IOP fires back over criticism of their submission to Parliament

WUWT reported on Feb 27th of the IOP submission here:Institute of Physics on Climategate

IOP issued a no holds barred statement on Climategate to the UK Parliamentary Committee.

Some criticism ensued. Now IOP fires back:

Concerns raised over Institute of Physics climate submission

A statement submitted by the Institute of Physics (IOP) to a parliamentary inquiry on climate change continues to draw criticism, with one senior physicist saying that it is “not worthy” of the organization. Others have complained that the statement appears to play into the hands of climate “sceptics”, as it criticizes scientists for withholding climate data when requested using the UK’s Freedom of Information Act. The IOP, which owns the company that publishes physicsworld.com, has responded by making it clear that it believes in man-made climate change and that its submission was criticizing instead the practices of the climate scientists at the centre of the inquiry.

The IOP’s submission was sent last month to a House of Commons Science and Technology Committee inquiry into the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK. The inquiry is investigating the alleged hacking of CRU servers, which resulted in hundreds of private e-mails between researchers over the last 14 years being disclosed online last November. The inquiry solicited responses about what possible implications the e-mail disclosures might have for the integrity of scientific research and whether the scope of a separate independent inquiry – led by Muir Russell, a former vice-chancellor of the University of Glasgow – into the CRU’s practices is adequate.

Some of the e-mails reveal that CRU director Phil Jones, who has since stepped down from the post until the Russell review is published, withheld data from being released even after freedom-of-information requests. One particular e-mail sent by Jones on 16 November 1999 caused a media furore when it was revealed that he wrote “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

The [IOP’s] evidence is both misinformed and misguided Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam University

“Mike’s Nature trick” refers to a paper published in the journal Nature (392 779) in 1998 by Michael Mann from Pennsylvania State University, Raymond Bradley from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Malcolm Hughes of the University of Arizona. In the paper, the researchers sought to estimate how the mean temperature of the northern hemisphere has changed over the past millennium by combining various “proxy” temperature records, such as the diameter of tree rings and the presence of hydrogen and oxygen isotopes in ice cores, with thermometer temperature measurements.

[We] focused on the need to maintain the integrity, openness and unbiased nature of the scientific process IOP statement

The resulting “hockey stick” plot shows a relatively flat, but fluctuating, temperature for more than 900 years, from A D 1000 onwards (the shaft of the hockey stick) that then rises suddenly in the past 100 years (the blade). The hockey-stick graph, which is widely considered as a valid result in the climate-research community, was later included into the third assessment report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001.

The “trick”, as mentioned by Jones in one of his e-mails to Mann, Bradley and Hughes, is a statistical method that is widely accepted in the climate community and is applied to proxy measurements in the years since 1960. It deals with the problem that some tree rings in certain parts of the world have stopped getting bigger since that time, when they ought to have been increasing in size if the world is warming. According to physicist Rasmus Benestad from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute and a blogger for realclimate.org, Jones’ reference to “hiding the decline” could have involved removing some tree-ring proxy data from the analysis after 1960 to produce a curve that agrees better with the evidence for global warming.

However, sceptics of man-made climate change jumped on the phrase used by Jones saying that he and the CRU were hiding temperature decreases in their data and using certain sections of the full data set that most support the conclusions they want to report.

Under fire

The IOP’s submission to the inquiry, which was sent on 10 February following approval by the Institute’s Science Board, says that the disclosed e-mails from the CRU threaten the “integrity of scientific research in this field”. The submission argues that the integrity of the scientific process should not have to depend on appeals to freedom-of-information legislation and says that refusals to comply with such requests harm “honourable scientific traditions”. It also states that the possibility that only a part of the raw data set was included in Jones’ temperature reconstructions was “evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information”.

Arnold Wolfendale, who was president of the IOP from 1994 to 1996, says that the evidence is “not worthy” of the Institute and that the submission “further muddies the waters regarding global warming”. Oceanographer and climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf from Potsdam University, Germany, has gone further, calling on the IOP to retract the statement from parliament. “I was taken aback when I first read it,” he says. “The evidence is both misinformed and misguided.” Rahmstorf, who is a board member of Environmental Research Letters (ERL), an open-access journal published by the IOP, wants the Institute to withdraw the evidence or clarify who wrote and reviewed it.

In a statement, the IOP says it regrets that its submission to the inquiry has become the focus of what it calls “extraordinary media hype” and that the evidence “has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that the IOP does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming”. The Institute adds that it has long had a “clear” position on global warming, namely that “there is no doubt that climate change is happening, that it is linked to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, and that we should be taking action to address it now”.

The Institute says that its evidence to the House of Commons committee was “like that of other learned societies, focused on the need to maintain the integrity, openness and unbiased nature of the scientific process. The key points it makes are ones to which we are deeply committed – that science should be communicated openly and reviewed in an unbiased way, however much we sympathise with the way in which CRU researchers have been confronted with hostile requests for information.”

There have also been concerns that the IOP’s submission appears to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry. “I consider it not only inappropriate but highly irresponsible for a body like the IOP to appear to presume a judgment on what is clearly not a simple issue without having the full facts and without presumably knowing the full context,” says atmospheric physicist John Houghton, who is currently president of the educational charity The John Ray Initiative and is a former director-general of the UK Meteorological Office. Houghton has also been the lead editor of three IPCC reports.

That view is echoed by Andy Russell, a climate researcher from the University of Manchester in the UK, who has written an open letter to the Institute about the submission. “As it stands, they have written a judgment rather than an evidence statement,” he says. Russell calls on the Institute to retract its evidence and points to a statement by the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) that, he says, essentially makes the same points as the IOP but in what he calls a much more diplomatic way. One statement in the RSC’s submission says, for example, that “a lack of willingness to disseminate scientific information may infer that the scientific results or methods used are not robust enough to face scrutiny, even if this conjecture is not well founded”.

Process issues

Benestad, however, does not think that the Institute should retract the evidence to the inquiry, although he wants more transparency about how it submitted the evidence. “I thought the evidence sent the wrong message. Transparency should be the same for all sciences and not just single out climate change,” says Benestad. “Regarding being more open about how the submission was written, the IOP should practise what it preaches and say how this was submitted.” He wants it to be made clear who specifically wrote the document, as well as who independently checked it before it was submitted.

In its statement, the Institute says that the evidence submitted to parliament followed “the process we always use for agreeing documents of this kind”, noting that it submits 40 to 50 evidence statements to parliamentary inquiries per year. “We asked the energy sub-group of our Science Board to prepare the evidence, based on its analysis of material that is in the public domain following the hacking of the CRU e-mails last year,” says the IOP. “The draft was circulated to the Science Board, which is a formal committee of the Institute with delegated authority from its trustees to oversee its policy work, and approved. However, we are already reviewing our consultation process for preparing policy submissions, and the comments we have received on this submission reinforce the need to make sure our procedures are as robust as possible.”

The Institute also says it “strongly rebuts” accusations of “being overly influenced by one ‘climate-change sceptic’ on the energy sub-group, and then of a lack of openness about the authorship of our evidence”. It adds that “The individual in question had no significant influence on the preparation of the evidence. Responsibility for the evidence rests with our Science Board, whose members’ names are openly available on our website.”

The parliamentary inquiry came as the UK’s Meteorological Office published a review of the latest climate-change science. The report says it is “very likely” that man-made greenhouse-gas emissions are causing the climate to change and that the changes bear the “fingerprint” of human influence. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee is expected to publish its findings in late April.

About the author

Michael Banks is news editor of Physics World

================================

Story is here, comments are open

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I like this bit:
“Jones’ reference to “hiding the decline” could have involved removing some tree-ring proxy data from the analysis after 1960 to produce a curve that agrees better with the evidence for global warming.”
Cherry picking makes Cherry Pie

The report says … that the changes bear the “fingerprint” of human influence.
And they base that statement on — what?
Does human-produced CO2 contain unique isotopes of which science has been hitherto unaware?
*blink*
Ooooooh. First?

“The IOP, which owns the company that publishes physicsworld.com, has responded by making it clear that it believes in man-made climate change..”
To believe is prerogative of religious domain, of a lack of exactness but not its substitute.

Michael

Carbon market update;
“Wall Street was supposed to become the capital of a global carbon trading market worth a trillion dollars a year but now many who thought green trading desks would be the next big thing are fearing the pink slip.
US banks had looked forward to a huge “cap-and-trade market” a system where companies would buy and sell the right to emit gases blamed for warming the planet. Many hired carbon traders, picked up assets, and trained members of energy desks to deal in emissions markets.
But prospects for a broad US carbon market have dimmed. US Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican working on a compromise climate bill, declared economy-wide cap-and-trade “dead” this month.”
US Carbon Traders Fear Pink Slips
http://www.smh.com.au/business/us-carbon-traders-fear-pink-slips-20100312-q2cr.html

Richard A

Gotta love how no matter how screwed up the process is, people are still pressured into proclaiming their ‘belief’ in climate change. The back and forth on the proponent side of the agw debate is looking more and more like an argument between religious sects about what is and isn’t canon, with everyone desperate to make sure it’s not their base belief in God that’s in question lest they be labelled a heretic.

Christoph

Why does it “believe in man-made climate change”?

Now IOP fires back:
[…]such as the diameter of tree rings[…]
Really? 🙂

ML

“The [IOP’s] evidence is both misinformed and misguided Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam University”
surprise, surprise !!!!!!!!
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/stefan/prof.-dr.-stefan-rahmstorf
from pik website
“PIK is a member of the Leibniz Association and funded by the Federal Republic of Germany and the Federal State of Brandenburg in about equal shares. In 2009, the institute received circa 8.6 million Euro institutional funding and 1.4 million Euro from the German Federal Government’s economic stimulus packages I and II. Additional project funding from external sources amounted to 8.2 million Euro.”
Source: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/institute/organization
No s&&&t, missinformed eh ?????, missguided eh ??????.
For this kind of money I will call it BS, how about you “prof” rahmstorf ?????

The submission by the IOP made me feel proud to be physicist!

TerrySkinner

“The IOP, which owns the company that publishes physicsworld.com, has responded by making it clear that it believes in man-made climate change and that its submission was criticizing instead the practices of the climate scientists at the centre of the inquiry”
So the scientists have done rubbish ‘science’ that cannot be replicated but the IOP ‘believes’ in their results. Why? Are we talking burning bushes here or something involving clasping hands around a table in a darkened room?
“The resulting “hockey stick” plot shows a relatively flat, but fluctuating, temperature for more than 900 years, from A D 1000 onwards (the shaft of the hockey stick) that then rises suddenly in the past 100 years (the blade). The hockey-stick graph, which is widely considered as a valid result in the climate-research community, was later included into the third assessment report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001.”
These people are either stupid or they really haven’t been paying attention. Same for anybody who tries to defend the trick without understanding what it was really all about. Even primary school children in Patagonia know more than these oafs.

jaypan

“The [IOP’s] evidence is both misinformed and misguided (Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam University)” … which speaks for the IOP paper.

Amino Acids in Meteorites

“there is no doubt that climate change is happening, that it is linked to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, and that we should be taking action to address it now”.
Action is being taken now: behold the existence of WattsUpWithThat, co2science.org, icecap.us, etc.
Relax, action is being taken.

James F. Evans

It seems that there is a division among the scientists:
Those that want to seperate the bad acts from the science, and those that want to maintain the idea that there were no bad acts (or the acts don’t matter).
They have a problem: The bad acts can’t be seperated from the science — they contaminate the science, but to deny there were bad acts doesn’t pass the smell test.
Each division understands the bad acts are serious, the difference is their “take” on how to deal with the bad acts.
One group thinks the best way to more forward is to acknowledge the bad acts and move on. Which at one level is the best way to go, on the other hand, since the work is seminal for the discipline’s conclusions, and, the bad acts are part and parcel to the legitimacy of the conclusions, it means starting over from scratch.
The other group wants to stonewall because they can’t envision going back to scratch and they don’t want to admit the “Team” was corrupt — these were their “stars”, after all.
But it’s really an ostrich with its head in the sand.
To stonewall is to tacitly approve of the conduct: Those folks are doubling down into what I think is a losing hand.
Things are too far along to get away with stonewalling.

Amino Acids in Meteorites

…..the UK’s Meteorological Office published a review of the latest climate-change science. The report says it is “very likely” that man-made greenhouse-gas emissions are causing the climate to change and that the changes bear the “fingerprint” of human influence.
How often has the Met been wrong? Just wondering…..

SeaIceRecovers

realclimate and in particular rahmstorf are not qualified to comment on the ‘hide the decline’ issue, as they are not trained statisticians and though they heavily apply statistical methods, still refuse to interact with the statistical community, particularly Steve McIntyre’s.

Andrew30

In a statement, the IOP says … “there is no doubt that climate change is happening, that it is linked to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, and that we should be taking action to address it now”.
Meanwhile in an unrelated news item from a few days after the IOP submission, and just before their first ‘clarification’:
“The UK government is promising to put in place measures to protect the future funding of physics and astronomy.”
BBC News – Jonathan Amos – ‎Mar 4, 2010‎
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8549627.stm

Al Gore's Holy Hologram

They got paid trillions by Exxon – the new world religion’s version of Satan who rules their version of Hell or global warming as they call it

pat

guardian’s ‘belief’ concerns! massaging the data, using the generic ‘climate change’ and relief the young are still believers:
12 March: Guardian: Damian Carrington: Slide in climate change belief is a temporary glitch
It has taken a perfect storm of snow, scientific doubt and political failure to dent public acceptance of the reality of global warming – but these factors will pass
(Pic Caption) A long, hard winter has turned some people against believing in climate change.
Look at that the other way round and the Ipsos-Mori poll showed 91% of people accepted climate change was happening, and the Populus poll 75%. The difference is probably due to the former poll not including people over 65, who are significantly more sceptical, while the latter was conducted at the peak of negative news coverage about climate science..
So it seems it took a perfect storm of snow, scientific doubt and political failure to dent public acceptance of the reality of global warming by about 10%.
For greens that could be encouraging, as all those factors will fade. For sceptics, it’s more likely to be worrying, as they have never had it so good in recent years…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/12/climate-change-belief-polls

Dave Andrews

I’ll repeat here a question I just asked at Lucia’s.
It is known that tree rings have not responded to temperature in the last 50 years as it was thought they should. This is the source of ‘hide the decline’ where the tree ring proxies have continued to be used as ‘proving’ AGW.
My question was, if they don’t understand what is happening to tree rings at the moment how can they claim any certainty about what tree rings represent hundreds of years ago?

Hell even if the IOP was skeptical about AGW they couldn’t say it.
Even now they are being attacked for not being 100% behind the climate crooks.

Fred from Canuckistan

So the IOP doesn’t believe what CRU did was actually science but they support the conclusions that result from what CRU did that they said isn’t science.
They are Believers, their support for the conclusions of a process they denigrate is faith based.
I’m not a religious person myself but I respect the IOP’s right to believe in the modern AGW religion.

stan stendera

Be sure to read the comments to the original article.

Transparency should be the same for all sciences and not just single out climate change,” says Benestad. “Regarding being more open about how the submission was written, the IOP should practise what it preaches and say how this was submitted.” >>
Who is he kidding? What their submission said is that the CRU wasn’t following the procedures that all sciences should follow. This is just a diversion. If he wants to question their procedures what is he saying? That the CRU should be exempt? Or that what they are doing meets the standard? He’s engaged in a smear compaign instead of dealing with the issues.

Peter Wilson

“Jones’ reference to “hiding the decline” could have involved removing some tree-ring proxy data from the analysis after 1960 to produce a curve that agrees better with the evidence for global warming.”
The implication seems to be that there is nothing wrong with this practice!
How can climate “scientists” have sunk so low as to defend this kind of deception?

Francisco

[post links, not whole articles. ~ ctm]

higley7

How do they rationalize “hiding the decline” and such to produce hockey-stick graphs “to produce a curve that agrees better with the evidence for global warming”? What is the evidence except for their own bastardized and irrationally “adjusted” temperature data?
They create the evidence by methods that may be “accepted” in climate science circles, but they are not accepted, ethical, or even legal in real science. There are accepted methods for robbing banks, but we do not use them in real, normal, legal life.
Oh, I get it. They are saying outright that climate science is not really science, but junk science.

Firing back? It looks suspiciously like they are backing off, and I wonder why.
Every one of the numbered thirteen points in their “Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)” is valid. There is no need for them to publicly apologise or, cap in hand, to stress stuff like “it has long had a “clear” position on global warming, namely that “there is no doubt that climate change is happening, that it is linked to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, and that we should be taking action to address it now”.
For goodness sake, the IOP merely made submissions about disclosure of climate data, the implications for the integrity of scientific research, and appropriate terms of reference for the UEA independnt review. Valid submissions. So why is it subjected to attacks unsuprted by any specific rebuttals of any of its points of submission?
John Houghton: “I consider it not only inappropriate but highly irresponsible for a body like the IOP to appear to presume a judgment on what is clearly not a simple issue without having the full facts and without presumably knowing the full context,”
Stefan Rahmstorf: “I was taken aback when I first read it,” he says. “The evidence is both misinformed and misguided.”
Arnold Wolfendale: ‘the evidence is “not worthy” of the Institute and ‘the submission “further muddies the waters regarding global warming”.’
Faced with those generalised and emotive attacks, for some reason the IOP does not call on the critics to be specific about their problems with the submission. Instead, it rolls over, apologises and and quietly surrenders.
That is sad, indeed. The forces supporting AGW are mighty indeed if a body like the Institute of Physiscs is compelled to recant like Galilleo. Are we returning to the dark ages?
http://www.herkinderkin.com/2010/01/anthropogenic-global-warming-as-organised-religion/

PaulsNZ

No amount of grand semantics disguise the FACT that the whole “CRU Climate Science” process was not, is not free from corruption fraud and dishonesty.

DirkH

Gordon will have to give the physicists some more dough til they shut up.

T.J.

Sounds like a longer, and more detailed version of Al Gore’s “the science is settled”.
One wonder why they even bother to keep studying climate… sounds like their minds are made up:
“there is no doubt that climate change is happening, that it is linked to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, and that we should be taking action to address it now”.
Frankly it’s slightly sad that they have to add that the IOP “believes in man-made climate change” in order to avoid being ostracized from their warmer friends.
Anything you have to “believe in” is probably not that much of a scientific theory at all. Does anyone actually say they “believe in” gravity? Thermodynamics? Either the theory is valid or it is not. Does it explain what is observed, or not? Whether one “believes” in it is immaterial.
And don’t get me started on how ludicrous the statement is that the Hockey Stick is “widely considered as a valid result in the climate-research community”! Please. Phlogiston was “widely considered valid” in the combustion-research community, too. That didn’t make it correct.

TedK

My apologies for off topic: But the Tips thread crashes my computer (I think memory).
Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575117314262655160.html
“Climategate Was an Academic Disaster Waiting to Happen”
“The notion of objective truth has been abandoned and the peer review process gives scholars ample opportunity to reward friends and punish enemies.” By PETER BERKOWITZ

What’s really insane about this is that their “excuse” for “hiding the decline” was that tree rings inexplicably “stopped responding” to temperature change after 1960 or so. They have no explanation for this. None. Not even a decent theory. So, having clear evidence that tree rings DO NOT respond to temperature for a 50 year period which is about 1/3 of the actual temperature record they are supposed to calibrate against, they just substituted actual temperature data instead.
so 1/3 of the data points they have don’t calibrate to the temperature record, but they want it accepted that the previous 1000 years is just fine.

D. King

“…Rasmus Benestad from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute and a blogger for realclimate.org…”
“Regarding being more open about how the submission was written, the IOP should practise what it preaches and say how this was submitted.” He wants it to be made clear who specifically wrote the document, as well as who independently checked it before it was submitted.”
Ahhh yes, the warmists lament, when caught with their pants down
around their ankles. Who knew what and when did they know it?
The 70’s are over! You got the whole hero / villain thing backwards.

Invariant

The submission by the IOP made me feel proud to be physicist!


Richard A (12:30:07) :
Gotta love how no matter how screwed up the process is, people are still pressured into proclaiming their ‘belief’ in climate change.

Kinda in the same vein as ‘plot’ out of that portion of Mel Brooks production (History of the World), The Spanish, -er- Climate Change Inquisition as ‘they’ (Mann, Hansen et al) have played it out for some time now … no one want to ‘hack off’ the king or grant-money givers …
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5McSEU48Y8&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
.
.

Their members have obviously turned the cash taps off…

David L

Dave Andrews says:
March 13, 2010 at 1:11 pm
…..”My question was, if they don’t understand what is happening to tree rings at the moment how can they claim any certainty about what tree rings represent hundreds of years ago?”
Let me try to answer. They can’t!!!!!

Gilbert

I’ve been following this issue for several days now. It seems a few partisan AGW advocates are frothing at the mouth because IoP didn’ t circle the wagons.
According to physicist Rasmus Benestad from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute and a blogger for realclimate.org, Jones’ reference to “hiding the decline” could have involved removing some tree-ring proxy data from the analysis after 1960 to produce a curve that agrees better with the evidence for global warming.
Bishop Hill’s comment says it better than I can:
Deleting proxy data and splicing in instrumental data is not “widely accepted” in the climate community. In fact Michael Mann himself has said that “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction”.
What was done in the Nature trick was to hide the evidence that the proxy records were not tracking the instrumental records in the twentieth century and were therefore not capable of reliably reconstructing earlier temperatures.

Benestad’s statement is amazing. Is he really saying it is acceptable to remove evidence that doesn’t agree with the global warming hypothesis? Really?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41965

Andrew30

DirkH (13:41:34) :
“Gordon will have to give the physicists some more dough til they shut up.”
Gordon did that already, just 4 1/2 days after the original submittion…
Andrew30 (13:00:39) :

kwik
Robert of Ottawa

How can an Institute “believe in man-made climate change” ?
This itself is preposterous.

Robert of Ottawa

Ooops, hit “go” too soon:
The IOP is not a heretical organization and its members should continue receiving government funds.

Peter Taylor

I happen to know that the ‘sceptic’ who has been implicated as unduly influencing the IOP, though consulted on the draft submission – was very surprised to find he had little to add – it was already a well-informed and strongly worded submission as would befit an Institution that cared about scientific integrity. However, shortly after the submission, he was phoned by a Guardian reporter, who had obtained his number, despite the fact he had no lead role in the submission – which he explained clearly. However, the Guardian ran a major story on how the IOP’s submission had been hi-jacked by a non-believer.
Clearly the IOP has been put under a great deal of pressure by the publicity – and scandalously so by Houghton, Ramsdorf and Wolfendale – all of whom have reputations at stake if the global warming story continues to unravel. These are sad days for science – when so many indulge in political witch-hunts, and sad days for what was a highly-regarded newspaper (admittedly, some time ago).
The whole episode lays bare the uncomfortable truth that ‘belief’, reputation and authority are powerful players in this saga.
Any scientist who reads those emails ought to be disturbed and to respond as has the IOP. And IOP needs to examine itself – it can see that the emails display a disregard for the most essential safeguards of science, and that this is very serious – and IOP deserves congratulations for having the courage to say so – but it then must examine the consequences for the science. Global data sets emanating from both NCAR and CRU cannot now be relied upon – they are not sufficiently free from manipulation. The World Meteorological Organisation implicitly recognises this by undertaking a new and open compilation of global temperatures. That will take three years.
The ‘hide the decline’ issue has a significance that is generally missed – the period of recent tree ring data also corresponds to a period of expanded instrumental coverage – and the overlap has to be used to calibrate the longer term tree-ring record back to 1000AD so that a graph of ‘global temperature’ back that far really compares like with like. It is easily forgotten that proxy data does not give an ‘absolute’ temperature – even for the region in which the trees are sampled.
The lack of correspondence between the two data sets in a significant period of the overlap, as found by Jones, is very important – and it is this fact which is ‘hidden’, not just the decline in the tree rings themselves. Mann’s methodology was already flawed – and the ‘trick’ of replacing the tree ring data was just another flaw – so Jones’s defence that this was a common ‘trick’ to pull is no defence at all.
If these experts were being interrogated under an adversarial system in a court of law, they would be torn to pieces. The parliamentary system is no where near as fierce a test – but it is the best we have outside of the courts – let’s see whether it has some teeth.

maz2

Mann overboard. Read all about the “giant denier machine.”
Mann ‘s “premature elation” is a howler.
“In retrospect, Mann says the movie contributed to a “premature elation” among some scientists that they had won the battle for public opinion on global warming. He also says his colleagues and policymakers were too eager to present certain scientific conclusions as “settled” — particularly with regard to possible consequences from climate change, which he says need further study.”
Here’s the money from Wirth :
“It’s not a fair fight,” Wirth says. “The IPCC is just a tiny secretariat next to this giant denier machine.”
…-
“Questions about research slow climate change efforts”
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2010-03-10-warming_N.htm

Regarding being more open about how the submission was written, the IOP should practise what it preaches and say how this was submitted.” He wants it to be made clear who specifically wrote the document, as well as who independently checked it before it was submitted.”
As I pointed out to Ramesdorf.. Who wrote what was the EXACT problem Holland was trying to figure out with his FOIA. briffa shared ar4 ch06 with Wahl. Against policy. He knew he was breaking the rules. He specifically asks whal if his plagarism will be noticed. It was. hence the FOIA of briffa mail. Hence Jones request that Wahl delete his mail. Hence the effort to thwart FOIA. hence the ICO opinion that CRU violated the wall.
Log on to the comments and ask Ramesdorf that question. How did ch06 get written?

maz2

A “star scientist” has fallen.
The terminology: scientist, researcher, engineer, ban, barred, plagiarism, feted, etc.
The lovingness: “whose career has been nurtured”.
…-
“Scientist’s spending has run afoul of Canada’s research council
Canada’s largest research-funding organization has slapped an extraordinary ban on a star scientist who is accused of plagiarism and of spending up to $150,000 in government grant money on custom car parts, televisions, home-entertainment systems and other equipment “inconsistent” with his research proposals.
Officials at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) say they have barred the scientist from funding indefinitely. They will not name him.
But Canwest News Service has learned the researcher is Daniel Kwok, by all accounts a brilliant engineer at the University of Calgary, whose career has been nurtured by the research council for years. He has collected almost $2-million in federal grants and fellowships.
Prof. Kwok, a nanotechnology whiz whose work has been feted on Parliament Hill and in the pages of The New York Times, now also has the dubious distinction of being one of a very few researchers ever banned from receiving NSERC grants, the lifeblood of science careers in the Canadian academic world.”
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2677927

u.k.(us)

The Institute says that its evidence to the House of Commons committee was “like that of other learned societies, focused on the need to maintain the integrity, openness and unbiased nature of the scientific process. The key points it makes are ones to which we are deeply committed – that science should be communicated openly and reviewed in an unbiased way, however much we sympathise with the way in which CRU researchers have been confronted with hostile requests for information.”
==========
They are all for open and unbiased science, but requests for information are considered “hostile”??
Explain please.

hunter

A corrupt process cannot yield but corrupt product.
This parsing and dancing around by the AGW community is only prolonging this debacle.
This is just tulip dealers in Holland arguing that the price of tulips should go back up since they still bloom.

hunter

oh yeah-
The whole idea that global warming is now called ‘climate change’ is such an oxymoronic effort by those in the AGW community.
How many rebrandings do these clowns need before the fact that there is no crisis occurring?

So tree stopped growing in response to temperatures, inexplicably, in 1960. Except for those trees that started growing FASTER, as has been reported at WUWT: Forests in the Eastern United States are growing faster than they have in the past 225 years
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/02/forests-in-the-eastern-united-states-are-growing-faster-than-they-have-in-the-past-225-years/
But no matter. The tricky tricksters jimmied the graph to hide the growth decline in their trees. They used different data from somewhere else that had nothing to do with trees to manufacture a hockey stick.
Then they got caught. And the leaked emails revealed that the tricky tricksters knew all along that they were committing scientific fraud. It was not casual or accidental negligence. It was premeditated fraud.
So the IOP called them on it with a high-falutin’ pontification about the foundations of “science”.
But when some puffheads complained, the IOP immediately backed down and swore on their Atheist Bible that they still believe! “Oh Lordy, Lordy, we believe!!!!” (not in the Lord per se but in CAGW).
Gag me. Is there anything so pathetic as a heretic recanting his heresy when shown the thumb screws? Science, as we once knew it, is dead. It has been supplanted by Medieval superstition and the wailings of the high priests embroiled in theological controversy.