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?

https://i2.wp.com/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

76 thoughts on “Royal Statistical Society backs “models and data in the public domain”

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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….

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. “”” 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.

  11. 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!

  12. ” 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’.

  13. ” 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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”.

  16. 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?

  17. 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’?

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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

  21. My favorite sentence: It is well understood, for example, that peer review cannot guarantee that what is published is ‘correct’.

  22. 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.

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

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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

  27. “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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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”..

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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?

  36. 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

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

  38. 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

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

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

  43. ”””’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

  44. 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.

  45. “and associated meta-data”

    This is what I need when looking at weather records. Provide the log notes.

  46. Walt Stone (20:01:41) :

    “The Society has members in over 50 countries”

    Wait, they’re the “Statistical Society”. Don’t they know exactly?

    Probably they don’t know exactly…

  47. Can my eyes believe what they are seeing? I felt like this when I first was reading ClimateGate emails.

    There’s a lot of weight coming down on global warming. I can’t see how it will ever be the same for Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, the IPCC, et al.

    I can hope now that there will be a Senate Investigation hearing where all of global warming ‘science’ is laid out before the American people.

  48. I’d like to give GISS methods and data to this society. I’d like to see what they had to say about GISS then.

    And I would like to see what their results would be using their own methods with the data then compare that to GIStemp.

    I wonder what they’d think of all the temperature stations GISS has dropped from use in the last 20 years! And if they’d agree with the reasons for dropping them; the rural and mountain stations. I wonder what their results would be if they used all the station instead of just dropped ones. I wonder how they’d deal with UHI.

    Just wonderin. :-)

  49. a jones (18:57:44) :
    “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?”

    —–

    The Royal Society’s motto ‘Nullius in verba’, roughly translated as ‘Take nobody’s word for it’, dates back to 1663, and is an expression of the determination of the Fellows to withstand the domination of authority (such as in Scholasticism) and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

    http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/Nullius-in-verba/

    What I see in their motto and statement is:

    1) ‘Take nobody’s word for it’ = scepticism
    2) “withstand the domination of authority” = IPCC
    3) “facts” = raw data
    4) “experiment” = try to duplicate hockey stick

    If the Royal Society does make a submission to Parliament they would do well to read their motto very carefully before saying anything.

  50. It looks to me like Climate Science was the useful idiot for Physics, chemistry, statistics etc…. They milked it for funds, got a lot of supercomputers to use them for climate related studies (and isn’t everything related to the climate somehow!), dutyfully put the obligatory warning against AGW into each paper, and now that AGW has been milked dry they simply wipe it out.

    Jones must feel somewhat let down now.

  51. there are many many many clever people out there who arent members of these groups, most of the high end posters here they are super brains, so its always best to have a wide range of people looking not a group who may or may not have a bias towards the results they want/need to find.

    Sometimes people get trapped in one way of thinking, so there should be an openness i am glad that people organisations are saying this.

    So thank you big brains, anthony, oliver and all those who post here..

  52. An excellent clarification by the RSS.
    But addressing science as a whole and not Climate Change statistics in particular.
    I only wish that they had gone a little further and commented on the appropriateness of some of the conclusions drawn from some of the weak modelling used to get the whole global warming bandwagon rolling.

  53. The Royal Societies, whilst not covering themselves in glory by intervening earlier have at least stepped up to the plate and used their tradition and weight to start the renewal process of weather science. Not quite sure how the American societies fit into this – the words rabbits, headlights and weightless spring to mind.

  54. Re: Mr Lynn (19:56:52) : “…or perhaps an abject confession from the likes of Michael Mann or James Hansen.”

    There’s nothing I’d like better, but it ain’t going to happen. Have a listen to a very revealing 26 Feb interview with Mann at http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michael_mann_unprecedented_attacks_on_climate_research/

    We need to understand the psychology of these Jeremiahs. There’s genuine conviction and belief there; to dismiss the AGW lobby as consciously fraudulent is to misunderstand them, and to delay the day their hypothesis is blown away.

    How exciting to witness this historic period in history! For a while there, in the run-up to Climategate, it looked like the sheer momentum of AGW hysteria would pervert and contaminate a sizeable chunk of science for years to come. What really scared me was the Royal Society’s position; it’s a mighty relief that the IoP, the RSA and the RSoC are showing such leadership and so bluntly restating the Scientific Method.

  55. Looks like the American institutes simply do not have what you Yanks would call the “balls” to come out. Perhaps the funding and politics is so entwined over your way that they can’t?

  56. @AnonyMoose (19:19:28) :
    “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 ”

    These are merely public statements, worthless (and not honoured) in the current context and in many others ( -gates ad infinitem). The IPCC is all fur coat and no knickers.

  57. I think we can probably expect to see Phil Jones elected scapegoat.
    The intent being that the public blood lust, such as it is, will stop there and the others can go free and they can get on with doctoring up the data again.
    t would be nice to see the Royal Society get in on the act but it is more difficult for them because while the Royal Chemical society and the Royal Statistical society have no previous position to defend, the Royal Society has.
    Then too there are a number of organisations that have even deefied their members in making a proclamation about their AGW stance that m ay also find it difficult to step forward.
    It would be nice to see aa tally of he various socities, to note their stance on AGW and their stance on open and public accessibile data banks.
    Pretty soon, there will be a land rush of organisations seeking to go on record with their position.
    We may see some “retiremnets for health reaaosns” or, as UK politics has it, “To spend more time with their families” but it will all be about damage limitations exercises.

    When attacked, some species of lizards lose their tails which, squirming still, provide sufficient distratcion to allow the lizard to escape (and regrow his tail…..).
    The sight of a few scientists squirming should not distract us from the escape of the lizard because the lizard will revert to form.
    However, I suspect we may have to be satisfied with watching a few, a very few scientists and politcians squirm for a bit. By how much we can limit thee financial shenaningans is another matter. Too many people are making too much money to let go.
    In the end it may prove that too many people wanted too many things from AGW.
    The anarchists who wanted to destroy western society, there were some who were inttent on a new world order, a global government, and there were some who saw the opportunity to make money. Some gocernments saw an opportunity for more free aid and some scientists were on a gravy train of grant money and no way to get off even if they wanted.
    Too many different motivations, to many conflicting objectives.
    It may be that we will have to concedee that we were lucky this was so, iff we ever do escape from thee spiders web.

  58. “The RSS believes that the debate on global warming”

    So there is a debate…some one tell Al Gore!

  59. JMANON (03:02:51) :

    Q: “You used to be an anarchist, but you quit?”

    A: “Yes, there were too many rules.”

    There are folks out here who have studied group dynamics
    with Q methodology and statistical work paired with Tavistock
    small, medium and large group experiences.

    The interweaving of associations and task redefinitions of and
    by the various players is truely fascinating.

    For one of us, at least.

    There’s more action to see than whackin’ a hornets’ nest in
    August !

  60. I think this is a very good statement for an audience of non-scientist politicians.

    It explains the essential principles of the scientific method (which are alien to politicians) and politely points out how these principles have been violated by UEA/CRU and others.

    I think it’s OK not address the statistical howlers committed by climate scientists because said howlers are not the remit of the Parliamentary Committee and can anyway best be exposed by proper use of the scientific method.

  61. John (01:36:13) :

    Looks like the American institutes simply do not have what you Yanks would call the “balls” to come out. Perhaps the funding and politics is so entwined over your way that they can’t?

    That is possible, although it is equally likely that they do not feel it appropriate to sling mud at the events in another country.

    I think they might prefer that local organizations speak up first. If that is true a more damning indictment is where are they with regard to Schneider, Mann, Hansen et al. Maybe they are waiting for a proper congressional review moment to speak up but the silence is deafening. If they do not re-consider their positions soon, they will only condemn themselves to be tarred and feathered with the same brush as others in the U. S. climate research community who have tossed out any pretense of being scientists in favor of being activists and promoters of the AGW agenda.

    Larry

  62. “”” scienceofdoom (19:17:25) :

    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”.. “””

    That is one way to illustrate it. While radiative transfer equations, such as the ideal Black Body Radiation laws; among the crown Jewels of modern Physics, can tell us something about what sort of energy transfers occur in certain situation; there is absolutely nothing in those laws; that can explain why the earth’s mean temperature never seems to be able to go above 22 deg C.

    Climate is just far to complex, and chaotic, for us to have anything that can be described as a Physics model of climate.

  63. Given how critical statistical analysis is to understanding climate change and proper handling of things like historical data sets, and proxies, a case could be made that the statisticians, mathematicians, computer programmers who understand good practice in complex system coding and modeling are more important than the physicists.

    The limitations of modeling, the statistics of good sampling and all those sorts of problems seem to be the weak links where the “climate scientists” are totally out of their depth and have no appreciation of the limitations of their models, and analysis methods, and proper assignment of error limits.

    The other specialty that seems to have some valid input on proposed climate behavior and feed backs, that are totally left out, are the folks who are experienced in control theory.

    There are a lot of professional organizations that should be commenting on the limitations of the current methods and data that are conspicuously silent.

    Larry

  64. To the ones inquiring about American Groups and the American MSM. On the former, since the inquiry is taking place in the UK, I don’t think they feel included (I agree they should submit). On the latter, one poster hit it on the head. As long as the democrat party tells them not to report, they will not (except Fox). That is why we have the internet. Most of the stuff I read I never see in an american posting from the MSM.

  65. This statement by the Royal Statistical Society should be warmly welcomed by the scientific community.
    It suggests something further about empirical science. A peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good the peer review process, is not established science. That is, it does not have a status worthy to called “settled”, nor be the basis for public policy. If this demarcation was applied, then tentative results would never see academic publication.
    To encourage the development of science we need tentative hypotheses to be published, but also to have a critical means to evaluate those ideas.
    This leads to two suggestions if the RSS policy was adopted.
    First, the greater openness will lead to a greater plurality of ideas. Novelty can come from scientific criticism and re-evaluation along with further amplification of the ideas of the consensus.
    Second, there becomes a contrast between the broad mass of “acceptable” science (that which is published in peer-reviewed journals) and the “established” science which has been replicated and withstood scienctific criticism.

  66. This Royal Society knuckle-rap was to be expected – this “research” is no better than the “safety” calculations for atomic power stations were – one catastrophic accident per nuclear power station in a million years, but uncertrainty plus/minus 10 million years. Laugh or cry? As I see you are dealing with statistical research: I have put one of the most comprehensive link lists for hundreds of thousands of statistical sources and indicators on my blog: Statistics Reference List (http://crisismaven.wordpress.com/references/). And what I find most fascinating is how data can be visualised nowadays with the graphical computing power of modern PCs, as in many of the dozens of examples in these Data Visualisation References (http://crisismaven.wordpress.com/references/references-subjects-covered/data-structuring/data-visualisation-references/). If you miss anything that I might be able to find for you or if you yourself want to share a resource, please leave a comment.

Comments are closed.