From the “he who must not be named” department, comes this sure to be future McI-fodder.
UEA/CRU responds in a press release, authored by Tim Osborn, an excerpt:
===========================================================
Tim Osborn comments on “Yamal, Polar Urals and Muir-Russell”
Recent accusations (here, leading to embellishment across parts of the blogosphere, e.g. here) that the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) promoted tree-ring results that fit some preconceived view (e.g. of modern temperatures exceeding those during Medieval times) or curtailed other work because it did not support such a view, and that CRU deceived the Muir-Russell inquiry about its work in this area, are all false. (emphasis is Osborn’s)
Two key points to begin:
1. The raw tree-ring data used in our published work are available; anyone is free to use them in any way they wish.
2. We already responded in detail to criticisms concerning the Yamal chronology. The figure on that webpage (reproduced at the end of this document) shows the impact of including additional tree-ring data (black line) compared to our previously published data (blue and red lines). The impact is relatively small, though note the caveats in the text on that webpage. We are currently working towards a new paper that incorporates additional tree-ring data from the Yamal and Polar Urals region.
…
It is misleading, therefore, to imply that because we have not yet published all of our work in this area, we are somehow restricting the advance of scientific knowledge in this area. A recommendation of the Muir Russell report that is directly relevant to the issue of scientific advancement and to the current accusations is: (bold mine)
We note that much of the challenge to CRU’s work has not always followed the conventional scientific method of checking and seeking to falsify conclusions or offering alternative hypotheses for peer review and publication. We believe this is necessary if science is to move on, and we hope that all those involved on all sides of the climate science debate will adopt this approach.
Full press release is here: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/rebuttalsandcorrections/yamal
ALTERNATE LINK: http://www.webcitation.org/681asTi21
============================================================
…much of the challenge to CRU’s work has not always followed the conventional scientific method…
Oh, well that makes it OK then. /sarc What a laughable defense to cite now. What greater condemnation of CRU’s methods could be written? Do these guys understand what they are doing when they cite things like this? I think not.
Recall the bullying of CRU’s Phil Jones regarding the “scientific method” and peer review:
In July 2004, referring to Climate Research having published a paper by “MM”, thought to be Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, and another paper by Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai, Jones emailed his colleagues saying,
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [TRENBERTH] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Source: Wikpedia on the CRU emails – Alleged exclusion of papers from IPCC report
This episode reminds me of a famous movie line:
“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” – General Yamamoto in the 1970 film Tora! Tora! Tora!,
Maybe the coded battle message now will be Yamal! Yamal! Yamal!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think you missed the intended context. “. . . much of the CHALLENGE to CRU’s work” is what I think was being indicated had not followed conventional scientific methods. In other words, the challengers, aka the skeptics, aka a Certain Canadian Who Must Not Be Named.
REPLY: Yes, but I was thinking of them blocking peer review, I’ve added a CRU email quote to clarify. – Anthony
Since they haven’t published all their work in this area, would it not also be misleading to use it to advance an agenda restricting economic growth and asking to spend trillions to resolve a problem which may not even be problem?
Thats it keep hammering away at this Yamal thing its what will bring them down to be sure LOL
I read it the same way geo does–not that CRU hasn’t followed conventional scientific method, but that the challenges to it haven’t.
I can’t help but note the subject of the referenced sentence: “… much of the challenge to CRU’s work has not always followed the conventional scientific method of checking and seeking to falsify conclusions or offering alternative hypotheses for peer review and publication…”
The subject of the sentence isn’t “CRU’s work.”
With respect, that’s a fairly important distinction.
REPLY: See my note- Anthony
Indeed, Geo is correct – you’ve inverted the sense in the bold section.
REPLY: See my note- Anthony
What they are arguing is that they’re not crooks, they’re just incompetent, but no one is qualified to challenge them on their incompetence unless said individual is prepared to run the gauntlet of their protectors in order to get something in the pal-reviewed “literature”.
Er – Have you got the right end of the stick here? Is not Muir Russell saying ‘ . . . much of the challenge (to CRU’s work) has not always followed the conventional scientific method . . .’ ?
Yes, I agree. He is saying the CHALLENGES to CRU’s work has not followed the scientific method. Which is absolutely absurd. Almost as absurd as loping off 50 years of a chronology because you don’t like what it says…
Several pointed out my citation mistake, I was thinking of the CRU challenges to peer review submissions by MM and others, and I erred in cut an paste, fixed now, with a clarifying quote from Climategate emails added. Such is the issue when I try to fit in a story before heading to the office. My apologies for the confusion.
Please refresh the story – Anthony
Presented in boldface above is purported to be a Muir Russell inquiry quote:
CRU’s work has not always followed the conventional scientific method…
This is editing with a vengeance, completely reversing the meaning of the original statement:
much of the challenge to CRU’s work has not always followed the conventional scientific method…
I am disappointed to see such deceptive tactics on this blog.
REPLY: That was my mistake, I was thinking of the CRU challenges to peer review, and I erred in cut an paste, fixed now, with a clarifying quote added. – Anthony
I would be not surprised in this new paper never sees the light of day. Obviously SM will be analyzing this latest graph carefully and see if it tallies with past statements and data not provided or now revealed.
Anthony, it appeared to me that Osborn is stating that , ” . .much of THE CHALLENGE TO CRU’s work has not always followed the scientific method . . ” . I didn’t read it as Osborn stating that CRU’s work hasn’t followed the scientific method . . .
Now that still doesn’t change my mind about WHAT CRU DID nor how they have behaved. I think they have not done ‘good science’. But I think too much is being read into only the bolded words . . .
REPLY: See my note- Anthony
To quote Mandy Rice-Davies “He would say that wouldn’t he”?
“…much of the challenge to CRU’s work has not always followed the conventional scientific method…”
Wait a moment, after years of trying to get themselves a looser set of rules called Post normal Science, we want to be a Normal Science again at the CRU?
FINE! Make a prediction and when it gets falsified retract your IPCC reports!
Wonder how it’s going with the tropospheric hotspot…
Osborn apparently needs some remedial English work. The passage regarding not having “…not .. followed the scientific method…” is obscure beyond redemption. I think, as geo seems to, that “challenge” actually may refer to SM among others. Since SM has had to resort to FOI requests in order to even approach acquiring that data, and no one on the “team” has ever published an explanation of how the more modern tree-ring data were filtered, the gist of the assertion that the information is available is – ah – misleading. Also, when considering methods, peer review, and publication, perhaps if the “team” were actually willing to entertain such activities, rather resort to the behaviour documented in the Climategate emails, they might not be stinging quite so much.
If only peer review can move science forward what are they doing publishing press releases?
All of this is my personal opinion about the matter of course:
When CRU releases their data and code, they will be following internationally accepted standards for responsible conduct of scientific research.
When they explain why they:
a) excluded part of the larger Yamal data set after after
b) having first analyzed it, and
c) explain how they failed to notify the reader that they were excluding data they had access to and had already examined,
then they will be following internationally accepted standards for responsible conduct of scientific research. (However this remediation will not cure their previous failures to follow international standards, nor is denying that they materially failed to follow these standards, when they de facto failed to follow them, is anything further than an additional violation of these standards.)
In my opinion, at this point, I view them as having violated the trust of the scientific body. I do not think this public release statement helps their case and see it simply as a continuation of unethical behavior on the part of this group. Claiming that including all the additional data (which they had access to prior to publication) doesn’t materially affect the reconstructed curve is a demonstrable falsehood.
To suggest, after CRU employees have actively participated in blocking the publication of peer reviewed research, that other researchers must pass the CRU gauntlet before it can be considered to meet their “rigorous standards” for “conventional scientific methods” is snort-your-coffee-onto-your-keyboard laugh-out-loud lunacy.
Given that CRU only admitted to which subset of of the available data was used after an extended FOI fight, to suggest that CRU itself follows “conventional scientific practice” is simply beyond the pale. This information should have been available in the original peer-reviewed document.
Anthony,
Parody on/
Be careful, the pseudo-scientists of the Team (of CG1 & CG2 notoriety) surely are starting to draw pentagrams on the floors of their esteemed faculty lounges chanting forbidden evils curses on skeptic blog leaders. Or at least they are making wax figures of you all with locks of your hair stuck in and they are looking for pins to stick in the figures.
Do you have any good witches in Chico who can put protective counter charms on you?
Parody off/
Still, without parody, I say you should be careful. We all should not underestimate what some unbalanced people, caught up in the alarmist CAGW fanatical rhetoric, might contemplate in some sick phantasy.
John
Someone should do a little symbolic logic run-thru of that release. There’s some very dodgy stuff happening in all that verbiage.
I wonder why they chose to delete most of the second graph? Why did they not include statistical ranges, ie, standard deviations? How can anyone use this “proof” to judge whether or not the tree ring chronology says anything at all of import to 1000 years of temperatures?
Wow! Anthony, things change quickly in the blogosphere. Between reading the original post and posting my comment, you apparently have had an avalanche of very similar responses and you’ve addressed them. Still I think it did the job, because there’s an agreement that Osborn might have been better to not say anything,
REPLY: My mistake was the result of time pressure due to needing to leave for work and tangential inspiration. I got the idea on the YAMAL movie poster, but didn’t finish my citation about Jones and peer review. I had it in the clipboard, but didn’t paste it. Haste makes waste, but thank goodness I have WUWT’s insta peer review to spot such mistakes so that they can be quickly corrected. Thanks everybody! – Anthony
Isn’t this the same Tom Osborne, who in the climate gate emails sought to strip the PhD of a skeptic that he did not agree with?
So they are working on a paper which has the data Steve McIntyre requested. As it is a non-hockey-stick result, it will perhaps be reviewed harshly by Phil Jones and others as not interesting to the readers of the journal. This will be a paper that just can’t seem to get past under review status.
Such is the issue when I try to fit in a story before heading to the office.
And it speaks loudly as to why scientific findings are subject to lengthly peer review by qualified scientists before publication.
REPLY: But what about “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow”?
So all their data has always been freely available? That is just not true?