This is the final report, which has been embargoed until 5:01 PM PDT / 00:01 GMT March 31st.
Below is the emailed notice to MP’s sent with the PDF of the report.
Date: 30 March 2010 10:30
Subject: EMBARGOED REPORT: CLIMATE SCIENCE MUST BECOME MORE TRANSPARENT SAY MPs
To: [undisclosed recipients]
Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair, is available for embargoed interviews today. Please let me know if you wish to bid (I will be at the embargoed briefing until approx 1pm but will respond once I return).
Embargoed press briefing for science, environment and news corrs at Science Media Centre (21 Albemarle Street London, W1S 4BS), 11.30 am today.
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Select Committee Announcement
[X]
31 March 2010
***EMBARGOED UNTIL 00.01 WEDNESDAY 31 MARCH 2010***
CLIMATE SCIENCE MUST BECOME MORE TRANSPARENT, SAY MPs
The Science and Technology Committee today publishes its report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The Committee calls for the climate science
community to become more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.
Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair, said:
“Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable. What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided.”
The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.
On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails-“trick” and “hiding the decline”-the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a
systematic attempt to mislead.
Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.
The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. But this was not an inquiry into the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built.
On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU. The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics. The failure of the University to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable. The University needs to re-assess how it can
support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited.
Ends.
NOTES TO EDITORS:
Further details about this inquiry can be found at:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_cru_inquiry.cfm
Media Enquiries: Becky Jones: 020 7219 5693 Committee Website:
http://www.parliament.uk/science Publications / Reports / Reference
Material: Copies of all select committee reports are available from the
Parliamentary Bookshop (12 Bridge St, Westminster, 020 7219 3890) or the
Stationery Office (0845 7023474). Committee reports, press releases,
evidence transcripts, Bills; research papers, a directory of MPs, plus
Hansard (from 8am daily) and much more, can be found on
www.parliament.uk<http://www.parliament.uk/>.
Rebecca Jones
House of Commons Select Committee Media Officer Children, Schools &
Families; Health; Science & Technology; Northern Ireland; Scotland; Wales
===================================================
UPDATE:
Steve McIntyre has a few points to make, which I encourage reading here at Climate Audit
“The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable.”
Given the complexity of climate, how realistic is that?
Canadian MSM coverage of Jones’ glowing vindication:
“‘Climategate’ inquiry largely clears scientists”
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100330/uk_climategate_100330/20100330?hub=TopStoriesV2
“Willis said the lawmakers had been in a rush to publish something before Britain’s next national election, which is widely expected in just over a month’s time.
“Clearly we would have liked to spend more time of this,” he said, before adding jokingly: “We had to get something out before we were sent packing.””
They don’t even mention Jones’ egregious plans to vandalize 1940s data – which is the primary reason why some of us (who don’t give much of a hoot about e-mails & related petty gossip, but care deeply about data integrity) have been so assertive in protecting future researchers from needing to do complicated data-manipulation audits, knowing that Jones’ story on the 1940s is INCONSISTENT with observed cloud, wind, & Earth orientation parameter (EOP) patterns.
NONNEGOTIABLE: Jones must NOT be allowed to vandalize the 1940s data. He is willfully blind of confounding of variables. I see no evidence that he has even considered that ship-measurement pattern changes are confounded with major cloud, wind, & EOP patterns.
I suggest strategic focus on this core value. After the glowing vindication (& associated sigh of relief), are the odds of a bold & brazen assault on the 1940s data increased? Based on the judgement we have seen from Jones, I certainly hope some of his colleagues have enough knowledge of the confounding of which I speak to keep him in RIGID check. I wish Professor Jones no harm; this is about protecting data integrity for future researchers who seek only to know fine details of the complex truth about nature.
Do please note that FOIA exemptions will no longer be a defence for witholding climate data and that science will be more open in future. Other future enquiries will focus on the science.
george e smith; does this do it for you?
Gary,
I appreciate that reading these notes is tedious, time consuming and more than you want. But F. Levin claimed that he explained the “Hide the Decline Trick as a standard, statistical calculation. The following Emails disclose the true nature of the “trick”. Extensive, intensive manipulation of the crummy data is evident. This was no “ho-hum” math exercise.
FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtOH FUCK THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m
hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\mxdgrid2ascii.proprintf,1,’Osborn et al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season’
printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).’
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.proprintf,1,’IMPORTANT NOTE:’
printf,1,’The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density’
printf,1,’records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer’
printf,1,’temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set’
printf,1,’this “decline” has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and’
printf,1,’this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,’density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,’observed temperatures.’
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\combined_wavelet_col.pro;
; Remove missing data from start & end (end in 1960 due to decline)
;
kl=where((yrmxd ge 1402) and (yrmxd le 1960),n)
sst=prednh(kl)
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\mxd_pcr_localtemp.pro; Tries to reconstruct Apr-Sep temperatures, on a box-by-box basis, from the
; EOFs of the MXD data set. This is PCR, although PCs are used as predictors
; but not as predictands. This PCR-infilling must be done for a number of
; periods, with different EOFs for each period (due to different spatial
; coverage). *BUT* don’t do special PCR for the modern period (post-1976),
; since they won’t be used due to the decline/correction problem.
; Certain boxes that appear to reconstruct well are “manually” removed because
; they are isolated and away from any trees.
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(…)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
Quote:
“Which email accounts did they use?
The redacted address from the leak/hack is:
p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Clearly the X’s replace the real letters. Does this fit with Phil Jones’ University email address? The university address is:
…XXX@uea.ac.uk”
Phil Jones used UEA email account. Some examples from emails covering many years:
0837094033.txt (Thu, 11 Jul 1996 10:07:13)
0970663670.txt (Wed, 04 Oct 2000 08:47:50),
0981859677.txt (Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:47:57),
1069630979.txt (Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:42:59 EST),
1188557698.txt (Wed 8/29/2007 16:51)
1258053464.txt (Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:17:44)
They, and there are dozens more, contain Phil Jones email: p.jones[AT]uea.ac.uk
That seems to fit rather well with the *@uea.ac.uk format.
Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair, said:
“Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable.”
So presumably if it was a question of the end of life as we know it they would have found two days rather than ONE day to take evidence.
Oh , but wait , it is the end of life as we know it. Isn’t it?
Supposedly the biggest problem facing humanity gets dealt with in one afternoon and looks at 15 “pieces of evidence”.
The would have done better to “embargo” the release until tomorrow , at least we could have mistaken if for a joke.
Can’t be a snow job, what with all this global warming around, eh?
Vincent — A more appropriate comparison for AGW is with Lamarckism – and we all know how that turned out.
It turns out he seems at least partially correct. Try to keep up.
Whoops. The link didn’t copy. Try again.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong
Robert E. Phelan (08:31:05) :
I haven’t decided just how much of my life I care to share with someone who hasn’t the courage to use his own real name
Fine, but then don’t pose as an expert on AGW unless you are willing to back up your credentials. I’ll have to assume that at most you are a business professor who has studied the economics of AGW, and who is hardly an expert on climatology. And don’t call me a coward simply because I chose to post semi-anonymously. My identity is not relevant, because I do not call myself an expert on climate science, nor would anyone know me or have heard of me. I’m going to take the high road and refrain from turning the ad hominem attack back on you.
keep in mind that ENRON was a leading promoter of cap-and-trade.
Surely you can do better than Enron! Of course there are some corporations that could benefit economically from that law, as would be true for just about any economic law. On the other hand, I can present you a list of corporations that are actively working to discredit the science of AGW in a non-scientific manner. I say actively because Enron is, you know, defunct, and has no influence in politics):
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html
Big surprise, they include Exxon Mobile and BP, two of the largest energy corporations in the world! These two examples will dwarf anything you can throw at me, and I’m sure I can include the other supermajors in this group. I doubt I have to relate to you the ties between big oil and the government who ran the US during the first decade of this century. I know near nothing about UK politics, but if it’s anything like the US I’d bet that BP has considerable influence.
It all comes down to common sense: Since controlling CO2 emissions will undeniably have a large detrimental economic impact on the world’s largest corporations, and these people are mostly without morals, they are going to work to discredit the science using any methods possible. Since they can throw more money around than anyone out there, they have the most influence in politics. The amount of money they have dwarfs the money given to scientists to study AGW, and I seriously doubt you can come up with a corporation that would benefit from limiting CO2 that can compete with these guys.
Bottom line is that the majority of the people in power are actively attacking global warming scientists. That’s why we still don’t have reform, even though the science has been settled for some time.
Despite the expected whitewash, there are some small victories here. Years ago, a report on the Challenger disaster largely whitewashed the problems at NASA. However, there was a dissenter on the committee, a Dr. Feynman, the physicist, who wrote an attachment to the report. He cut through the pleasantries to focus on the unpleasant truths about what happened and why. Today his views are widely accepted as the only credible ones about this disaster.
In the current case, one MP had the courage to register his dissent for some of the committee’s conclusions. More impressive still is that this MP is a member of the ruling party in Great Britain.
Common colloquial terms from http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a.html
A drop in the bucket
A feather in your cap
A diamond in the rough
Back to the drawing board
Break a leg
Cart before the horse
Dead as a dodo
Hand over fist
But, “Hide the decline” ? I don’t think so.
And it’s not listed in the referenced source. Nor for that matter is “Mike’s nature trick”.
However, “cook the books” is listed.
As I commented several weeks ago – ‘climategate’ is a mountain out of a mole hill. Too many changes verified by multiple sources point to change consistent with AGW.
The science is clear ( unless you are addicted to the idea that CO2 isn’t a green house gas and hence can affect the climate ). The UK report is clear that none of the science is refuted by the media storm .
Areas of greyness and uncertaintity exist but the fundamentals are clear .
It was around 1845 that Darwin began writing out what became the Origin of Species…… Watson and Crick in 1953 finally demonstrated the physical basis for inheritance…… Thus we see the inception of a hypothesis based on observation, through 150 years of rigorous debate and challenges
I’m not terribly good at maths, but 1953 minus 1845 seems to be about 108 years. And seeing as Darwin didn’t publish until 1857, it’s hard to imagine how the scientific community could debate and challenge the thesis in the preceding years. I get about 90 years until consensus arrived within the scientific community on natural selection – although evolutionary modification was broadly accepted in the halls of science (and to our credit, amongst the GP) within Darwin’s lifetime. You could argue that consensus on evolution emerged within 30 years, but we’d be picking nits. I go with 90.
Arrhenius published in 1896. After wrong turns, a largely empty 40 years and then a re-analysis of the structure of the atmosphere, AGW reached a consensus in the late 80s – 90s. A bit more than 90 years all up.
You are correct that Arrhenius downgraded his estimate of temp change from a doubling of CO2 to 1.6C. At the same time he calculated that including the water vapour feedback would raise that to 2.1C. His estimate is remarkably close to modern values. However, he though a doubling of CO2 would take 3000 years, as he imagined CO2 emissions would continue much the same rate as in his lifetime.
Anyway, this is all a bit academic. There is a consensus on AGW, Beddington describes it fairly accurately (minus the IPCC caveats), and the MPs are only citing him for a description, to say that they see no reason to challenge it based on the emails, and within the limited remit of their task. That is for the scientific inquiry to determine.
PeteM,
Bad science is only bad science.
The fact politicians who commandited that science are now exonerating those who committed this bad science only shows AGW is a deep political, economical game using bad science for cover.
The fundamentals are so clear that the meteorological evolution of the last 50 years does not confirm AGW. Educate yourself before parrotting, truly it helps.
Mike Haseler (08:25:22) : I started last night being serious annoyed by this report, but as the day has progressed my whole mood has lightened…
Nice take, Mike. You note many of my own feelings on the implications of this report, and the feelings of some in previous comments on this thread. Even so, neither praise nor damnation is an obvious reaction for me. An open-minded puzzlement best describes my feelings.
What I am certain of is that it is essential to keep the pressure applied to all concerned; even if sometimes unfairly. The opportunities for harm to humanity at large are too great. We must neither relax nor resign; and this is where the world owes Anthony and his ilk — and even bit players like myself who can do little more than encourage from the sidelines — a massive debt of gratitude.
I noticed a few commentators taking issue with the ‘million’ emails the review said Jones wrote. This is based on a miscalculation on the part of the review.
IIRC, there are ~1000 emails in question. This would amount to a million emails all up (“one tenth of 1%”).
This works if the assumption is that Jones wrote every single one of them.
Some intrepid auditor might like to count the emails actually written by Jones and redo the math.
My apologies in advance to Anthony, our host, CTM, Evan, the Honorable D.B. Steeley, and the endlessly patient Willis Eschenbach who believes in Road-to-Dasmacus moments.
ac patriot (15:10:08) :
…don’t pose as an expert on AGW unless you are willing to back up your credentials…
That’s a good example of a strawman argument. I never claimed to be AGW expert. My response to your earlier remark that I should take the time to learn. I did. I’ve spent quite literally hundreds of hours, but there are quite a few people on this site whose depth and breadth of knowledge, not to mention their command of detail, far exceed mine.
…I’ll have to assume that at most you are a business professor who has studied the economics of AGW
I’m sure the economists here will appreciate the slight, but in my case, you’re wrong again. I am a full voting member of the American Sociological Association and the American Anthropological Association and teach courses in Deviance, Criminology, the Community, Sociology of Religion, Organizations, Social Problems, Religion and Cultural Anthropology. My comments were directed at your “conspiracy” comments, another trollish strawman frequently used by people like you to put the deniers in their place and which betray an utter incomprehension of the actual workings of social and cultural systems.
…I can present you a list of corporations that are actively working to discredit the science of AGW in a non-scientific manner…
And so you refer me to a progressive political lobbying group that calls itself the Union of Concerned Scientists and their trashy “Smoke and Mirrors” diatribe. If you take the time to examine and compare the reports of say Exxon and a noble, progressive company like GE, you’ll find a great deal of overlap. Examine their annual reports: Exxon is spending some hundred million dollars in “carbon sequestration” technologies.
The amount of money they have dwarfs the money given to scientists to study AGW, and I seriously doubt you can come up with a corporation that would benefit from limiting CO2 that can compete with these guys
GE is ranked by Forbes as the largest company in the world, ahead of Exxon and BP. GE’s charitable contributions are more than ten times larger than Exxon’s. The US Government is the largest funder of AGW research and mitigation technology. Jo Nova cites an SPPI report suggesting that the U.S. Government alone has spent $80 Billion on demonstrating AGW and directed virtually nothing to skeptics….. of course, we can discount THAT report because it was prepared by a bunch of evil deniers, right?
Bottom line is that the majority of the people in power are actively attacking global warming scientists
That, of course, is just plain nonsense. The majority of those in power are actively promoting AGW. The political elites, the business elites, the financial elites, the media elites and the academic elites all see this as a revenue stream and a means to leverage themselves into power and influence. It is estimated that the carbon market could become the world’s largest trading system. Businesses and financial organizations are all positioning themselves for a share in that market. Governments everywhere are facing massive financial shortfalls and see AGW mitigation efforts as a massive revenue stream that will bail them out. There are trillions of dollars at stake and you believe Exxon and BP don’t have an interest?
the science has been settled for some time
You quite clearly know nothing about science or the details of climate science in particular. It is completely beyond my comprehension how someone so out of his depth can waltz into a site like this and presume to instruct people like Anthony Watts, Steve Mosher, Geoff Sherrington, Steve Goddard, Warwick Hughes, Jeff Id, Ryan Maue and a host of others too numerous to name. I learn something everyday from these people and the stellar scientists who often honor us with a visit and a discussion. Ben Kingsley’s character in the Last Legion had a quote that sums up most of the readers here: “I’m just a seeker after the truth. You’d never understand.”
I’m done with you. If you should happen to have a road-to-Dasmacus moment and want to learn something rather act as an inept missionary, I’m sure another here will be happy to accept your tuition.
Patrick Davis (21:52:30) :
“Wren (21:00:58) :
I agree. The science should open for all to see. Of course that may increase the cost, but it will be worth it.”
How so? Other “science” isn’t more expensive because it’s open for all to see.
——–
Like medical science ?
Good luck getting the “raw data” and “methods” from drug companies, especially on controversial drugs like Celebrex.
How about materials science and electronics research, like seeing what Seagate is working on for future disk drives? Whoops, corporate, proprietary science. Can’t see that.
Oh, you mean publicly funded science ?
Like military research ? Oh, national security, can’t see that.
That eliminates about 70% of research, right there.
So, you mean publicly funded, non-national security, non-corporate-extended research ?
Try to find out what some random Professor at your closest University has been working on for 3 decades with public money. Maybe the mating habits of Galapagos turtles, whatever. Formally ask the University to see all his/her data and methods for 2 or 3 decades.
Record the hysterical laughter from the University staff to share with us.
Welcome to the world of overworked, underfunded Professors.
Kitefreak (11:32:56): …”which ideological and political world views do you mean?”
What I have in mind are views that are associated with the conservative/libertarian end of the political/ideological spectrum.
That doesn’t mean that all conservative and libertarians are anti-AGW, or that there are no climate sceptics of other political persuasions, but my impression is that the dominant view among anti-AGW people can be described as conservative/libertarian.
Robert E. Phelan (21:40:48) :
I never claimed to be AGW expert.
Robert E. Phelan (22:18:06) :
… my day job as a university professor is quite secure, I have spent several years researching AGW
Ah, Robert. Surely you see how your earlier statement could lead someone to conclude you are posing as a AGW expert? It wasn’t a straw man on my part.
I teach courses in Deviance, Criminology, the Community, Sociology of Religion, Organizations, Social Problems, Religion and Cultural Anthropology… You quite clearly know nothing about science or the details of climate science in particular.
Okay, so you’re a sociologist. You’re pretty far afield when arguing about climate science, then. As for me, my Ph.D. in Physics (earned last month) says that I know a little bit about science, so try to be a little more cautious in your presumptions. Climate science is also not my field of study, but I’d wager my competency is above yours, since I study physical science. Of course that isn’t really relevant, but you’re the one who brought up my background. Sociological research, perhaps?
And so you refer me to a progressive political lobbying group that calls itself the Union of Concerned Scientists and their trashy…
That’s a mischaracterization. UCS is an advocacy group founded by scientists with a large scientific membership. It really is a union of concerned scientists, it doesn’t just “call itself” that. Regardless, everything listed on the page I linked is factual, if you bother to follow up (Funny how you attack the credibility of UCS, when you directed me to a couple of conservative blogs and the conservative Telegraph.) The Global Climate Coalition was real, and Exxon was a member, along with BP, most of the rest of the US oil companies, and the US Chamber of Commerce:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition
As for GE, you’re right they are a big company, and since their 2003 PR fiasco they have portrayed themselves as pro-environmental. However, according to your Fortune, they are dwarfed by Exxon who has double their profits and revenues:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/full_list/
not to mention BP, Chevron, and ConocoPhilips. Plus, GE doesn’t exactly have a lot of credibility in the area:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/peter-sasso/2008/07/03/former-general-electric-ceo-jack-welsh-global-warming-skeptic
That about does it for GE, and I guess you couldn’t come up with any other corporations that could compete with big Oil. I can’t comment on “Jo Nova” and the report without seeing it, other than you should know better than to bring in discredited bloggers to the conversation.
As far as Cap & Trade, again, you assume too much. I’m not in favor of it, I view it as a way to profit off of the threat of AGW without actually limiting CO2 emissions. It’s no surprise to me that companies like GE are pushing it. They are smart to do so. Cap and Trade is limited, and likely ineffectual. Also, keep in mind that Cap and Trade came out of the Kyoto protocol, which was initially fought (successfully) by all of the corporations mentioned above. Only after the public started seeing through their lies and IPCC presented a strong case did the corporations turn to Cap and Trade as a plan B.
I guess you’re “done with me”, so thanks, its been entertaining, and Power Elite really is on my reading list. To conclude, you haven’t shown me any good reason why the committee’s report should be discredited, nor any evidence of collusion between science and corporations to promote AGW. I’m satisfied. And yes, the science is settled.
Barry,
You wrote that AGW is comparable to evolutionary theory and gave a time line of 90 years. It was not my intention to dispute the value of “90 years.” Perhaps my post wasn’t as clear as it could have been, but I was drawing a contrast not between the length of time but with the research itself that occurred during that period.
Since the publication of Origin of Species, university departments took up the task of searching for evidence. By the twentieth century, there could hardly have been a university anywhere that didn’t have a departmental research team. Literally thousands of researchers scoured the world looking for taxonomical differences to support or refute Darwin. By the middle of the century, the field of exploration extended to molecular biology, population genetics and phylogenetics. There was a vast nexus of interconnected strands of evidence from many differences that all reinforced each other and strenghened the theory of evolution.
With AGW, we have two papers by one man, Arrhenius. Where were the research teams from universities examining the evidence after that? There was nothing until Callendar 30 years later. It was another 20 years before Keeling in 1958.
You wrote that AGW reached a consenus in the late 1980’s. I presume you are referring to Hansen’s testimony to Congress. I don’t know what constitutes a consensus in your eyes, but no such consensus was ever stated either explicitly or implicitly in the early IPCC reports. Indeed, it wasn’t until 2007 that the IPCC proudly proclaimed “2007 is the year that the question mark was removed over the matter of man made climate change.”
However, I don’t want to quibble over dates. Much more important is that although it took 90 years for evolutionary theory to build a solid and well understood body of knowledge and physical mechanisms, it should be obvious that climate theory must take much longer than that.
The evolutionary researchers had all the data around them to begin with. All they had to do was go out and collect it, examine it, update their theories, and bring in more and more evidence from multiple disciplines. And that took 90 years.
In climate science, we don’t even have the evidence to begin with. There is a thermometer record that goes back 100 years or so, but trying to study climate science with that is like trying to deduce a theory of evolution by studying the beak of 2 related Finches. It wasn’t even until the 1970’s that we got satellites to cover the globe and measure tropospheric temperatures and ice extents. We didn’t even get a system for monitoring ocean temperatures until 2003 and earth radiation until the 1990’s. We’ve hardly begun to build databases of humidity, cloud cover, ground albedo, atmospheric albedo. This data needs to be collected for hundreds of years before we are in a position to understand climate change. And I am pretty confident that the CO2 main driver hypothesis will have been tossed into the garbage can of history long, long before then.
Ira (19:19:47) : Well said.
Brandon Gough, the Chancellor of the University of East Anglia (UEA) used to be Chair of The Common Purpose Charitable Trust
There is a very close relationship between Common Purpose and the State in the UK. “Common Purpose has members in central and local government, Houses of Parliament, police, military, legal profession, BBC, NHS, church, many of Britain’s 8,500 quangos, education, social services, civil service, and regional development agencies. This makes lodging complaints against CP difficult because CP graduates and trainees are everywhere.” http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5719.shtml
it is little wonder that the Committee reported as it did. The AGW scam is an ideal field in which Common Purpose can advance its aims. And what are those aims?
What Common Purpose says they are can be found at:
For an alternative viewpoint, see http://www.cpexposed.com/
with a more strident one at http://www.stopcp.com/
In a recent Telegraph blog, John Mitchell examined the ubiquitousness of Common Purpose in a whole variety of fields – including Climate Change http://www.cpexposed.com/documents/John_Mitchell_Telegraph.pdf
There people are not just found in the UK. They are expanding in Germany and 50 more countries worldwide. If they can get traction in the USA, they will be in so deep it will be difficult to find them.
For their plans for Europe and the surrounding areas on the Climate Change prospectus, see http://www.anped.org/media/actiononclimatechange-2008.pdf
I am not at all surprised that the Select Committee has published the ‘findings’ that it has.
I am holding in my hand the full Report of that Select Comittee (the Select Committee has kindly sent me two copies), and it is very obvious that this Report represents a legal – and not a scientific – understanding of ‘evidence’.
Simply, the Select Committee assessed information in the same way that a Court of Law would.
Legal ‘evidence’ is completely different from scientific evidence. Scientific ‘evidence’ is information obtained from observation of the real world.
Law Courts assess the credibility of opinions. They do not have the technical expertise to assess scientific arguments.
So, Law Courts assess the apparent credibilty of witnesses and decide which witness to believe. Governments have appointed AGW-advocates to positions of authority, and a Law Court will alway agree that such witnesses present the ’science’ that should be accepted.
For example, James Hansen is head of NASA GISS. He attended a criminal trial in the UK where a group of people were being tried for deliberately damaging a coal-fired power station. Hansen said the CO2 emissions from the power station were doing much more harm than stopping the power station could do.
UK law says that it is lawful to damage personal property as a method to prevent greater harm. For example, a person is entitled to smash a door that is preventing rescue of a child from a burning building and – according to UK law – the owner of the door has no right to object to the door being smashed.
Hansen’s testimony is not sustainable by scientific argument: there is no possibility that the power station is making (or could make) significant contribution to AGW even if the ‘worst case’ scenario for AGW were correct.
But Law Courts do not consider the merit of scientific argument. They only consider which expert they will agree is ‘right’.
And Hansen’s authority as an expert on AGW is proclaimed by the fact that the US Government has appointed him as head of NASA GISS. So, the Court decided – as it must – that Hansen’s evidence was the most credible ’science’. And there is no AGW sceptic in a similar position of authority whose testimony could dispute that (governments have removed all similar experts from their jobs for disputing AGW; e.g. Henk Tennekes).
So, on the basis of Hansen’s testimony, the Court decided to acquit the people who damaged the power station.
Indeed, another case was won by AGW sceptics but they only won because they understood that Law Courts only consider which expert the Court will agree is ‘right’: Law Courts do not assess scientific evidence.
The winning of that case prevented Mr Gore’s science fiction horror movie being shown in schools without explanation to the children that the movie is political propoganda. The government wanted to distribute the movie in schools as being a presentation of the scientific facts. But a UK High Court ruled that the government could not do that because the movie exagerated at least eleven statements by the UN Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In this case the Court accepted that the IPCC is the expert authority that should be believed and, therefore, that Mr Gore was a lesser expert so his presentation in his movie should not be believed.
Simply, scientific evidence only consists of empirical facts but legal evidence only consists of opinions.
So, the ‘evidence’ examined by the Select Committee was the written and spoken information provided to it. And the Select Committee assessed (or weighted, if you prefer) that information on the basis of the assumed credibility of its suppliers: i.e. they assessed the ‘evidence’ as a Law Court would. This was very apparent in the cross-examination of witnesses: Benny Pieser and Lord Lawson were given a ‘rough time’ (especially Lawson) but the Met. Office and CRU representatives were treated very differently.
Hence, the result of the Select Committee report was a forgone conclusion.
Richard