- Bishop Hill blog - UEA

Tuesday

Nov232010

Bishop Hill

UEA - a new story

Nov 23, 2010

Climate: Briffa

Climate: CRU

Climate: Russell

David Holland has asked me to post some details of a letter he has received from UEA via WhatDoTheyKnow. David is away this evening.

The letter appears to be a direct response to the guest posting here yesterday and can be seen here. It outlines two errors in UEA's recent FOI response, although only the first appears significant to me. This is the key excerpt:

In response to your question “Please tell me the names and positions or job titles of all UEA employees that had access to a copy of my Russell submission or Boulton’s annex”, we responded as follows:

“The University never received directly a copy of your submission to the Russell Review. We only had access to the information included with Prof. Boulton’s letter to Keith Briffa”.

This is incorrect due to a misunderstanding on my part. While the University itself did not receive a copy of your submission from Muir Russell, Professor Keith Briffa acquired a full copy of your submission by way of a request made to you by a third party.

The submission of Professor Briffa and Dr. Osborn in response to the letter and annex from Prof. Boulton was drafted specifically to deal only with those issues that were put to them by Prof. Boulton. In providing their response they showed the annex in a format that could be clearly linked to your submission to the Russell Review to explicitly demonstrate that your allegations had been formally considered.

The "request made...by a third party" presumably refers to the copies of the unexpurgated version of the submission that David handed out on request after Muir Russell refused to publish it. Apparently some 150 copies were distributed.

So the new version of UEA's story is that Russell sent a redacted version of Holland's submission to them - the redactions removing key pieces of evidence to support Holland's case. UEA had access to the full submission, but only referred to the evidence in the redacted version in their reply to Boulton.

IIRC, Russell claimed to have given full consideration to Holland's allegations, but it seems clear that this is not true, since no response was sought or obtained on the key evidence (which I'll post about tomorrow). Russell would seem to have a great deal of explaining to do as to why he removed this information.

The hole that UEA and their colleagues on the Russell panel are digging is getting steadily deeper and deeper. I wonder when they will decide to call it a day?

71 comments

View Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (71)

5 day weather forecast for UEA/CRU

Wed: High 4C, Low 1C
Thurs: High 5C, Low -1C
Fri: High 2C, Low -2C
Sat: High 3C, Low -1C
Sun: High 2C, Low 0C

Brrrrr, cold init?

Nov 24, 2010 at 12:23 PM |

Mac

Just a 'heads up' for a new BBC 5 part series on Radio 4 starting Monday 29th Nov 15:45.
The Empire of Climate fronted by Prof David Livingstone OBE, MRIA, FBA, AcSS, MAE, Professor of Geography and Intellectual History, at Queen's University Belfast.

Let's all see just how 'impartial' this is !

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00w7858

Nov 24, 2010 at 12:44 PM |

jazznick

@ jazznick

Is it me or does the description of the program, The Empire of Climate, come across as confused?

Nov 24, 2010 at 12:56 PM |

Ross H

James P -

Russell claimed that publishing David's submission would create a risk of prosecution for libel - I'm not sure if Russell was feigning protection of David, or suggesting that the UEA/Russell could be in trouble for entertaining and being complicit in its publication. Probably both.

David was heavily involved in another project at the time and couldn't commit the time needed to comply, so Don Pablo and I began working to streamline David's submission, redact non-UEA names, and tone down the text to resubmit a less emotive and perhaps slightly less accusatory version. While in the process of doing this, Russell informed David that our redacted and modified version could not be accepted because the time for accepting submissions had passed.

Unfortunately (with hindsight) at this point, Don Pablo and I stopped working on the version for resubmission. I say unfortunately because, as I understand it, Russell DID then accept later submissions from at least one other source (UEA, I think). We should have seen that coming.

Nov 24, 2010 at 12:58 PM |

Simon Hopkinson

Douglas - let's not get at cross-purposes. I don't disagree that climate scientists place undue faith in consensus, weight of opinion, call it wall you will - nor that the result of this can be called "science by proclamation" - but it's only one of many flaws in their thinking and in their methods. Others include neglect of the null hypothesis, disregard of rival hypotheses, and many more which I'm sure you can name better than I. My original point was that I would expect a good scientist to be also better than the average guy at avoiding logical solecisms in debate, yet when we observe the strategies Believers choose in rebutting their critics, these guys spout them right, left and centre. They display a fundamental want of forensic insight and logical grasp, which we may assume they also bring to their work. Convincing them of their errors, one by one, may be an act of charity, but it's probably not achievable if they've reached professional maturity with an entire set of these delusions intact.

Nov 24, 2010 at 12:59 PM |

TomFP

RossH

Indeed, the 3rd in the series - The Body of Climatic Opinion looks like being the juicy one
but they have not yet titled the last 2 progs.
These are likely to be the 'conveying the message' and 'what we can do to avert disaster'

Looking at the forecast for next week I will be shovelling snow while they are shovelling shi*.

Nov 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM |

jazznick

@ stan

Bart informed me that it was I who was guilty of hubris because I, a non-scientist, had the temerity to question the opinions of science professionals!

Presumably the logical conclusion of this argument would be that his opinions always and automatically outweigh yours, because he's a scientist.

And hence, on any matter that scientists agree amongst themselves to be science - C02, witchcraft, fairies - nobody but them is entitled to an opinion.

You wouldn't be allowed to challenge the scientific consensus that belief in fairies or consensuses are not science, because he's already established that your views don't count.

These people seem as fearful of challenge as dictators are of the ballot box, presumably for the same reasons.

Nov 24, 2010 at 1:48 PM |

Justice4Rinka

@Simon Hopkinson

In view of UEA's late entry, have you and the Don considered asking Muir Russell why you (via DH) were given wrong information about the end of the submission period. Was it yet another "administrative error" perhaps?

Nov 24, 2010 at 1:52 PM |

Messenger

"cold init?"

Certainly is - and a lot colder than the MO thought only yesterday. I checked their prediction here (Isle of Wight) when leaving work and the night-time temp was forecast as around 4 deg. Less than 12 hours later it was -1.

The warmist agenda is still in place, apparently...

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/848056-hopes-for-a-mild-winter-grow-despite-the-snow

Nov 24, 2010 at 2:00 PM |

James P

Simon - thanks for the reply. I'm not sure how a submission to an investigative (?) panel can constitute libel by them, but IANAL and it's undoubtedly a good delaying tactic.

Nov 24, 2010 at 2:11 PM |

James P

@ Douglas Keenan

they genuinely believe that they can determine truth by proclamation. They are “leading scientists”, and that is what leading scientists do. I.e. being able to determine truth has become a part of their identities.

Interesting post and interesting points. Contrast this view of scientists with the role of judges.

A judge oversees a process whereby the facts are debated but ultimately emerge accurately and completely. He then writes up his judgment. Occasionally, cases will require him to make an interpretation of the law, given that it cannot possibly be written to encompass every possible set of circumstances. This interpretation becomes common law because A Real Proper Judge Has Said It.

Making common law is an incidental, not a central, part of a judge's job. He may well be called on to do it, and will reflect and consult on the matter to be sure he is getting it right. But it's not the main thing he's there to do.

What a judge should not be doing is treating his job - and the power it requires him to exercise - as an opportunity to warp, influence or discard the results of the proceedings he oversees, so he can restate, revise or reaffirm some piece of law according to what he likes and dislikes. He should not, for example, direct all TV tax dodgers to be acquitted in his courtroom, then declare the law on licence evasion not to work, simply because he personally thinks the TV licence should be abolished.

Yet that seems to be roughly what climate scientists like Phil Jones want to be, though: they want to be corrupt judges. They have an agenda they wish to pursue, and they do it by publishing oracular pronouncements in things like the IPCC ARs ("judgments"). The sum of their judgments becomes common law, and it's automatically binding ("there is a consensus among the judiciary that if a judge has said something it must be right"). The results of individual trials are warped to fit in with the judgemet they want to make (hiding the decline), and if you reckon a law is wrong, what do you know about the law, sonny? You're not a lawyer (our lies have all been peer-reviewed by other dodgy scientists).

If that's really the way these guys see themselves, it deserves wider circulation. We expect BBC journalists to behave in that way, because we already know they're on a crusade, but the idea that scientists are doing this while holding themselves out as an impartial authority to whom others can appeal is a bit worrying.

Nov 24, 2010 at 2:39 PM |

Justice4Rinka

Re: James P - Calling Stephen Davenport: Stephen I don't know if you read this blog but I'd love to hear from you what you mean by this:

‘My feeling is we are looking at a colder than average first half of the winter and the second half could be less cold,’ forecaster Stephen Davenport said.

What is your feeling re: the first half of the winter being colder than average based on?
Is your feeling that the second half *will* be less cold than average, or just that it *could* be?

In these clips you seem to be saying 5 days out is as far as you'd trust a forecast:

http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/leisure/national/8680722.Interview_with_Meteo_Group_senior_forecaster_Stephen_Davenport/

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/leisure/national/8683239.print/

Nov 24, 2010 at 3:28 PM |

not banned yet

The cracks are showing, just need to pry a bit more. Best we can do is try and turn one against the other, Muir Russell might be the weak point if he will admit that he did not do a full investigation to save himself it would be a start.

He has the money, we just need him to run.

Nov 24, 2010 at 3:29 PM |

Shevva

Martin A: That is a Delbert McClinton song and it goes

"If you can't lie no better than that, you might as well tell the truth".

Sounds apropos, eh?

Nov 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM |

JimB

@ Simon Hopkinson re late submission

I made a late submission (mailed 6 April 2010). They eventually published it on the web site a few weeks later. My late submission was prompted by the CRU`s own evidence to the E-Mail review (posted on 1 April 2010) and the HoC S&T Cttee report released 31 March 2010. My evidence was about the failure to identify the changes in station counts before and after 1990 and to verify the validity of the change by making a parallel run to verify the change in data sets. I also took the precaution of copying my submission to my MP (Dominic Grieve QC MP now Attorney General) as well as to Phil Willis MP (as the then Chairman of the HoC S&T Cttee) and Graham Stringer MP (as a dissenting voice on the S&T Cttee). As it turned out, they did not investigate the point or call for a parallel run of the data. I suspect the CRU would be unable to do so even if they wanted to. In my view this renders the whole temperature record comparing post 1990 with the preceding 30 years to be worthless for the purpose to which they applied it.

The more one reads this and other posts and blogs the more appropriate the description "Climategate" for this affair appears to be.

Nov 24, 2010 at 4:21 PM |

DRG Andrews

Messenger -

"In view of UEA's late entry [..]"

In short, no. :) We were not directly involved with the to:fro between David and Sir Muir but rather just with David. Our plan was to supply David with a revised version of his submission for him to then re-submit, himself, to Sir Muir's panel.

I think the question you raise is certainly valid and I would encourage David to pursue that particular intricacy with Russell, or at least highlight the matter that he was denied the opportunity to resubmit while others were facilitated.

Nov 24, 2010 at 5:00 PM |

Simon Hopkinson

DRG Andrews, with the benefit of hindsight it's clear that the Russell team were exerting as much control as they could over what was accepted as a submission, and by whom. What we've seen affirms that copying your MP on your submission was a wise move!

Nov 24, 2010 at 5:04 PM |

Simon Hopkinson

"the second half could be less cold"

Makes me almost wish I'd become a weather 'forecaster'...

Nov 24, 2010 at 6:58 PM |

James P

jazznick -

here's Livingstone (and Fiona Fox) spruiking Mike Hulme's book:

Why We Disagree About Climate Change
Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity
Mike Hulme, University of East Anglia
(Review by David N. Livingstone) "A much needed re-examination of the idea of climate change from a vantage point that takes its cultural coordinates as seriously as its physical properties. Through the twin lenses of scientific scrutiny and rhetorical analysis, Mike Hulme helps us to see just why we disagree about climate change and what we can do about it. With wisdom, wit and winsome writing, he shows us that debates about climate change turn out to be disputes about ourselves – our hopes, our fears, our aspirations, our identity. Hindsight, insight and foresight combine to make this book a rare treat." - David N. Livingstone, Professor of Historical Geography, Queen’s University, Belfast
http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item2327683/?site_locale=en_GB

also came across the following which might give some clues to how the bbc program will turn out:

2006: Christianity Today: Looking After Creation
Acclaimed physicist Sir John Houghton discusses his motives and passion for a cooler world climate.
Interview by David Neff
Earlier Christianity Today articles on other creation care issues include:
Eco-Myths | Don't believe everything you hear about the church and the environmental crisis. By David N. Livingstone, Calvin B. DeWitt, and Loren Wilkinson (June 27, 2001)

2001: Christianity Today: Eco-Myths: Don't believe everything you hear about the church and the environmental crisis.
"David N. Livingstone, Calvin B. DeWitt, and Loren Wilkinson"
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/juneweb-only/6-25-32.0.html

Nov 24, 2010 at 9:56 PM |

pat

Good research pat.

'why we disagree about climate change and what we can do about it'

= why we are right and you are wrong and how we can browbeat you into submission.

Nov 25, 2010 at 9:07 AM |

jazznick

Referring to the newest trend in the fashion footwear arena, Australian sheepskin boots must be names you will never omit. Being originated over two hundreds of years ago and worn by pilots in World War I and II, these shoes experience acid time test. They can stand out on the market and keep a climbing search definitely because they please most people' s needs.

louis vuitton
lv
louis vuitton wallets
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton sunglasses
louis vuitton bags
louis vuitton handbags
lv
louis vuitton bags
louis vuitton outlet

louis vuitton
lv
louis vuitton wallets
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton sunglasses
louis vuitton bags
louis vuitton handbags
lv
louis vuitton bags

louis vuitton
lv
louis vuitton wallets
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton sunglasses
louis vuitton shoes
louis vuitton bags
louis vuitton handbags
lv
louis vuitton bags

Dec 1, 2010 at 2:28 AM |

ugg boots

Post a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »

Author:

Author Email (optional):

Author URL (optional):

Post:

↓ | ↑

Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>