Bishop Hill What's missing
Feb 12, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Russell OK readers, you have work to do.
Submissions for the Russell review are due by the end of the month and it will require some concentrated effort by the community to put something together so quickly.
Here's the Issues for Examination document published by Sir Muir and his team. The first question is "Does this cover everything it should do?" The document covers several broad areas, with more detailed questions under each heading. Are there any broad areas missing? Are there more detailed questions to be added under existing headings?
Here are the broad headings.
1. The allegation of ignoring potential problems in deducing palaeotemperatures from tree ring data that might undermine the validity of the so-called “hockey-stick” curve.
2. The allegation that CRU has colluded in attempting to diminish the significance of data that might appear to conflict with the 20th century global warming hypothesis
3. It is alleged that proxy temperature deductions and instrumental temperature data have been improperly combined to conceal mismatch between the two data series
4. It is alleged that there has been an improper bias in selecting and adjusting data so as to favour the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and details of sites and the data adjustments have not been made adequately available
5. It is alleged that there have been improper attempts to influence the peer review system and a violation of IPCC procedures in attempting to prevent the publication of opposing ideas.
6. The scrutiny and re-analysis of data by other scientists is a vital process if hypotheses are to rigorously tested and improved. It is alleged that there has been a failure to make important data available or the procedures used to adjust and analyse that data, thereby subverting a crucial scientific process.
7. The keeping of accurate records of datasets, algorithms and software used in the analysis of climate data.
8. Response to Freedom of Information requests.
Answers in the comments please.
Reader Comments (22)
Hi Bishop
I posted a comment (now towards the bottom of this thread)
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/11/campbell-resigns.html#comments
Where I provided some more information on Geoffrey Boulton and asked the question as to what sort of format this enquiry will take, as that will dicate the nature of the people eligible to be part of the panel.
Is it a 'trial' in which case those on it should be neutral and objective, and whilst competent may not necessarily have expertise in the fields being examined . Alternatively, is it more a tribunal whereby the chairman should be neutral but those sitting with him need to have specific knowledge and may therefore bring their own baggage and prejudices.
If the former Boulton is wildly unsuitable, if the latter he is a good choice.
Understanding this part of the procedure will help me to look at the Broad headings with a bit more knowledge of the conditions under which the information will be examined. Thanks
Tonyb
Tony
Thanks for that. My impression is that it's more tribunal-ish. I think it's going to be more like an expert panel where they sit round a table and discuss.
Two possible additions:
The failure of the peer review process adequately to audit the computation and selection of source data leading to derived conclusions.
A failure adequately to assess and accurately report uncertainties surrounding adverse climate impact predictions.
Andrew, the issues for examination are the issues for examination.
I do not think there is much point in complaining about what is missing.
If they receive submissions that just grumble that the review doesnt cover the areas that it should, they may just ignore them, as being outside the remit.
In fact they say:
"Please confine any comments on this paper to matters within the remit at paragraph 1 of this paper"
Hi, firstly many, many thanks for the cracking job you and others are doing :-D
The question that has always niggled at me (long before Climategate) is - how much do the data from paleo climate studies and the ‘value added’ instrument records influence the climate models? ie if the data are wrong are the models also wrong? Have the paleo climate teams had any feedback from the modellers?
I’m sure it’s fodder for an entirely new enquiry and I suspect it will be a long time before they willingly get to it.
An extension of the final submission date to allow interested parties to appoint independent reviewers of the enquiries progress.
Steve McIntyre comes to mind. Exchanges between the independent reviewer and the appointed panel to be made public via the independent reviewers facilities so researchers can comment on the progress.
PaulM
The inquiry has the ability to change its terms of reference as the need arises. I think it is therefore valid to raise issues that they have missed if these exist.
This inquiry has no legal power. There is no questioning under oath and there are no legal implications of the findings.
Just give them your book!
Under which of these 8 headings are they likely to consider Jones and Wang ?
Hi Bishop
I have read your post and the original terms of reference under which any submissions may be made.
I agree this appears to be a sort of tribunal rather than an independent and objective 'trial'. As such there are a number of people sitting on the 'other' side of the table whose expertise and bias is bound to have an effect on the few (any?) members that are objective and may have limited knowledge.
I have attended one public enquiry as a 'complainant' and would observe that at least with that format there were two sides and it was open to public scrutiny. It appears to me that this group will receive all sorts of submissions-of which the most coherent ones will be from CRU themselves as they have the infrastastructure to produce the information required. This will then be examned in a gentlemanly and academic fashion by a group whose background suggests they will be minded to side with CRU.
If this was a game of cards this would be the time to realise the decks are stacked against us and walk away.
It would be more constructive to suggest -through the press if necessary- that a prvate enquiry of this nature will do nothing to resolve the disquiet felt by many people and they will be acused-unfairly or not-of a whitewash.
Therefore it would seem to be in everyones interest if the enquiry was structured so the material supplied- and the delberations on them- are held in public.
I don't know how you feel about that suggestion, and I appreciate it is late in the day, but unless I have not seen all the terms of reference and misunderstand the way in this tribunal will work, all of this will be conducted away from the public gaze.
Tonyb
Bish
I'm not sure what you are aking here. Are you asking for a communal effort to put something together? Or are you asking us to get on with our own submissions?
When I look at the QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS I can see that most of the questions can only be addressed by CRU. However, there are many where I can suggest what they should have been doing not what they did do. Any comments?
In particular, I can make extensive suggestions in response to questions 6 & 7.
Does this remit adequately cover the questions/doubts raised over the statistical methods used by Mann - to which you draw attention in your book?
Oldtimer
Not sure yet - I think most of the science is being handed over to the Royal Society panel, but there still seems to be some discussion of paleo stuff by Sir Muir's team. The Hockey Stick was not CRU work, of course, but there may be some scope for looking at Briffa and Jones' work in the area, which is said to support the HS.
4. It is alleged that there has been an improper bias in selecting and adjusting data so as to favour the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and details of sites and the data adjustments have not been made adequately available
Seems to me that the proper question is not one of bias but whether their selection and adjustment of data was done in the proper manner to support an accurate measure of global mean temperature. If there were errors that led to an underestimation of temperature, that still would not be acceptable practice.
1. Quality of the Code
2. Attempting to get a PhD revoked. This is truely awful. Killing someone's career prospects because of the results not agreeing with yours
Publication of the results of publicly-funded research behind privately-owned pay-walls which in aggregate effectively exclude most people outside the privileged, funded and self-perpetuating cliques from much of the science.
the jones and wang paper looks like a good one. Was it good practice to describe their data as they did (few if any changes in the siting of chinese stations). Was it good practice to refuse to release the data ? Was it good practice to refuse an FOI request for the data ?
these all seem like quite straightforward questions and answers, and difficult to duck.
per
I have ony two comments:
First, in respect of the FOIA question - it seems to pass unremarked that the first recourse of anyone seeking to appraise CRU work was yp be through FOI. Until Climategate I had naively assumed (like milions, I suspect) that the data and reasoning behind AGW "science" was freely available upon request. I would regard an FOI request as an "escalation" of an earlier, straightforward request, not the first instance of such a request. Shouldn't Jones be asked, not merely about FOI requests, but about the need to resort to them, and about any non-FOI requests he may have received, how he reponded to them, and why?
Secondly, (and I posted on this elsewhere in these pages), shouldn't the panel be asked to declare any "green" investments in which they have a direct or beneficial (eg through family) interest?
Nick - I haven't een the reference (presumably in the emails) re attempting to get a PhD revoked, but if it really exists it should e actionabe at law, whatever Russell makes of it.
that should be "...be actionable..."
Off the top of my head
* Whether data pertaining to climate records and other data which might throw doubt on the AGW hypothesis was destroyed, as clearly stated would be done and advising others to follow suit, in the emails?
* The exact meaning of "hiding the decline" and "Mike's Nature Trick" in context. Whether this was used to manipulate data and falsely create an increase in the temperature proxy reconstructions in place of a decline shown by them
.
* Whether such a procedure was scientifically and mathematically unjustifiable.
*If the scientific method was upheld in this procedure, which dictates that the conclusions must be derived from the results of an experiment and under no circumstances must the results from the data be manipulated to comply with an expected result.