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.
“and associated meta-data”
This is what I need when looking at weather records. Provide the log notes.
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…
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.
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. 🙂
“Now I wonder, where the heck is the American Meteorological Society?”
They may not have submitted to parliament but as posted on WUWT on the 17 November 2009 “AMS TV weathercaster survey on climate raises eyebrows”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/ams-tv-weathercaster-survey-on-climate-raises-eyebrows/
Original source:
http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=24574
—–
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.
It all began in the UK
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
and it looks like it begins to end in the UK.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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?
@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.
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.
“The RSS believes that the debate on global warming”
So there is a debate…some one tell Al Gore!
Ed Scott (16:58:06) :
Good work my friend! Please keep it up.
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 !
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.
AMEN!
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
“”” 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.
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
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.
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.