Bishop Hill Sir John Beddington on FOI
Nov 5, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: other I've just picked up this excerpt from Sir John Beddington's evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committe. Note that this is from the uncorrected transcript. This formed part of the panel's inquiry into the Goverment Office for Science's work in 2009. The session came just after the Russell/UEA hearings. It looks as though Graham Stringer still had UEA on his mind.
Q26 Graham Stringer: What do you think the implications for the Freedom of Information Act are from the reviews into the University of East Anglia affair? Apart freedom of information, are there any other things that you would like to say about that?
Professor Sir John Beddington: I won’t comment on East Anglia. I think that has been a well-worn area of discussion in terms of the East Anglian e-mails. But in terms of the scientific data, I think there are some really quite difficult issues. First of all, I think the basic principle is that, if it is publicly funded science, then the data should be available. This is funded by taxpayers; it should be available. Within that, there are obviously some constraints on timing. I think we need to be pondering quite how data collected on, say, a particular research grant-you do at least give the principal investigator a chance to publish it first, but then the data should be available. I think there are some quite thorny issues there.
David Willetts has actually charged Adrian Smith and me to examine this issue in a lot more detail, looking at the complexities, and that is work in progress. Maybe we will announce a consultation but that hasn’t been firmly decided. But, certainly, I think that is a real issue.
In the case of some of the climate data, the problem you have is that the collection of these kind of data was actually taken on the basis of some degree of confidentiality. This was given to the Met Office and said, "You are very welcome to work with it, but it’s our data and you mustn’t pass it on to a third party." That is a problem, obviously, and we are actually dealing with it. The question is: should we refuse such data? I don’t think we should. I think we should use it as best we can, but there are quite thorny issues out there and I don’t have any slick answers on it at the moment.
The emphasis, which was added by me, is to point readers to the part of Sir John's evidence that was, ahem, questionable. As I'm sure many readers here know, UEA have been unable to come up with any agreements that would prevent them releasing data to other researchers. They were repeatedly able to release the data to their pals. So where did this idea come from that release was prevented by confidentiality concerns?
More on this another time. In the meantime, isn't it just extraordinary how little of the evidence presented to Parliament about the CRU affair is accurate?
[Updated 7/11/10 to make it clear that the transcript is uncorrected]
Reader Comments (28)
Did I read this correctly?
Graham Stringer asks Beddington a direct question about the UEA and Beddington, effectively speaking to parliament, refuses to answer ("I won't comment on East Anglia").
Disgraceful.
I think the question related to the impact solely on the FOI Act and Beddington rightly chose not to get distracted from the question by commenting on any impact on the UEA.
So what is the point in David Willetts asking Beddington and Smith to look into something in more detail, when Beddington makes it clear that he won't look at anything he finds difficult?
The confidenciality is a red herring, this was Sweden telling the CRU they could not release the Adjusted Data for Sweden as they had nothing to do with it and did not want to be associated with it.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/05/phil-jones-called-out-by-swedes-on-data-availability/
John Beddington:
FoI Act, Section 22:
In short, researchers do not have to disclose data until they publish research papers based on that data.
Adrian Smith is ridiculously bright so should be able to get them to a sensible conclusion. Not sure what he needs to do beyond reiterate Douglas K's point above, and point out that the other stuff - threats to delete emails, attempts to suppress publication of critical papers, should always be subject to FOIA if it is government funded. We should beware of any attempts by universities to put their more controversial research out of the reach of public scrutiny by hiving them off into independent institutes (I am not saying for sure that this is happening already but seems to be a logical development).
JohnH,
I understand there were other countries apart from Sweden that were put up as a red herrings by Jones.
Douglas,
I guess on FoI there are not many who know the pitfalls as well as you. Thanks for your work.
Looking from afar you realise that in reality we are dealing with an information war in the battles over climate science.
When you consider that climate scientists, the IPCC, the journals, science bodies, enviro-journalists, green politicos are all in the information business it is remarkable that the Great Global Warming Narrative that took so many years to put together imploded from within when subject to the simple pressure from a very small group of people asking for more information and requesting flawed information be corrected.
The wreckage from FOIA requests, Climategate, the various IPPC gates and the whitewash reviews revealed only dogma and the extent that people went to protect that dogma.
It is also clear that the great and the good are still struggling with the aftermath of those events. Careers are being destroyed, reputations are being badly tarnished, policies will fail and will continue to do so until people like Professor Sir John Beddington deal with the reality of their own actions in this debate.
I suppose you could say that the reason the whole thing has lasted so long was that there were so many media people involved. We should not get over-excited just yet, as although the general public has switched off, there are still a lot of people in the chattering classes who are committed to the whole chicken little bit.
@mac
'it is remarkable that the Great Global Warming Narrative that took so many years to put together imploded from within when subject to the simple pressure from a very small group of people asking for more information and requesting flawed information be corrected'
Groupthink, Nobel Cause Corruption and Hubris. Success, in all its forms, came too quickly for the main participants. From anonymous grad student to the author of the paper that was going to save the world in a few short months. Thence to Lead Author for IPCC and the Nobel Prize. The absolute pinnacle of recognition for any scientist.
In any field of endeavour, those who become overnight celebrities nearly all reflect that they were ill-prepared for it. It is only those who get there slowly by paying their dues on whom the mantle falls easily and naturally.
The warmists found that, almost overnight, they were the Masters of the Universe. Their every word was listened to with great respect, the media reported all their ideas without any serious questioning, the United Nations and national governments passed legislation based on their theories and a senior US politician mad a feature film of their ideas. Why should they not feel themselves to be near bomb-proof and infallible?
Not all of their ideas were well thought through or reproducible or soundly documented, but hey, they were yesterdays' news...they needed to get on to the next achievement. No point in going back and crossing every 'I' and dotting every 't'. They probably weren't important and anyway they are saving the planet from destruction. And founding a whole industry composed of fawning acolytes too.
Lord Kelvin must have felt the same too. Having wrapped up thermodynamics he said
'The grand underlying principles have been firmly established...further truths of physics are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals'
and very soon afterwards the pesky Einstein started to investigate the photoelectric effect which led to the discovery of the completely revolutionary world of quantum physics.
For the warmists, it was not a new discovery that led to their downfall of their house of cards...but the persistent investigation of its foundations - which were found to be wanting.
Faced with some pretty simple requests for data that could be used to demonstrate the truth of their case, they consistently stonewalled. As a matter of policy seemingly implicitly or explicitly agreed among many individuals across many institutions. This, as Sherlock Holmes might have remarked, was an extremely curious thing to do, and begs the question - 'why?'
For a successful set of world class scientists, releasing their data for independent minds to look at should have been a no-brainer. A little tedious administrative work perhaps - like clearing out the cupboard under the stairs that you've been meaning to do for ages, but nothing too onerous - that's why you have grad students like Ian Harrison :-) - and the independent reviewer will come back with another further endorsement of the rightness of your work. And you've probably gained yourselves a free and talented mathematician to work on your behalf. Win Win!
So why didn't they? Too busy might have been a sensible excuse initially, but when matters got serious and legal issues started to raise their head, then the Law does not accept 'too busy' apart from under very specific circumstances which are laid down in detail. So no score on that excuse.
'We haven't got the data any more'. Which would be a pretty damning admission for anyone who claims to help foretell the future evolution of the planet's climate. Academe may still be littered with badly organised nutty professors bumbling around scattering important evidence into the coal scuttle, but the big bad world doesn't take kindly to such nonsense. Out here, we have to keep records safe and secure on pain of prosecution, and are not in a mood to give the warmists a pass.
But my theory is that they had as a terrifying example the history of Cold Fusion. It is arguable that the big mistake that Fleischman and Pons made was to publish their experimental details in enough detail to allow others to try to replicate them. And when this was tried, it failed. So the obvious conclusion in a field where you know that the underlying work is 'shaky' is to refuse to release these experimental details. A tactic which had been successfully used until very recently.
But refusal to release is only a tactic, not a strategy. And it seems that they never bothered to think about what a strategy might be. So when Climategate occurred they had absolutely nothing to say. Their silence was deafening. They could not respond, since such an event was outside of their experience. Their well-tried tactic of refusal to admit anything had been blown to smithereens with one direct hot. And even worse, it was extremely likely that it was one of their own who had set the charge off.
Today they are still scrabbling among the wreckage, trying to salvage something from the ruins. Their own defenders. Muir Russell, Peen State, Oxburgh, Monbiot etc have been shown to have little stomach for the fight. They go through the motions but it is clear that their heart is no longer in it. Even the praetorian guards at real climate do little more than discuss minor details any more.
Their cause is doomed...it will just take a few more years for all life to be extinguished.
Latimer Alder good post , There are indeed of set of ideas which form the structure of what the scientific approach is. To some extent Jones and co had built tall towers of ‘science’ but left out parts of this structure, so now it’s looking likes its coming down , and for that they no one to blame but themselves.
As song said don’t forget the sun cream , well these guys did and they fully enjoyed their time in the sun too , now it’s time to feel the pain.
An excellent summary, Latimer.
A wonderful essay Latimer. Your example of cold fusion is especially relevant - "It is arguable that the big mistake that Fleischman and Pons made was to publish their experimental details in enough detail to allow others to try to replicate them. And when this was tried, it failed."
Just as relevant is the paper from Xian-Jin Li in 2008 of a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. It was published and within a short period two Fields medalists, on blogs of all places, politely pointed out some flaws. The paper was withdrawn. No harm done to anyone. From McIntyre' post on this -
Perhaps a little heavy on sarcasm, but ultimately very, very true in the slightly mathematical world of climate science. But if you're out to save the planet, I don't suppose the distribution of primes is of very much importance.
Nice sumary, they also in Jones's case at least also seem to have got very lazy and also prone to losing data as they got used to paper reviewers never asking for data or methods. This added to their feelings of superiority plus allowed them to propose loose corrulations as firm causation and added to the height they will have to fall.
Interesting piece, Latimer. It brought to mind a little of William Shakespeare:
'The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.'
Even if you are right, and I hope you are, about the hardcore of alarmism dying out in a few more years, a great deal of damage has been done already. Presumably the Climate Change Act will be repealed soon, if this hope is correct, but what of the damage to the integrity of science, and scientific institutions such as the Royal Society. Are they to be forever lumped into the same bin as that occupied by political and media professions and institutions? To generate a wry smile and a cynical remark from the 'man in the street'?
And many cohorts of schoolchildren have been, and are being, and presumably will be for some years more, exposed to an ugly and frightening 'narrative' about their planet, and their, and their parents', impact on it. Is there an innocence that has been lost here? The consequences of it would seem to include, it seems to me, increased cynicism, despair, and political extremism/nihilism. All at a time when so much material progress has been made and, despite the threat of hostile ideologies, there are so many grounds for optimism about further social and technological developments to tackle real problems (as opposed to those deliberately factored into computer models to illustrate the conjectures of a handful of people).
As for more mundane legacies, the immortal words of Dreadnought return to mind:
I met a traveller from a distant shire
Who said: A vast and pointless shaft of steel
Stands on a hill top… Near it, in the mire,
Half sunk, a shattered turbine lies, whose wheels
And riven blades and snarls of coloured wire
Tell that its owners well their mission read
Which did not last nor, nowhere to be seen,
The hand that paid them and the empty head.
And scrawled around the base these lines are clear:
‘My name is Millibandias, greenest Green.
Look on my works, ye doubters, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round this display
Of reckless cost and loss, blotless and fair,
The green and pleasant landscape rolls away.
(http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/9/millibandias.html)
I hasten to add, for the avoidance of doubt, that my remarks apply to the demise of the cause, as do Latimer's, and not to the people involved! I daresay their PR skills and political contacts would be immensely valuable as and when they see the light, and come over to help the good guys.
Nice essay Latimer.
The strong possibility of legal action in the good ol' USA must be making any Brits who were in receipt of US taxpayers money feel very uneasy, particularly those who have lost the data.
If you look at the "agreement" that was listed from Spain, it had major deficiencies.
In the location that existed for the requestor to delineate what limited terms he would use the "confidential" data for, he merely listed what data he wanted.
The place for the requestor's signature and date of request [ "Firma y fecha" - which would normally indicate agreement to abide by terms..] was left blank.
The Spanish elected to give out the data, anyway. In the USA, we call that waiving rights.
John Shade ; Waxing Miltonian eh!
Their song was partial, but the harmony
(What could it less when Spirits immortal sing?)
Suspended Hell, and took with ravishment
The thronging audience. In discourse more sweet
(For eloquence the soul, song charms the sense)
Others apart sat on a hill retired
(Paradise Lost)
mac: "...it is remarkable that the Great Global Warming Narrative that took so many years to put together imploded from within when subject to the simple pressure from a very small group of people asking for more information and requesting flawed information be corrected."
I question that global warming is in trouble because of pressure from a "very small group" merely seeking "information".
Climate science is under pressure as a result of the Climategate emails, which were used to support a pre-existing narrative that climate science was a hoax and a scam, and that climate scientists were liars and cheats, intent on stealing public money and destroying civilisation as we know it.
Before Climategate, climate scepticism was already a sizable cottage industry with links into media and politics, which had maintained a steady drumbeat of alarmist memes about the practices and intentions of climate scientists.
Climategate served as a battering ram to push this already existing narrative into the wider public arena, where it found a ready audience among some sections of the population, thus amplifying its impact.
In my view, it's this "strong" narrative -- that climate scientists are cheating, lying and stealing, and perpertrating a hoax and a scam (in some eyes a massive conspiracy) on the commion folk -- that has captured people's imagination, rather than mere requests for "information".
Your Grace is there any news on the removed Beddington evidence/transcript you have linked above?
The Government Office for Science Annual Review 2009 - Uncorrected Evidence - 546-i
HC 546-i | Published 27 October 2010
Yes, the public should have access to property it paid for. But that is a distraction from the more important issue -- the public MUST have access to any information which is used to formulate policy. If a scientist won't make data available, the only ethical position that governments should take is that the scientist's work is not suitable for policy decisions. Doesn't matter who paid for it. If the public cannot "cross-examine" the work in detail, the work shouldn't be used to make policy. To continue the trial analogy, the work shouldn't be "admitted" into evidence for consideration
Example -- govt will take away some of your property and a lot of your freedom with a proposed new law. On what grounds, you ask? Because Smith and Jones did a study which says it is necessary. Has anybody replicated the study? No. Anyone audited it? No. Anyone checked the data or any other part of it? No. Can I check the study? No. No one can investigate the quality of the work. So the study could be badly flawed due to fraud, negligence, or incompetence and we'd have no way of knowing? All true, but the Smith and Jones study is still good enough reason to take away your property and freedom.
I should hope that the immorality of this would be blatantly obvious to all.
Brenden, nice thought, but I am not sure the 'fraud/hoax' narrative is as strong or pre-existing as you suggest. I was certainly not familiar with it.
What struck me about climategate was the exposure of the weak science - that was all they had? And the banality of the discussion. As TinyCO2 said this week
"Can you believe the World is at risk if petty career considerations take precedence?"
And, Latimer, great post, says it all. Let's hope it's months not years!
Martyn
I have no idea why it has disappeared. I have a copy retreived from Google cache if anyone wants it.
Josh: "Brenden, nice thought, but I am not sure the 'fraud/hoax' narrative is as strong or pre-existing as you suggest. I was certainly not familiar with it."
I have only been following the global warming issue for a few years, but what struck me from the beginning were the references to hoax and fraud, scam, lies etc on sceptic blogs.
For example: "The IPCC uses the hoax of man made global warming to increase its power and that of a corrupt, anti-American United Nations..."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/04/alleviate-world-hunger-produce-more-clean-carbon-dioxide/
Nor have the accusations been confined to unknowns on the internet. From 2003:
"With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it."
http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm
And: "...what I consider to be one of the greatest hoaxes that I have seen in my lifetime..."
http://rohrabacher.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=91424
Then there was the Great Global Warming Swindle, screened in 2007.
The hoax and fraud claims were definitely a very strong theme pre-Climategate, and the Climategate emails were used to support an already existing narrative. It's not difficult to read at least some confirmation bias operating in its aftermath.
Interestingly, the AGW conspiracy theme was operating almost from the get-go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory#cite_note-Inhofe-8
Thanks Bish, very strange it seems someone has pulled the plug on the evidence given by the other three too: Sir Muir Russell, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, and Professor Trevor Davies, Pro Vice Chancellor for Research, University of East Anglia
The Reviews into the Climatic Research Unit’s E-mails at the University of East Anglia - Uncorrected evidence - 444-ii HC 444-ii | Published 27 October 2010
Bish, Beddington’s evidence is back up. I’m not sure if there are any changes from the original.