Here’s something rather astonishing.
The Institute of Physics, has made a statement about climate science.
IOP issued a no holds barred statement on Climategate to the UK Parliamentary Committee. Here’s the key passages:
What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.
3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:
· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ’self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.
7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.
8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much ‘raw’ data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.
9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.
11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.
12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.
How independent are the other two international data sets?
13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.
Clearly a sleeping giant has awakened.
Andrew Bolt muses:
This submission in effect warns that this recent warming may not be unprecedented, after all, and those that claim it is may have been blinded by bias or simply fiddled their results and suppressed dissent.
I’ll repeat: Climategate reveals the greatest scientific scandal of our lifetime.
Congratulations to the IOP!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor and
Former NASA PIU for Apollo
“davidmhoffer (09:50:52) :
[…]
You guessed it. Over on RealClimate they’re already bashing the IOP, suggesting it is playing to business interests and so on. They would do well to read through the other submissions on the web site which include over 50 papers. Along with the IOP, there are two more papers, once from the Royal Statistics Society and the other from the Royal Society of Chemists. ”
This won’t take long. I pity the fools at RC.
davidmhoffer (09:50:52)
I’ve been watching these last couple of years as one card after another is pulled from the house of cards, waiting for it to collapse, amazed that it can stand at all.
Remember davidmhoffer there has been a LOT of money invested in this with the intent of making a lot more money. Also a LOT of powerful politicians have nailed their reputations to this particular mast as has the MSM. They have got to find a way to back off without losing money or their reputations. No easy task to do in so little time.
IMO that is one reason why it still stands.
Doug
It is easy to e underwhelmed by the the IOP findings since a truly objective scientific organization would have challenged the alarmists decades ago, however the IOP has, somehow, taken a giant step in confronting the carbon credit “industry” just after it has been at its most influential. Now, with the rails greased on a declining grade will the AIP be able to climb on and join the publicity momentum. Not very honorable, but it would show the AIP still has some breathing (and listening) staff left. That would be a very major move as it should have tremendous implications for NASA and the EPA.
Hallelujah ! Let’s hope this sets a precedent that other scientific professional bodies feel they must also follow suit.
“I was trained a physicist and it’s no surprise to me that they are the foundation of the movement to clean up the image of true science.”
+1
Very interesting things going on. Physicist pretty much had the charge of the scientific agenda for most of a hundred years, until the environmentalists moved in sometime in the seventies (look for example at the way the editing of New Scientist, Scientific American, etc has changed). While you can accuse physicists of many things, most notably arrogance, they have a near absolute appreciation of data and scientific truth.
A giant has been awakened indeed, and one almighty battle over the soul of science is about to ensue.
I have a real problems in accepting the present method of “peer review”, that is, review by only scientists mostly with the same discipline training and specialized education. Here I am specifically writing about the M. Mann tree ring proxy for temperature. Was the concept reviewed by biologists to determine whether tree rings would even reflect with any accuracy the ambient temperature at the time of the tree growth? I think not, as there are a good many other factors on which the rate of tree growth depends. Cores of trees are even of less value, as any given tree ring frequently varies in width along its circumference. Cores taken on the same tree rings from other locations around the same tree would indicate other rates of annual growth in many circumstances.
When the “peers” all belong to the same “mutual admiration society”, of only the same or similar specialist education or training, of what value is the “peer review”?
When extremely costly (to taxpayers and energy rate payers) governmental policy is going to be the end result of these scientific studies, far more disciplines need to be included in reviews of these studies, whether technically “peers” or not, and completely open discussion and argument should be encouraged, not prevented..
This is the most promising revelation to date, but perhaps still not revealing enough. I would expand their recommendations to include:
14. It is clear that financial and political interests played a role in creating and feeding the bias revealed in climate science. It is equally clear that many other scientific endeavors are just as subject to the same influence. The academic centers of excellence involved in all areas of research should take this event as an opportunity to look in the mirror and assess the potentials for undue influence of personal, financial, and/or political bias.
15. Language in some grants “conditioned the results” using phrases such as, “The study shall determine that there is a negative impact on the sex life of the darter snails in Batswana associated with bicyclel riding.” Scientific Journals should require posting of the source and terms of funding.
Scientists involved in research it should be reminded that failing to prove a theory, or having one’s theory disproven, is never a failure on the part of the scientist, but an advancement of knowledge and truth. Copernicus was wrong, dead wrong, but hardly a failure, rather, an immortal hero of scientific history.
Ten will get you one that this story will never see the light of day in the U.S. MSM. Regardless, poor Gavin Schmidt. Someday (sooner the better) there won’t be anyone left in the civilized world who isn’t on the evil oil company/big business payroll.
The Right Reverend Bishop Hill has also made a submission to the Parliamentary Committee.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3602.htm
This is like watching an old time movie is slow motion. The ‘goodies’ (the real scientific community) have ridden in on their fast horses at the last minute and rounded the ‘baddies’ (the fake scientists) up and put them in gaol. And the good people of the village can now get on with their work. We need a beautiful heroine for Anthony to carry off into the sunset and all would be perfect! (Sorry about that Anthony. Yuk!)
And here’s the Memorandum submitted by Professor Ross McKitrick:-
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3102.htm
Comment to Rhonda R:
“What really surprises me about this whole thing is the lack of noise from the media. Yes – there are the occasional reports, but, frankly, given the SCALE of this thing I’d expect wall-to-wall coverage from all kinds of angles.”
Yes, where is the MSM? This is the story of our lifetimes and I just can’t get over the lack of decent coverage (with the possible exception of the Wall Street Journal and Fox News).
But if you read Time, Newsweek, and Scientific American (guilty pleasures – I’m an old guy and I like my magazines…) you will see nothing but scattershot, technically lame, uninformed and slanted coverage of AGW topics. With Climategate they had a great opportunity to change the public awareness and elevate the tone of the discussion. Instead, they stonewalled by their lack of decent coverage, and people like me, who before Climategate weren’t involved and didn’t really care much, were driven to the web.
Right after Climategate they could have saved themselves by covering it, and covering it in detail and saying “Hey – we reported on and supported this AGW stuff before Climategate because heck, it’s a good story, sells magazines, Al Gore and his movie, Nobel Prize, newsmakers flying around the world…that’s news.” Fair enough. Before Climategate the reporting was slanted toward AGW – back then they got away with doing a poor job of reporting both sides of the issue.
Now there is no excuse and they need to clean up their act. Right after Climategate they could have said, “wait a minute, there might be something to this skeptic thing…”. But they missed the opportunity and now they just seem complicit in what is growing to be perceived as a gigantic con-job.
But make no mistake, they’ve always done a poor job of fairly reporting AGW and have always editorialized strongly in support of AGW panic. And then Climategate. The lid got blown-off the publicly funded climate-panic machine and we all got to look inside and see how scientific arguments are weak and how AGW is a money-making operation run by public policy extremists, politicians, and all sorts of international grifters.
I’ll say MSM is blowing it! I read here recently that 3 million people a day visit this site alone. If say for example, Newsweek were to really report on this story (might as well write-off Scientific American and Time – way too invested in the AGW nonsense) there would be incredible interest and and upswing in their readership. Instead, Newsweek has run a story on Climategate in their latest issue that is weak, misinformed of the latest developments, and really, the best word is just plain lame. And then Sharon Begley (Newsweek science writer) does a piece of character assassination on Bjorn Lomberg dolled-up as a book review of a book critical of him. Incidentally Bjorn has responded to this particular attack in a 27 page point-by-point rebuttal. MSM; they really don’t get it. We don’t want spin and anymore rage-in-the-cage verbiage, and uninformed claptrap.
MSM in my opinion, manages to get at least some balance into lots of their reporting; and staying on the Newsweek theme, they publish George Will and have published George Will being critical of AGW. Bravo! That’s a tiny start. How about an encore!
I do not believe the AGW story is going to blow over; and I have to think that writers and editors of MSM are aware of the intense interest in AGW. With the IOP weighing in maybe we will see a turnaround. I’m not holding my breath – but I will be checking this site every day for updates…
Obama and overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change:
I can see that the statement from the IoP is a model of clarity, is concerned with scientific method and the failure of these climate ‘scientists’ to comply with this.
Compare and contrast with Jerome Ravetz’ rambling essays on this website, characterising climate science as post-normal science – a model of confusion with many unsupported assertions buried deep in its prose
Science flattens post-normal scientists
Keep
It
Simple
Stupid
They’re investigating climategate?
When will they notice Hadley CRU is STILL not responding to FOI requests?
Maybe the problem is that Al Gore took them and nobody can find him?
davidmhoffer (09:50:52) :
(…) Along with the IOP, there are two more papers, once from the Royal Statistics Society and the other from the Royal Society of Chemists. (…)
Physics, chemistry, statistics…
What other scientific fields did these “climatologists” simultaneously declare their mastery of to claim their unquestionable authority? Do those fields have representing organizations that want to join in on the defense of honorable science?
Too bad “computer science” might not qualify, as the “releasing of all code and data” tends to be frowned on…
And another Memorandum to the Committee from a post-graduate student of the UAE who, it appears, is non-too pleased with his erstwhile alma mater!
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0702.htm
I have noticed that many physicists have never been taken in with the climate change nonsense. One can’t practise physics doing things the way the climate community have.
JMANON (10:23:58) :
“Maybe we shoule expect similar declarations from other organisations such as the Royal Society.”
Don’t hold your breath on the Royal Society – it’s been involved in murky dealings simce the beginning of the eighteenth century, and is headed up by IMHO one of the most corrupt scientists in the country.
Wonderful release! Does anyone know how to contact IOP directly, so I can send some low-key encouragement to them, to keep up this kind of information/analysis?
Mark H.
GregO (11:02:16) :
(…)
Now there is no excuse and they need to clean up their act. Right after Climategate they could have said, “wait a minute, there might be something to this skeptic thing…”. But they missed the opportunity and now they just seem complicit in what is growing to be perceived as a gigantic con-job.
(…)
___________________
Reply:
Complicit? Actually, they did/are doing everything in their power to obfuscate the contents of the Climategate emails and documents and denigrate all deniers/skeptics/realists/dissidents. They’re so deep in the AGW tank that no light reaches them.
Issued to the UK Parliamentary Committee…………….
Unfortunately, the leading ‘elite’ of all the UK’s political parties – with the exception of a few notable Conservatives – are obsessed with publicly displaying their green credentials. Consequently, they are mostly card carrying alarmists.
So, great efforts are going to be made to discredit and/or ignore the IOP – after all, the official line is clearly this: real scientists demanding a real scientific approach should not dare or be allowed to interfere with the political agendas of the muppetry that govern the UK.
Reading the many posts on Real Climate in regards to the IOP would be funny, if they weren’t so sad. However, it gives a glimpse of the problems that real scientists face when they discuss the subject of climate fraud.
GregO (11:02:16) :
“I do not believe the AGW story is going to blow over; and I have to think that writers and editors of MSM are aware of the intense interest in AGW. With the IOP weighing in maybe we will see a turnaround. I’m not holding my breath – but I will be checking this site every day for updates…”
I agree with your comments entirely but I have come to the conclusion that the MSM is only interested in money now and has largely lost its interest in journalism especially investigative journalism, the real reason for their existence. They once proudly styled themselves as the ‘fourth estate’ They have lost all credibility for that claim now IMO.
Doug
Congratulations to the IOP. Their statement is completely on target. It’s great they focused on the scientific method and not on the science itself.
Here’s the list of all of the written submissions to the Parlaimentary Committee.
This one is a “must read” It is at number 11 on the list, it’s by one Steve McIntyre.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm