CERN, would we lie to you?’]
The CRU are simply claiming a result but can not prove it – that is not science in any sense. Saying ‘I showed it to a friend and he agreed I was right’ is not enough. The point is that it should be reproducible by someone who hates your guts and wants to prove you are wrong. That is the POINT of SCIENCE : that it can stand up to scrutiny.
Errm! I seem to be repeating myself in various ways, but ANY scientist should agree that if the result can not be reproduced from the raw data it is not science!
Deleting raw data is like Enron shredding documents in the final days – getting rid of the evidence for the fraud.
Here is the BBC take on this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8510498.stm
Well, the story continues. To his credit, Professor Davies responded promptly to my letter, and the dialogue continues, viz:
>>Then, in 1979, Mrs Margaret Thatcher became Prime
>>Minister of the UK, and she elevated the hypothesis (AGW)
>>to the status of a major international policy issue.
So Maggie invernted the AGW scare in order to win a domestic political dispute with the UK coal miners (NUM), who were responsible for most of our CO2 output; oh, and responsible for trying to bring Maggie’s government to its knees and replace it with Soviet Communism.
So an obscure climate cause, created locally by the political right against the Communists and Trotskies of the NUM miners union, has now gone global as a Left wing campaign to scare the political right and create a Socialist world government??
Did I miss something there?
Its a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
.
“”Wow, now I’m all excited about who the assessors will be, and whether their identities will be secret, or subject to FOI requests. I can think of a few good ones; Mike Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Caspar Ammann, Eugene Wahl, Ray Bradley, Rasmus Benestad, Stefan Rahmstorf, Grant Foster, William Connolley…””
Now here is who they should really have at the R.s for this job.
Martin Wilmking.
http://biogeo.botanik.uni-greifswald.de/index.php?id=459
and
Marina Gurskaya
http://biogeo.botanik.uni-greifswald.de/index.php?id=415
Now THEY would do a really good job of auditing the CRU.
😉
.
Right. Missed the significance of this page yesterday.
As soon as poss (later today) I shall establish a set of pages at Neutralpedia, specifically to address these Royal Society “Debunking climate change myths” statements. It seems really important to have such statements of high calibre, in the public domain, agreed to by a collaborating (NOT consensus) climate realist / skeptic / lukewarmer community. This focus might well help shift Neutralpedia from alpha to beta state. Have a look at the introduction to Neutralpedia that I wrote last week. This time, unlike at Wikipedia, the ball is in our court so that although RC types can post there (and produce useful criticisms and edits), we have the power to curb or ban them.
These are the Royal Society’s titles (RealClimate, BBC, Skeptical Science all have their own variations):-
Misleading argument 1: ’Climate change is nothing to do with humans’
Misleading argument 2: ’CO2 not responsible for global warming’
Misleading argument 3: ’Rises in CO2 occur after global warming, not before’
Misleading argument 4: ’Temperature observations don’t support the theory’
Misleading argument 5: ’Global warming computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable’
Misleading argument 6: ’Global warming is all to do with the sun’
Misleading argument 7: ’The climate is actually affected by cosmic rays’
Misleading argument 8: ’The negative effects of climate change are overstated’