And the hits just keep on coming for UEA/CRU and Dr. Jones. Now I wonder, where the heck is the American Meteorological Society?
Earlier we reported on The Royal Society of Chemistry making a statement to the Parliamentary inquiry saying they as an organization support open data sharing. They join the Institute of Physics in making a strong statement on the practices of UEA/CRU. Now the Royal Statistical Society has weighed in with much the same opinion.
Memorandum submitted by the Royal Statistical Society (CRU 47)
Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4702.htm
1. The Royal Statistical Society (RSS) is the UK’s only professional and learned society devoted to the interests of statistics and statisticians. Founded in 1834 it is also one of the most influential and prestigious statistical societies in the world. The Society has members in over 50 countries worldwide and is active in a wide range of areas both directly and indirectly pertaining to the study and application of statistics. It aims to promote public understanding of statistics and provide professional support to users of statistics and to statisticians.
2. The Society welcomes this opportunity to submit evidence to the Science and Technology committee on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia inquiry.
3. The Society’s response relates to the first of the questions on which the committee invites submissions: “What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?”
4. The RSS believes that the debate on global warming is best served by having the models used and the data on which they are based in the public domain. Where such information is publicly available it is possible independently to verify results. The ability to verify models using publicly available data is regarded as being of much greater importance than the specific content of email exchanges between researchers.
5. The position of the RSS regarding public dissemination of scientific data is that where the results of scientific analyses have been published or are otherwise in the public domain, the raw data, and associated meta-data, used for these analyses should, within reason, also be made available.
6. The qualification, within reason, is important because there are some cases where preservation of confidentiality is required to protect the rights of individuals to privacy. There are also occasions where the need to protect sensitive areas means that publication of all details is inappropriate. An example would be the exact locations of rare breeding species. Similarly, there are other occasions where overriding commercial interests may suggest that publication is inappropriate.
7. However, it is the view of the RSS that such commercial interest will only justifiably be invoked infrequently. An analogy with the common approach to patents is appropriate here. Companies may choose to keep their research secret and not patent it. However, if a patent is sought, the details of the invention must be revealed. Analogously, in the field of drug development, a pharmaceutical company is reimbursed not just because of the molecules it has discovered but also because of the knowledge it has acquired regarding the effects of those molecules. It cannot justifiably seek reimbursement for that knowledge and not make it available. Hence, by the point at which it seeks a commercial return, the data on efficacy and safety should be in the public domain.
8. It is also clearly unreasonable to require that any given scientist having published some research is then condemned to answer each and every question that might possibly arise from it.. For example, requests under the Freedom of Information act or the Environmental Information Regulations could overwhelm small groups of scientists. To avoid this it is best if data are stored in data centres that are professionally run and properly funded.
9. More widely, the basic case for publication of data includes that science progresses as an ongoing debate and not by a series of authoritative and oracular pronouncements and that the quality of that debate is best served by ensuring that all parties have access to the facts. It is well understood, for example, that peer review cannot guarantee that what is published is ‘correct’. The best guarantor of scientific quality is that others are able to examine in detail the arguments that have been used and not just their published conclusions. It is important that experiments and calculations can be repeated to verify their conclusions. If data, or the methods used, are withheld, it is impossible to do this.
10. The RSS believes that a crucial step in improving the quality of the debate on global warming will be to place the data, the analysis methods and the models in the public domain.
______
Royal Statistical Society
February 2010
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
9. More widely, the basic case for publication of data includes that science progresses as an ongoing debate and not by a series of authoritative and oracular pronouncements and that the quality of that debate is best served by ensuring that all parties have access to the facts. It is well understood, for example, that peer review cannot guarantee that what is published is ‘correct’. The best guarantor of scientific quality is that others are able to examine in detail the arguments that have been used and not just their published conclusions. It is important that experiments and calculations can be repeated to verify their conclusions. If data, or the methods used, are withheld, it is impossible to do this.
10. The RSS believes that a crucial step in improving the quality of the debate on global warming will be to place the data, the analysis methods and the models in the public domain
Well, it’s about time somebody or some body striped the emperor of his clothes. This was a well thought out and moderate approach to the issues we’ve been discussing for years. I commend the Society for their views, which are historical in nature, and supportive of science.
It is well understood, for example, that peer review cannot guarantee that what is published is ‘correct’. The best guarantor of scientific quality is that others are able to examine in detail the arguments that have been used ….
Excellent point, and a leap forward in logic from hiding behind the sanctity of the ‘peer review’ wall.
How I now debate a climate fraud denier
by John O’Sullivan on February 26, 2010
http://www.climategate.com/how-i-now-debate-a-climate-fraud-denier#more-5383
I am actively lobbying the UK police and Attorney General to bring criminal charges against Jones et al. I can assure you, on the lower quantum of proof in civil courts, the likes of Al Gore, Jones, Mann, Hansen, etc. will be fined and made bankrupt. But we need their kind behind bars–they have wasted over $50 billion of taxpayer’s money already. Even this corrupt UK government had to admit that Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests were criminally refused as per ICO investigations. Only self-serving politicians continue to obstruct justice. But as they see their political constituency dwindle they, too, will soon capitulate to facts and reason.
Carbon trading was going to make billions for a select few. That investment bubble has now burst. Climategate has irrevocably changed history. The proposed carbon economy was intended as a global wealth redistribution scheme and green taxes were the thread to sew together all nations into a one world government. Read the Copenhagen Draft Treaty–it spells out in black and white the plan for a new world socialist order–no elected representatives for you, no democracy! Read it, and then try telling me I’m a conspiracy theorist. Just be thankful climate skeptics saved you from that dystopia.
Not as strong a statement as the one issued by the Institute of Physics, but then again the RSS is a step removed from the work of ‘pure’ science, yet they are close enough to recognize the need for openness. Still, it is good to see all this developing fallout from Climategate that the Parliamentary enquiry has engendered.
Excellent statement. The RSS has dealt with data and data analysis issues for 165 years. Their depth of understanding really shows. The statement has wide application far beyond the immediate CRU data concerns.
I also commend and appreciate their views.
Which will all just confirm what Steve Mcyntire was saying all along (statistical evaluation of ALL raw data includind tree and temp data). It will just mean that AGW demise will be slowed down a bit….
How far we’ve come in four short months. For years, most of us anguished for these days in hopes that it would not be too late to turn the tide. I believe the tide has turned, and strongly at that. The day that the MSM bites its master (and that day WILL come), will be the day that AGW falls into the dustbin of history.
I did not question any points except this one on FOI;
””’8. It is also clearly unreasonable to require that any given scientist having published some research is then condemned to answer each and every question that might possibly arise from it.. For example, requests under the Freedom of Information act or the Environmental Information Regulations could overwhelm small groups of scientists. To avoid this it is best if data are stored in data centres that are professionally run and properly funded.””’
However, after considering it in conjunction with all the other points expressed by the Royal Society, then the overall statement looks to be a call for openness in the scientific study of climatic.
Anthony & team, thank you again for the Nth time where N is becoming a large number. I appreciate you providing a wholesome venue where we can read and discuss such items of great interest & importance.
John
As a geologist, I think it’s about time that the Geological Society, and others, also said something.
Meanwhile, the sun seems to be ‘cooling down’ again.
“”” Leon Brozyna (17:02:36) :
Not as strong a statement as the one issued by the Institute of Physics, but then again the RSS is a step removed from the work of ‘pure’ science, yet they are close enough to recognize the need for openness. Still, it is good to see all this developing fallout from Climategate that the Parliamentary enquiry has engendered. “””
Well Leon, I’m not sure that is a correct conclusion.
I would suggest that the bulk of the “scientific evidence” related to “Climate” or “Climate Change” is not Physics at all; but is in fact statistics.
The observations of glaciers calving and sea ice melting, or ocean levels falling or rising, and suchlike, is anecdotal; rather than the product of Physics enquiry.
Indeed while the Physics of many of the processes that appear to be operational in Climate issues, is much studied, I doubt very much that one can say there is a Physics Model of Climate; at least not any that is of any practical use.
So most of what we know of climate is the result of statistical analysis of observed, or simulated data.
So I would suggest that the Royal Statistical Society, is more closely linked to the current problem, than is the Institute of Physics.
When somebody has a credible model of the Physics of Climate, that they want to share with us; I am sure many of us will be all ears.
But I share your opinion that these declarations from Institutes, and Societies with long histories of tradition, is greatly to be welcomed. And yes it is time for some of their American Counterparts to belly up to the bar.
Wow, that may be the closest yet to a B***** slap from a science group I’ve ever seen!
” For example, requests under the Freedom of Information act or the Environmental Information Regulations could overwhelm small groups of scientists. To avoid this it is best if data are stored in data centres that are professionally run and properly funded.”
Just how different is this from having those scientists simply have the data stored electronically and send the data themselves ?.
Or, more importantly, if the data is published why, why, does there need to be Freedom of Information requests to get ‘hidden data’.
Inhofe mentions 17 names and is accused of being a climate McCarthyite!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/01/inhofe-climate-mccarthyite
” Leon Brozyna (17:02:36) :
Not as strong a statement as the one issued by the Institute of Physics”
You think so; I think this one is far more wounding, their comparison to Patents, drug development and to ‘authoritative and oracular pronouncements’ is a killer.
Off topic, but does anyone know how to feed “Tips and Notes” into e-mail. I was receiving all comments in my Outlook Inbox, but they stopped arriving, I believe after a recent power outage.
Kirk
In my opinion any climate research which is publicly funded or which forms the basis for public policy must be fully disclosed. Otherwise we’re stuck with “CAGW is real and we must act on it because Al Gore says so”.
Wonder why we have never heard from the Royal Statistical Society before on the myriad questions raised by the statistical incompetency of the Team, et al? They been sleeping?
I think point 8 is excellent, properly funded data centers able to handle large volumes of FOI’s would help everyone. This would also enable change management of corrections and publications. I don’t know what the situation is with pre-publication FOI’s or FOI’s on unpublished data, this may require clarification. I think KPI’s need to be established, so that if volumes of FOI’s exceed capacity appropriate action can be taken. Could we call this new department the ‘Ministry of Truth’?
What I liked about it is that they have addressed the key arguments against the public release of methods and data, and indicated the rare circumstances (and they emphasized they should be rare) where this would be acceptable.
A statistically significant statement!
This story could do with a push:
http://digg.com/environment/Head_of_Climategate_Research_Unit_Admits_He_Hid_Data
“Now I wonder, where the heck is the American Meteorological Society?”
Right here:
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2006statement_freedom.html
I guess they could come out with another statement, that refers to the one above. On the other hand, their 2007 position supports AGW:
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
Well, I’ll bet the RSS can’t believe they’re being forced to write this stuff. I can’t remember when so many societies had to write out the basic rules of modern science. They certainly didn’t bother to write it out with the whole Dr Woo-suk Hwang fraud: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/h/hwang_woo_suk/index.html Everyone knew exactly what was wrong. But AGW is a religion now, so, people feel that “doing due diligence” is somehow going to deflect criticism from the religious greens. I kind of doubt that it will, but, who knows.
And before we get any more of this nonsense “they should not be taken seriously as they’re just a charity” do a little research.
The RSS like the Royal Society of Chemists (earlier blog) and the Institute of Physics (even earlier blog) are all Not For Profit organisations that due to the nature of their business are exempt from corporate taxation by being granted charitable status. This in no way negates their professional science status.
Not that this will stop the grasping at straws folk.
Randy
My favorite sentence: It is well understood, for example, that peer review cannot guarantee that what is published is ‘correct’.