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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oops — I should have turned off the italics after item 6 above.
“”” Z (15:23:50) :
Carl Sagan: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” “””
Yes it’s a catchy turn of phrase; but it’s also pure balderdash.
The requirement for scientific evidence are not predicated on the potential importance or lack therof, for any new idea. The same standards of process and procedure are required of any research.
For a start, it is often the case, that the importance of a new idea is not at all apparent at the time of its discovery; but only becoems known after much investigation.
A corollary to the much quoted statement of Sagan, would be, that lesser claims can make do with lesser evidence. No way; the full set of rules should be applied to any claim, no matter its import.
As a scientist publishing in IoP journals, this makes me happy. Regarding MSM: within a few years we may remember Climategate as the moment MSM became irrelevant. Long live the internet!
Roger Knights: “Still, that lack of parallelism in the crime doesn’t mean that a long-running Watergate-type pursuit-of-the-accused can’t develop.”
That’s a fair point. This scandal has more legs than I originally thought, in the sense that it has sparked the publication of other matters that may have lain dormant, and also generated various official enquiries.
So this saga has a long way to go yet. Personally, I’d like to think that whatever misbehaviour that has occurred is minor – although Jones’ suggestion to delete emails, apparently to avoid FOI enquiries, is troubling – and understandable in the context.
And it’s not necessarily the case that the use of “sharp elbows” as you call it was only from one side. Sceptics have also employed hardball in the form of accusations of corruption and fraud. When charges are repeated often enough, some of the mud sticks.
We are now in a situation where all sorts of allegations are accepted as fact. An all-too-human situation, but very regrettable nevertheless.
Re: Indur M. Goklany (Feb 27 20:30),
One way to help out is to have competition and a free market in ideas, knowledge and science. This way there would be fewer shenanigans. But who would ensure such a free market, who would fund and not –sooner or later — want to call the tune?
Perhaps there should be a limit to the size of grants, or for every grant there should be equivalent funds given to someone else to “disprove” or counter the researcher’s findings, until some figure out how to collude.
A critical problem is how would it be decided (and by whom) how much funds to give and to whom. It is virtually impossible to expect that people competing for funds will not resort to hyperbole; a few may even resort to questionable tactics, etc.
I propose that funding should go back to a funding of institutions, universities and research institutes. For universities it could be weighted with the number of students, the more students the more the amount handed to each university.
In this case no centralized scientific overseeing would be required.
For institutes it should be according to the amount needed for the research, and there scientific boards should be employed by the governments but the decisions should be on the merits of the research, example NASA, DOE, in bulk, not to individual scientists. The governing boards of each institute should decide on the fine structure of the budget.
The important point is that the distribution to individual scientists and groups should happen with an internal peer group for each institute. Each discipline fighting for its share of the money internaly. There might be corruption and cliques withiin different universities, but there would not be the incentive to come out with a uniform voice from all institutes in order to get funded. Competition would go back to academic issues, and not to how much money one could grab.
Haven’t seen this mentioned. Check out the cartoon at
http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2010/02/cartoon-by-josh-oh-joy-scientific-body.html
Maybe you’re right but IF they have received public funds AND deliberately manipulated data to go in line with the warming agenda then fraud is a distinct possibility.
Stephen Brown (11:20:10) :
“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”
His entry at #32 is pretty good too 🙂
I have never been prouder to be a physicist!
I recommend everyone read Peter Taylor’s submission:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc5002.htm
The section on the 1940’s blip and Trenberth’s inability to understand it is particularly illimunating.
Additional statements/memoranda at Parliment website –
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm
Oh please . . . make government research available to all except where national security is concerned ( yeah yeah I know but it’s still relevant )
make all scientific researchers work for government alone, or for the private sector, not both as is the case at present. the job satisfaction and security of government work will be balanced against the cash rewards of the private sector.
all private research is an investment so the results should remain private.
everybody who pays taxes should have access to the research they are helping pay for.
government research is always political, don’t forget that.
The measured tone of the IoP statement and its absolute clarity of focus on the abuse of the scientific method by the CRU tells you all you need to know.
Why isn’t this on the BBC or ITV news? Well, we know the answer in the BBC’s case – they fear for the £££s in their pension scheme.
Yes, it’s well worth reading and bookmarking.
Why will no -ne take proceedings against these people?
I am sure many grand juries in the US would be pleased to return a true bill and send the matter on for trial.
Many petty juries would also be pleased to convict.
So, Anthony –
How much did you tell Exxon to pay the IOP, anyway? ROFL
This looks like it could have been composed at any of scores of AGW skeptic sites.
Bravo, IOP!
The Institute of Physics is the professional body for physicists in UK and Ireland, incorporated under Royal Charter. It grants Chartered Physicist status, and, under licence from the Engineering Council, Chartered Engineer status, normally requiring a Masters degree and relevant professional experience.
The highest grade of membership is Fellow. Fellows of the Institute of Physics:
Sir Geoffrey Allen, Chancellor of the University of East Anglia from 1993–2003. Vice-President of the Royal Society from 1991–93.
Professor Sir Michael Warwick Thompson, Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia 1980-86
Professor Norman Edward Cusack (deceased), Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia 1981-85. Taught physics at UEA from 1965.
Sir Geoffrey Allen, Chancellor of the University of East Anglia from 1993–2003. Vice-President of the Royal Society from 1991–93.
Professor Sir Michael Warwick Thompson, Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia 1980-86>>>
Those are pretty serious heavy weights being both Fellows of the IOP and former Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of the Uof East Anglia. I can’t imagine the IOP statement going out the door without those two knowing of it in advance and raising a fuss if they disagreed. Its rare enough for one branch of science to so bluntly wave the finger at another, for it to come from a branch of science that counts amongst its members people of this stature from the specific institution itself is even more telling.
The MSM is not picking up on this because William Randoph Hearst showed in the early 20th century that only “Sensationalism” sells, not good news or the truth.
In addition, Journalists, like the Climate Science community, as a whole, have abandoned the fundamental tenet of Journalism decades ago, i.e. “Report only the facts, and leave subjective statements to the editorial page,” and “the scientific method,” respectively.
The internet and blogging are replacing “Journalism” and bringing science back to “Climate Science”. Thank goodness!
Apparently some physicists haven’t got the memo yet – http://news.therecord.com/article/676897
In light of this extraordinary break with the institutional consensus it is time to demand other physical societies revisit their official statement on global warming.
For example, the APS rejected in November 09 (prior to Climategate) an update to their statement on climate change.
The suggestion for the change came from an emanate group of physicists led by Princeton Professor Will Happer. The Committee on Public Policy is currently charged with amending the statement – likely to be another whitewash if demands for transparency are not made.
It is time to write letters to APS President Cherry A. Murray and politely ask that the Policy Committee take a careful look at the investigations into wrong doing at UEA and Penn State and GISS. And that she consider the profound implications of the UK Institute of Physics statement on UEA and the IPCC. IOP’s scathing statement is extremely important as it demonstrates that independent thinking (i.e. rejecting consensus) is alive and well in one of the world’s most prestigious science institutions.
Ms Cherry can be contacted here:
camurray@seas.harvard.edu
As I feared in ” pwl (18:00:41) : While the IOP is speaking of scientific principles that must be upheld I would still be cautious in how one interprets the IOP’s comments. It could all be a set up for a white wash. Seeming though, it is one baby step in the right direction.” it’s now two steps backwards.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/02/institute-of-physics-emails-inquiry-submission
The Institute of Physics has been forced to clarify its strongly worded submission to a parliamentary inquiry into climate change emails released onto the internet.
The institute’s submission, to the science and technology select committee, said the emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) contained “worrying implications for the integrity of scientific research in this field”.
The submission has been used by climate sceptics to bolster claims that the email affair, dubbed “climategate”, shows the scientists did not behave properly and that the problem of global warming is exaggerated.
The committee held its only evidence session yesterday and interviewed witnesses including Phil Jones, the climate scientist at the centre of the media storm.
In a statement issued today the institute said its written submission to the committee “has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.”
It says: “That is not the case. The institute’s position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change.”
The institute said its critical comments were focused on the scientific process, and “should not be interpreted to mean that the institute believes that the science itself is flawed.”
The statement appears to contradict sections of the original submission, which suggests the emails showed scientists had cherry-picked data to support conclusions and that some key reconstructions of past temperature cannot be relied upon.
The institute statement says its submission was approved by its science board, a formal committee of experts that oversees its policy work.
The Guardian has been unable to find a member of the board that supports the submission. Two of the scientists listed as members said they had declined to comment on a draft submission prepared by the institute, because they were not climate experts and had not read the UEA emails. Others would not comment or did not respond to enquiries.
An institute spokesperson said the submission was “strongly supported” by three members of the board. “All members were invited to comment. Only a few did, all concerned approved [the submission] unanimously.”
pwl (22:44:18) :
As I feared in ” pwl (18:00:41) : While the IOP is speaking of scientific principles that must be upheld I would still be cautious in how one interprets the IOP’s comments. It could all be a set up for a white wash. Seeming though, it is one baby step in the right direction.” it’s now two steps backwards. …
Yes, a clear case of cognitive dissonance there.
The IOP doesn’t believe you should throw out the barrel because of a few bad apples, it’s perfectly happy to squash any bad ones it sees though so they don’t infect the rest or if you want another analogy, don’t fight a losing battle, sacrifice a few soldiers & preserve your ammunition so you can win the war.
It’s mainly Pro AGW with a strong scientific ethics slant.
I’ve been crossing over to that other blog site(RC), which upholds to standards other than our own regarding this business on climate change, and it has led me to post on my own blog site. If anyone is interested click here.
Its amazing to me that the IoP had to make a statement to reaffirm to the public that it is also a believer of global warming. I guess when you’re rocking the boat, you shouldn’t do so when you’re in a hurricane.