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
Cracking letter, Willis E.
@ur momisugly Willis Eschenbach “Because if you pick the weasel, when the weasel turns in his marshmallow report that exonerates you except for a few minor items, and he pats you on your tummy and blows in your ear and says that everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds, I assure you that no one will believe it.”
what are you on about? how do expect anyone to respond to this nonsense/drivel?
Simon (03:32:17) :
@ur momisugly Willis Eschenbach “Because if you pick the weasel, when the weasel turns in his marshmallow report that exonerates you except for a few minor items, and he pats you on your tummy and blows in your ear and says that everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds, I assure you that no one will believe it.”
what are you on about? how do expect anyone to respond to this nonsense/drivel?
But Willis is correct. The purpose of government and establishment reports is not to convince people, but to give them a fence to hide behind. They don’t care whether we believe them; they only care about staying in charge. As long as we keep paying their salaries, we don’t matter a fig.
Simon (03:32:17) :
@ur momisugly Willis Eschenbach “Because if you pick the weasel, when the weasel turns in his marshmallow report that exonerates you except for a few minor items, and he pats you on your tummy and blows in your ear and says that everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds, I assure you that no one will believe it.”
what are you on about? how do expect anyone to respond to this nonsense/drivel?
What, have you never read Waiting for Godot? The text is online.
You want to learn if the hen house is being raided and if so by whom. Chickens are missing and there are those who say they’ve simply walked away. Thus it is time to examine any evidence. It doesn’t appear the wolves are involved as they leave too much damage. Thus foxes look like the culprits. Therefore you do not involve foxes in the investigation, nor wolves just in case.
Since full-grown chickens are missing, it seems the weasels are not involved. However, they may go after chicks, and they appreciate the chicken leftovers of the foxes. Thus you do not want weasels involved in the investigation. They do not want the hen house fortified as that would impede their own entries. Thus, given the evidence appears to many to implicate the foxes, a weasel can be expected to report that yes, foxes were involved, but it was likely only one or two misguided ones, they now know better and it won’t be repeated, no further defenses are needed. And the weasel will report to the foxes that they shouldn’t have been so obvious, and this report is for the best since it will not be credible in the face of the evidence that the chickens simply walked off. Foxes needed to be blamed, so one or two will take the hit, and this is for the best as the foxes (and weasels) will be able to carry on as before except they need to better cover their tracks, at least leave the gate open so there is more evidence of the chickens leaving on their own.
Then the question arises, who should be in the investigation? The cows are completely outside the matter, save that they prefer the chickens to be quiet. No chickens at all would be quiet, thus they would not be a good choice, and they would be too eager to return to grazing to do a thorough investigation. The ducks and the geese don’t like the predators at all, so they would not be a good choice either.
Nah, you need to check with the snakes. If anything, they will go after the eggs, thus they want undisturbed happily-producing chickens. Outside the hen house they compete with the foxes and weasels for the small critters, also they have an interest in not allowing a wholesale assault against all predators as mere vermin. Thus they would be a good choice for the investigation, interested in properly assigning blame to exactly whomever is specifically responsible.
Do you see now? It is neither nonsense nor drivel, and makes perfect sense. Even a fool can see that. Especially a Fool. 😉
Stupid question here… How can they “review” the surface record if all the raw data was tossed out? If it hasn’t been tossed out and can be “replicated”, then data and methods should be released as requested in the various FOI requests.
John T (09:31:55) :
Stupid question here… How can they “review” the surface record if all the raw data was tossed out? If it hasn’t been tossed out and can be “replicated”, then data and methods should be released as requested in the various FOI requests.
As I understand it, the claim is the original raw data has been thrown out, all they have is the adjusted data. Therefore if a paper starts with the adjusted data, and shows conclusions that properly follow from the adjusted data, that paper can be declared just fine and acceptable.
If there are any papers to review that describe how the adjustments were done, then all they have to declare is the adjustments seem to have been done for logical and “scientifically robust” reasons, and those papers are exonerated.
Some major issues of contention are if the adjustments were done consistently, in a logical and professional manner, and not done in a way to introduce an artificial warming trend beyond what the raw data would show. However, since it seems unlikely any papers were done documenting all of adjustments to the historical data, thus needing the inclusion of the raw data, and there may also be no papers highlighting even individual examples of adjustments, those issues will likely not be properly addressed.
It may indeed be garbage in, garbage out, and all this review will do is show the garbage was properly handled and processed. It falls to us and others to point out that it is all still garbage.
Simon (03:32:17)
Simon, if you can’t understand what I’m on about, what are you doing here? Either up your game and do your homework until you can understand it, or go to some other site where people are saying things that you do understand.
Because I assure you, both Professor Davies and the rest of the readers here can understand what I’m on about.
My latest letter to Professor Davies. I sincerely hope that he takes my advice … we’ll see.
So …. They got sloppy and overconfident and they spread the greenwash so thin that people began to see through it. Now they’re desperately trying to get better coverage with a good thick coat of whitewash.
Who can blame them, eh? There’s money to be made if only they can get us all to “believe”. Sadly it hasn’t worked in my case and I have become a sceptic.
I think AGW/MMCC IS A HOAX! (There, I’ve said it now)
Glossary of Terms:
AGW – Al Gore’s weather-forecast
MMCC – Michael Mann’s climate con
OK, I’m new here so let’s get straight down to business. I have visited many forums both pro and anti AGW, and I have it on good authority from many comments I’ve read posted by hysterical, neurotic eco-flakes and pompous, patronising pseudo-scientist scaremongers that all sceptics commenting here are being funded by ExxonMobil. Where do I collect my cheque? ; )
Well, the lunacy continues. These guys are clueless. See the article on Shroud Waving here. In response to that, I have again written to Professor Davies, cc to Professor Peter Liss, as follows:
This seems to be the current mantra from all those who haven’t headed for the hills yet.
No Professor Liss – if the evidence is substantial, please tell us what it is, with the “it” being a connection between carbon dioxide and the purported climate change over and above natural climate change.