NOTE: Updates added, refresh for latest.
The Muir Russell Report is out. Read here in PDF. Unfortunately Russell is another apologist who doesn’t ask relevant questions of both sides, only one side. Even BBC now thinks the CRU wears a halo:
Compare that to:
CRU’s Dr. Phil Jones’s response of 21/02/2005 to Warwick Hughes’s request for Jones’s raw climate data:
“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.“
Here’s some comments around the web, link to the report follows:
I guess the main question coming out of the Muir Russell report is when is he going to be appointed to the House of Lords and his choice of appelation. Lord Muir of Holyrood?
They adopted a unique inquiry process in which they interviewed only one side – CRU. As a result, the report is heavily weighted towards CRU apologia – a not unexpected result given that the writing team came from Geoffrey Boulton’s Royal Society of Edinburgh.
The issue here is whether Wahl and Briffa violated IPCC rules. Asking Overpeck about this is not very helpful since Overpeck is hardly impartial. Muir Russell had to examine what Wahl and Briffa actually did and then examine the conduct against actual IPCC rules, not after-the-fact opinions by parties to the conduct.
The findings of the Fred Pearce Inquiry on this point stand:
These back channel communications between the paper’s authors [Wahl] and IPCC authors [Briffa], including early versions of the paper, seemed a direct subversion of the spirit of openness intended when the IPCC decided to put its internal reviews online.
More from Steve:
Muir Russell said that it wasn’t the scientists weren’t to blame for defamatory language in emails, e.g. calling people “frauds”, “fraudit”, “bozos”, “morons” and so on. It was Microsoft’s fault.
They asked:
Indeed, some submissions have characterised them as ‗unprofessional‘, or as evidence of CRU‘s contribution to a ‗poisoned atmosphere‘ in climate science.
Muir Russell blamed email itself for the language:
14. Finding: The extreme modes of expression used in many e-mails are characteristic of the medium. Crucially, the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behaviour that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional.
They observe:
Extreme forms of language are frequently applied to quite normal situations by people who would never use it in other communication channels.
But defamatory language by CRU scientists in emails is still defamatory language. That the scientists wouldn’t use such language face-to-face with the targets of their abuse is no justification. Ask Tiger Woods about email.
=============================
UPDATE from Anthony:
Yes, I’m sure Sir Muir didn’t think this was unprofessional…nooo. Pictures are worth a thousand words, but I doubt Sir Muir ever looked at this one:
From: “thomas.c.peterson” To: Phil Jones Subject: [Fwd: Marooned?] Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:10:02 -0500
Hi, Phil,
I thought you might enjoy the forwarded picture and related commentary below.
I read some of the USHCN/GISS/CRU brouhaha on web site you sent us. It is both interesting and sad. It reminds me of a talk that Fred Singer gave in which he impugned the climate record by saying he didn’t know how different parts were put together. During the question part, Bob Livzey said, if you don’t know how it is done you should read the papers that describe it in detail. So many of the comments on that web page could be completely addressed by pointing people to different papers. Ah well, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it think.
Warm regards,
Tom
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445567a.html
Nature 445, 567 (8 February 2007) | doi:10.1038/445567a
Editorial
“The IPCC report has served a useful purpose in removing the last ground from under the sceptics’ feet, leaving them looking marooned and ridiculous.”
– Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4328
Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\marooned.jpg”
Here’s NCDC Tom Peterson’s (GHCN lead investigator) cartoon diddle:
I think NCDC should figure out how much public funded time Peterson spent on this and dock his pay.
=============================
The notion that IPCC reports are supposed to present a selective view of climate science, representing the judgments of a select group of experts is in fact contrary to the mission of the IPCC.
The Muir Russell mischaracterization of the IPCC becomes relevant in the report when it uses the characterization as a criterion for evaluating the efforts revealed in the emails to minimize or exclude certain perspectives. For instance, the Muir Russell report explains with respect to one alleged instance of exclusion of peer reviewed literature from IPCC drafts that (p. 76):
Those within the [IPCC] writing team took one view, and a group outside it took another. It is not in our remit to comment on the rights and wrongs of this debate, but those within the team had been entrusted with the responsibility of forming a view, and that is what they did.
This speaks directly to problems of the IPCC, revealed to some degree by the emails, but of much broader concern. The IPCC is supposed to “identify disparate views” not hide them from view or take the side held by the author team. Had the Muir Russell review actually taken an accurate view of the IPCC, it is likely that its judgment about the appropriateness of the behaviors revealed by the emails would be considerably different.The Register/Orlowski:
Russell was appointed by the institution to investigate an archive of source code and emails that leaked onto the internet last November. The source code is not addressed at all. His report suggests that the problems were of the academics’ own making, stating that they were “united in defence against criticism”. Yet the enquiry found that despite emails promising to “redefine” the peer review publication process, and put pressure on journal editors, staff were not guilty of subverting the IPCC process, and their “rigour” and “honesty” were beyond question.
…
The panel avoided examining the scientific work of the CRU Team – as have the two other reviews of the leaked archive by Lord Oxburgh, and the Commons Select Committee on science. If the academics had used bats’ wings or tea leaves to create temperature reconstructions, that wasn’t a matter for any of the panels to judge. And this is undoubtedly a shortcoming. The voter is entitled to see the evidence and understand the arguments that may answer the question: “Is this climate thing anything to worry about?”
===================================================
UPDATE:
In the event, the inquiry conducted detailed analysis of only three cases of potential abuse of peer review. And it investigated only two instances where allegations were made that CRU scientists such as director Phil Jones and deputy director Keith Briffa misused their positions as IPCC authors to sideline criticism. On the issue of peer review and the IPCC, it found that “the allegations cannot be upheld”, but made clear this was partly because the roles of CRU scientists and others could not be distinguished from those of colleagues. There was “team responsibility”.
The report is far from being a whitewash. And nor does it justify the claim of university vice-chancellor Sir Edward Action that it is a “complete exoneration”. In particular it backs critics who see in the emails a widespread effort to suppress public knowledge about their activities and to sideline bloggers who want to access their data and do their own analysis.
Most seriously, it finds “evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them [under Freedom of information law]”. Yet, extraordinarily, it emerged during questioning that Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this.
===========================================
UPDATE:
The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”? – Anthony Watts
“14. Finding: The extreme modes of expression used in many e-mails are characteristic of the medium. Crucially, the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behaviour that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional.
They observe:
Extreme forms of language are frequently applied to quite normal situations by people who would never use it in other communication channels.”
They wrote these emails thinking that they would not be open to public scrutiny. What are we to believe, that they exaggerated and lied to each other in private but publicly only dispensed the truth? Many years ago I would read the Pravda press releases because they were so blatantly false and nonsensical they were amusing. I thought that our culture would never stoop to these kinds of statements that insult their citizen’s intelligence, but we have now for many years. Well, they can write this stuff with a straight face but let me assure you my reaction is quite different. They can pretend to tell the truth and I’ll pretend to believe them.
So someone wants to check your data. Imagine that. Thank God for Anthony and all of you people who contribute your training, energy and tenacity to this debate, and of course the internet. It’s getting harder and harder for people who have these kinds of powers to pull the wool over our eyes.
Whitewash should only be used on Stevenson Screens.
All those who accept the Muir Russel report as vindication of CRU and believe the criticisms of CRU should stop, step forward.
All those who are not volunteering to be stabbed in the back by a coming global carbon regulating regime that will yield nothing good for them, stay where you are.
They “did not hide data”, but from whom? Of course the report can conclude that if it doesn’t touch what was hidden from the public, but rather concentrate on what was hidden from fellow scientists who didn’t ask too much.
What amazes me is that many news articles reporting on this still use the blanket term “climate change” when they mean “man made climate change”. I’m seeing more and more comments that point out this error all over the Internet when these articles are posted. I’m still seeing news reports that the data was always available. But they don’t talk about how the information specifying WHICH dataset was used was NOT available.
I think they have no choice but to whitewash the whole issue. But it’s self-defeating. Unless they’re more upfront about how they phrase things and actually state what is really going on, the public is going to be even more skeptical as time goes on. Not because of any data, but because of the behaviour of how things are reported. You cannot earn the trust of the public by using weasel phrases.
Tom Sawyer’s got nuthin’ on these guys.
It’s official!
Downloading files with global read permissions (aka ‘Everybody’ for the Microsoft inclined) from a publicly visible FTP server share is now “theft”.
“Making sh*t up, and then slagging anyone who questions you” is now considered an “acceptable scientific methodology”.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Here’s The Register, a scientifically-oriented UK site on the latest whitewash:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/07/muir_russell_climategate_report/
It quotes this gem from Muir Russell without comment – [Sir Muir Russell even calls for “a concerted and sustained campaign to win hearts and minds” to restore confidence in the team’s work]. It seems like almost the whole of our society has succumbed to touchy-feely politics. Science is incompatible with this approach.
As mentioned in the last couple of days here that this was like a court case with judge, jury, defendant but
plaintiff.BBC
“Climate unit ‘did not hide data’
Climate scientists emerge from third inquiry with their reputations for honesty intact but with a lack of openness criticised.”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt
This was the expected whitewash that it is.
“Inspector Clousea — errrrmmmm — Russell?”
“Yes, Sergeant Beebe?”
“We have the five alleged individuals allegedly involved in the alleged mugging that was alleged to have occurred last night — the alleged perpetrator, the alleged victim, and the three alleged witnesses.”
“No need to waste everyone’s time, Sergeant Beebe. Send everyone home and tell the alleged perpetrator to report to me for questioning in six months.”
Regg says: July 7, 2010 at 10:24 am. “You guys lost your cause. Just admit it.”
Our cause is for an open and honest debate, and so long as you are able to tell us that we are just expressing sour grapes … then we are winning!
As for doing the engineering/science … sure like many others here, I’d be more than happy to set up a rival data gathering unit to the CRU and I’d be more than happy to ensure it had as neutral point of view on the subject by including those like yourself with views that contradict my own.
Except … I personally think the whole subject has been so undermined by the stupid petty politicing of the climategate crowd, that I doubt the public will believe anyone on the climate who says it is warming even if it were a sceptic like me!
If internal inquiries are acceptable on their face, why not just let the mafia, street gangs, drug dealers, and corporate and government criminals investigate for themselves any charges that are brought against them? Wouldn’t society benefit from the likelihood of reducing the burden on our courts and a costly prison population?
Reuters via Yahoo “Green” catapults the propaganda:
UK inquiry finds emails do not undermine climate science
http://green.yahoo.com/news/nm/20100707/wr_nm/us_climate_britain_emails.html
If you go fishing for bullheads, you likely will catch bullheads.
If you set up an inquiry to be a whitewash, you likley will get a whitewash.
Well we can see that “the science” wasn’t looked at along with the code.
This reminds me of the Bloody Sunday investigations which finally arrived at the truth only 32 years later .
Like the people of Derry we , the skeptics, will have the truth eventually. Until then we need to call these swervers out at every turn.
Lord Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher, when interviewed on the BBC News at One o’clock today pointed out that, despite his repeated requests,
(1) the Muir Russell hearings were held in secret, without any public access, and
(2) no known sceptic was permitted (let alone invited) to give evidence.
Under those circumstances the only wonder is that Russell did manage to come up with some criticisms of CRU, albeit mild.
Starting with the Hutton Inquiry into the death of Dr. Kelly, Labour Prime Ministers and their acolytes have invariably managed to appoint those who can be relied upon to
bring in the report that is required and not the one that might emerge from the hearings. Those who watched the Hutton Inquiry were amazed that the Hutton Report relied so little on the evidence that had emerged during the Inquiry.
‘False but accurate’ is the best that can be said for climate science. And for the so-called reviews,
I have never heard of anyone calling a review credible that refused to analyze the claims and allegations against what is being reviewed. Except in climate science.
Imagine a civil case where the defendant gets to not only pick the judge and jury, but also gets to exclude the plaintiff.
The decision of the AGW community in choosing to avoid any actual reviews of climate science issues demonstrates painfully and clearly the lack of science at heart of this social movement.
Regg: July 7, 2010 at 10:24 am
Well the best way to play that game is to play the same game and publish your work and findings – the blog sphere is just a place for yelling. I see very valuable skeptics theory, but i don’t see publications of them.
Don’t get out much, do you?
To Pat : if it’s so darn cold in the Arctic (and getting even cooler), than how in the world does the ice makes it to melt this year ? Who are you trying to convince when the data is showing a melting conditions, god it even rained last week on the north pole.
The Arctic does have a summer, you know — this happens to be it. As for rain on the North Pole, what’s so odd about that? You can have below-freezing surface temperatures in a cold front inversion and you stand a good chance of getting rained on for about five minutes– it’s fairly common in the US Middle Atlantic states in December.
The Muir Russell Report, or more properly whitewash, was entirely predictable from the moment its membership was announced. That this farce of an investigative body refused to make any effort at even handedness only adds to the shameful list that catalogues the retreat from reason in all areas of debate in Britain. It is profoundly disappointing!
I think this is really, really funny. Now let us assume that somebody of average intelligence was asked to report on this. Let us assume further that he is a believer and he doesn’t want to rock the AGW boat. How does he word it? Well what he does is to produce a report with plenty of criticisms of the indefensible while not thrusting a knife into anything vital. I am sure that would not be difficult.
But no, what we have is the beaurocratic mind at work. We have seen this again and again around the world. These are the sort of people who don’t realise that when an election comes out at 99.9% in favour of anything or anybody we all know it is a bogus sham. They never get it that 55.5% in favour and 43.5% against simply looks a lot more genuine.
So it is with whitewash. You have to be a painter, and not a particularly skilled one at that to get something that looks half plausible. But no, that risks being drummed out of the club. Everything has to be given great big dawbs of white paint, nothing else will do.
I might add to Bill Tuttle’s points the fact that melting ice releases heat, which rises. Rain at the poles is not at all unusual in the middle of the Summer season.
Regg says: July 7, 2010 at 10:24 am
Stop complaining about the others and do your own homework. Just prove your cast – that’s the same thing you’re asking from the other side. Well the best way to play that game is to play the same game and publish your work and findings – the blog sphere is just a place for yelling.
Regg, whilst you may think this is a justifiable criticism, the problem as Lord Monkton told me is that “there’s just no money in being a sceptic”. I personally would love to have the time resources and institutional backing to formally present the many concerns I have over global warming. But to be frank I’ve wasted enough of my own time and money on the few publications I have done that I really can’t justify to my own family doing anything more than the odd post here.
But why should I have to prove global warming wrong by formal publication? The basis of science is simple: “scientists must prove they are right … it is not up to the sceptic to prove them wrong”.
It is not up to me to prove what created the apparent small increase in global temperatures last year – I don’t have the time money or to be frank the inclination to want to waste my time on such a fruitless exercise. However, I do have the time, education and experience to know for certain that the case for manmade global warming at the level suggested is entirely without proper scientific foundation.
honesty, noun, the state of being honest
honest, adjective, truthful; full of honour; honourable; just; fair-dealing; upright, upstanding; the opposite of thieving; free from fraud or trickery; candid, frank; ingenuous; unpretentious… The Chambers Dictionary 10th Edition.
I guess I will have to write to Messrs Chambers and tell them that their definition of honesty is wide of the mark. Perhaps I could point them at Sir Muir Russell’s report for inspiration?
George E. Smith says: July 7, 2010 at 9:37 am “We still see articles about the THEFT of these materials. So WHO was it who STOLE these files ? And if you haven’t identified just WHO that was; then please QUIT CLAIMING THEY WERE STOLEN.”
Theft is theft even if it was an inside job.
Baa Humbug says: July 7, 2010 at 9:24 am “So none of these panels/reviews want to examine the science?”
The NAS did this already. See: http://americasclimatechoices.org/
This is from the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7876999/Climategate-professor-gets-his-job-back.html
“Climategate” professor gets his job back
Professor Phil Jones, the scientist at the centre of the “climategate scandal”, is to be reinstated in his role at the University of East Anglia after being cleared of dishonesty by a major review.
…All I can say to that is:
1.) I expected and predicted this was exactly what would happen.
2.) Nobody believes a word he says anymore, anyway, so putting him back in the CRU will negate all their future work, all of which (past and present) now becomes worthless.
3.) This brings science itself, and everyone involved in this shameful fraud into disrepute. Until someone is brought to book over this and suffers some form of punishment for it, climate scientists are going to be ignored by the public and derided by their peers.
We all knew from the start that no enquiry would be critical of the researchers carrying out their distorted science.
It’s another very sad day for the honour of the once great scientific establishment and must, for diligent and honourable scientists, be another day of great shame.
The one consolation is that the truth cannot be constrained for ever and the continuing failure of the CAGW models to accurately predict the climate into the future will prove that the science from climate research has been corrupt and shoddy.
The culprits have a temporary respite, but they will be brought to book eventually.