Royal Statistical Society backs "models and data in the public domain"

And the hits just keep on coming for UEA/CRU and Dr. Jones. Now I wonder, where the heck is the American Meteorological Society?

http://www.rss.org.uk/rss2004/rss2k4-booklet-Image31.jpgEarlier 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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
tucker

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.

Keith Minto

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.

Ed Scott

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.

Leon Brozyna

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.

Stephan

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….

tucker

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.

John Whitman

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

Jimmy Haigh

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.

George E. Smith

“”” 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.

Visceral Rebellion

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.

Wow, that may be the closest yet to a B***** slap from a science group I’ve ever seen!

KimW

” 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’.

R. de Haan

Inhofe mentions 17 names and is accused of being a climate McCarthyite!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/01/inhofe-climate-mccarthyite

DocMartyn

” 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.

kirkmyers

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

David Segesta

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”.

PhilH

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’?

Graeme W

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.

Craigo

A statistically significant statement!

Bernice
Dave N

“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

JDN

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.

Randy Del Horno

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’.

AlexB

A good analysis of the situation. They also discuss the concern that large numbers of FOI requests could overwhelm a small organisation which is a fair issue I think. If you are adjusting raw temperature data however then you would expect that the raw data would have to be organised in order for you to do that so a small number or requests (like the ones PJ refused initially) should be relatively easy to deal with. Certainly it seams he spent more time dodging them than would have taken to fulfil them.
I think a good solution is just to have the publishing journal hold the raw data and code online as a supplement to the online article.

Pamela Gray

I have a mind to fire up my old Mac (huge ancient monolith) and input data into Stateview!

It’s good to see these groups stepping forward, but will they do what they recommend. I have often said a complete reset with all science open is the only way forward.
Open science is the only science possible in a way too political world.

Pat Frank

Given MBH98 is now 12 years out, it’s rather late for the Royal Statistical Society to wax poetic about the integrity of science. Likewise, it’s over 3 years since the Wegman Report, and I don’t recall the RSS ever stepping up in its defense against the canards of RC and other AGW aficionados.
Better late than never, I guess, but I’m a bit cynical about pious criticisms coming out of the woodwork only after the changed political climate has made them easy.

a jones

Well all I can say is I made my little submission as well as one to the CRU but it seems in this previously unequal battle the heavies have turned up at last to relieve a meagre and hard pressed defence fighting to hold the last ditch.
Hooray. The 7th cavalry indeed. I’ll drink to that.
First the Institute of Physics, to which I have the honour to belong, and then the Royal Society of Chemistry and now the Royal Institute of Statistics. But nothing from the Royal Society itself. I wonder why not? I am sure they have an excuse hidden away somewhere. They usually do.
And what was that about consensus or the 1,2 3 or 4 thousand scientists of the IPCC? the experts. Yet these learned bodies have a membership of near a hundred thousand between them. And every one a real scientist.
Again what was that about it not being usual practice not to disclose anything in climate science?
And the UK press are reporting this.
Do we see any signs of our American friends either from their supposedly learned scientific bodies or their MSM saying or doing anything? I wonder why not?
Kindest Regards

B. Smith

“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.”
_____________________________________________________________________________
I could not find anything in CRU47 that I disagree with. However, to me point 9 stands out as the single most powerful admonishment of them all. It rolls the good science bus over the self-deluded “Oracles of AGW” with their shoddy, shady ways, then puts that bus in reverse to run them over again for good measure!
Even the knuckleheads er elected leaders cannot possibly miss the messages these august bodies of science are so clearly sending.

AnonyMoose

Yup. The new temperature record has to begin by placing all the data in a change control system such as SVN and make the data public. Do the same with the repository for the new code and let everyone look over their shoulder while they create their analysis software and documentation. It doesn’t matter if we see their mistakes and corrections, as any programmer knows that those happen. Have a public discussion area so the public can contribute.
For that matter, start by dumping into the code repository the existing code fragments. Some members of the public have done enough independent analysis that they have relevant code which they might contribute. It shouldn’t take long for everyone to weave together a first version, and for it to get analyzed and repairs to begin.

George E. Smith:

So I would suggest that the Royal Statistical Society, is more closely linked to the current problem, than is the Institute of Physics.

I think you’ve got a good point there. There’s a big jump from the radiative transfer equations – well understood, to “climate change”..

AnonyMoose

Oh, sure, secrecy is standard in climate research? Search the IPCC for transparency and you find things such as:

It is important for me to clarify that the IPCC as a body follows impartial, open and objective assessment of every aspect of climate change carried out with complete transparency. — STATEMENT ON NEWS REPORTS REGARDING HACKING OF THE EAST ANGLIA UNIVERSITY EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS

Comprehensiveness, objectivity, openness and transparency: these are the principles governing the IPCC work. — IPCC Procedures

hotrod ( Larry L )

Many technical books published today, create a web site where they can post errata, and such. If the authors of scientific studies did the same there would be no need for FOI or any other interaction between the authors and the public on routine issues.
Publish the study, and then in the study include a link to a web site which contains all the relevant data in down loadable links or FTP files. The authors could also post up clarifications and corrections as they are discovered, and only have to deal with them one time.
If you turn out crap studies you will inherently be inhibited from turning out more crap because you will be busy answering queries for things you should have sorted out up front. If you do good research with proper documentation you would have a trivial over head for minor corrections and clarifications deemed necessary buy reader feed back to your study web page.
If large agencies like NASA and CRU etc. provided those web pages as a professional support function to their staff, only the occasional issue will need to be addressed by the authors of the report/study, in all other cases requests or queries could simply point interested outsiders at already published files and perhaps a FAQ of updates, corrections and clarifications.
Larry

Tom G(ologist)

Jimmy Haigh (17:29:24) :
As a geologist, I think it’s about time that the Geological Society, and others, also said something.
BRAVO!!! I have sent a message to the GSA that its draft statement on AGW is outdated, incorrect, unfounded and just too damned late to be relevant and that the society should scrap that statement and issue something which is supportable by geologic FACTS.
It is terrific that the chemists, physicists and statisticians have courageously come out, but the real nail in the coffin will be the geologists. We ARE the knowledge and repository of the context of whether the current climate is or is not abnormal. With all deference to meteorology and climatology the real battle has been whether the late 20th centruy warming (which might not have really happened) was unprecedented. The authorities on that question will be geologists once we eliminate the data MANNipulators).
Let’s put some pressure on the geologic societies to review current policy statements in light of climate gate.

Capn Jack.

Looking at this purely in terms of statement this is exactly what last weeks debate was about.
Open source science is the best peer review that we can get. This is what the skeptics have argued for more than a decade for. There has to be peer review by specialists as well, but what these statements say, quite clearly, Peer review must be supported by open source to protect against cronyism.
The archival process for baseline data must be an open source.
I for one support these very basic statements in support of quality science method. These are a massive step forward for science and science method.
The are practical and pragmatic statements.
People forget that prior to the Royal’s society’s release of Briffa’s data and subsequent FOI mass release, The atmosphere was poisonous.
That data had not been released was being defended politically, all be it from behind chinese walls. Any professional organisation could not comment on data and methods unseen.
It’s a major step.

SimonH

I’m hoping the bus keeps rolling, preferably over the climatologists’ belief that they can publish, as if verified scientific fact, the predictions of a flawed computer model. The idea that these simulations can in any way be regarded as scientific experiments, or their predictions treated as observed evidence, is another abomination that exists in the field of climate science and almost nowhere else (meteorology excepted, and short-term predictions forgiven).
For me, this gnostic illusion is the next tower of climatology that has to topple. Real-world scientific method rules.

vigilantfish

I recall a past president of the Royal Society, Sir Andrew Huxley, coming to my undergraduate university and delivering a lecture in which he proclaimed that someday in the near future science would be able to tell us the meaning of life. As scientific knowledge increased, the meaning of life could be teased out of the secrets of the universe. With delusions like that, it’s no wonder that the Royal Society hasn’t come charging into this issue: it messes with the new religion. We must, however, be grateful that the Philosophical Transactions, did, in the end, uphold the requirement that scientific data be released for examination.
Nevertheless, it’s a shame that neither the Royal Society, nor the AAAS, nor the BAAS, has spoken up about this issue. Surely they will have to awaken to the very real damage that climate alarmism parading as science has done to science itself: the longer they stay quiet, the worse the damage will be. As the RSS states: “science progresses as an ongoing debate and not by a series of authoritative and oracular pronouncements”. When will the denial end?

hotrod ( Larry L )

We also need a statement from some professional software developer group regarding good practice in code development and the limitations of numerical simulations of poorly characterized non-linear highly complex problems.
Larry

Sharon

Wait! I think the RSS memorandum has a typo. Surely the authors meant “goracular pronouncements”?

Kristinn

Given the Society’s logo features a wheat bushel, does this make it an RSS feed?

Mr Lynn

a jones (18:57:44) :
. . . And the UK press are reporting this.
Do we see any signs of our American friends either from their supposedly learned scientific bodies or their MSM saying or doing anything? I wonder why not?

The American MSM (except perhaps for Fox) take their cues from the New York Times, the erstwhile “paper of record.” Said newspaper just published a remarkably lame screed from the Goracle, lamenting the heretics who make too much of a few ‘hacked’ emails and a few little mistakes in the IPCC reports, and decrying the inability of ‘markets’ (i.e. capitalism) to do anything about the inevitable catastrophe of ‘climate change’. Government must act, he says, to save the planet for our grandchildren, who will otherwise regard us as a “criminal generation.”
The American Left, namely most in the media (except perhaps for Fox) and all in the so-called Democratic Party—beginning with the current President and his faux-science advisors—and the vast majority of college and university instructors, are all bowing in obeisance as we speak, chanting, “How dare, how dare, how dare these infidels deny the reality of Climate Change!”
We need our own, homegrown scandal to wake our media out of their self-imposed stupor—or perhaps an abject confession from the likes of Michael Mann or James Hansen.
/Mr Lynn

vigilantfish

On second thought: perhaps bodies such as the BSA (sorry I used an outdated monicker in my last post), the Royal Society and the AAAS have such a diverse membership that putting out what amounts to a clear condemnation of CRU ‘science’ would be anathema to too many of the members. There are too many environmental scientists and biologists who would be offended. They’re the biggest ideological supporters of global warming besides the warped climate scientists themselves. I hope the Geological Society quickly comes to its senses, as its science is among the most relevant to the entire question.

“The Society has members in over 50 countries”
Wait, they’re the “Statistical Society”. Don’t they know exactly?

Pete H

a jones (18:57:44) :
“And what was that about consensus or the 1,2 3 or 4 thousand scientists of the IPCC? the experts. Yet these learned bodies have a membership of near a hundred thousand between them. And every one a real scientist. ”
I so hope the committee read that A. The only problem is the AGW guys will say, “They are supporting Peer Review and not saying that AGW is disproved” but I will still use it in my pub debates!
Its a start and I see the Daily Mail reported on Phill Jones testimony yesterday.
Jones looks a tired, broken man but his statement that it was not, standard practice in “Climate Science” to make available data, methodology and codes!
They way he wriggled over the question of the CRU raw data was sad to watch!
After watching this sad man I could understand Canada refusing him permission to release their data and stating they would rather people went direct to them for the information.
By the way, the RSS,
1. An example would be the exact locations of rare breeding species. Similarly,
2. there are other occasions where overriding commercial interests may suggest that publication is inappropriate.
Point 1: I can see what they mean but it has no bearing to the case in hand.
Point 2: Carbon Trading? Dangerous use of words there!
Still, I am sure we welcome a return to real science.

Walt Stone:
That’s statistics! If you look at all the data there’s no work for the statistician.
So you take a sample, then you start assuming a gaussian distribution, then do some t-tests and such like, provide measurements of sampling error, and of course, everyone just nods and says “right, good work, here’s fifty quid”.
If you just told everyone the real answer they could dispute it.

Pamela Gray

No. They only care about the portion of members that are significant. And at the 99%ile. The 95%ile is only for weenies.

John Whitman

”””’a jones (18:57:44) : Do we see any signs of our American friends either from their supposedly learned scientific bodies or their MSM saying or doing anything? I wonder why not?””””
a jones,
Indeed! You voice an extremely severe and profoundly correct criticism about the USA. Where [outside of some very skilled portion of the technically oriented USA blogosphere, a handful of USA scientists, a few media sources and a few minority members in congress] is the US’s leadership on reclaiming scientific objectivity in the study of our atmosphere? Where is the leadership in our universities, our professional societies/journals and our government organizations? MOST SHAMEFULLY where is the leadership of our self-styled great defenders of freedom, the much [self] vaunted US media?
I am a US citizen, and although I am very proud of the handful of opened minded rational minds [aka skeptics] that have carried the US dialog of atmospheric science forward to where it is today, I am not proud of the obviously low general state of my culture regarding the study of the earth’s atmosphere.
You Redcoats are winning in the revolution this time. GO REDCOATS! We Yanks are cheering for you this time!
NOTE: I am going to try to use atmosphere from now on instead of the word climate. The word atmosphere is not as clouded (pun slightly intended) as the word climate is these days.
A Yankee.
John

jorgekafkazar

Ed Scott (16:58:06) : “…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.”
I did read it, and you are essentially correct:
“38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three
basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism…”
“Government,” above does not refer to a body elected by citizens. It refers to an IPCC body, the “COP.” There would be no citizen electorate under the draft treaty for Coprophagin’.
Penalties for non-compliance would be established along with an enforcement arm (military force). The latter is mentioned very elliptically, of course. Signature of the draft in question would have been an act of treason.