Bishop Hill Climategate fallout
Feb 18, 2010 Climate: CRU There an interesting article at the Times Higher Educational Supplement which suggests that UEA researchers outside CRU, or even the School of Environmental Sciences, may be experiencing blowback from the Climategate scandal.
Last week, a research paper by Thomas Nann, a professor in UEA's School of Chemistry, was covered by the popular science magazine New Scientist.
The story was based on a paper co-authored by Professor Nann, "Water splitting by visible light: A nanophotocathode for hydrogen production", which outlines a new technique for converting photoelectrons to hydrogen with a 60 per cent efficiency rate.
But comments posted online suggest that although the research has nothing to do with the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which is at the centre of the Climategate controversy, it is being questioned because it emanates from UEA.
"I am suspicious about the 60 per cent figure (because) it comes from UEA, which ... has suffered from the recent CRU scandal," one reader writes.
Another says: "For me, at least, whenever anyone mentions research from UEA, the Climategate scandal and bad scientific practices will come to mind ... I feel bad for the students now that the institution is somewhat of a national joke."
You can only feel sympathy for researchers who are suffering guilt by association in this way. Let's hope for their sakes that the CCE review doesn't turn into the whitewash we all expect it to.
Reader Comments (44)
The Monty Python "Village Idiot" Sketch stuck the knife into UEA several decades ago (probably a Cambridge thing you know)
-- Mentions the "lecturer in idiocy from the University Of East Anglia"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNBNqUdqm1E
About 2:45 into this clip
Welcome UEA to the world of politics and democratic systems.
UEA seemed to want to have their cake and eat it. Riding the political train, and when things became nasty, claiming (usually in the Guardian) "we are just poor poor academics who do not know how to play the media and political games". Life is not like that.
In Management Consulting you come across the Authority-Responsibility balance. Does this role or team have Authority to match their Responsibility? A role with Responsibility but no Authority is not a pleasant one. A role with Authority but no Responsibility is a very powerful one (and the people involved often disliked.)
However, the nature of human (democratic) systems and their interaction is that they will always will find equilibrium: Overall Authority and Responsibility are matched.
CRU (and the Team) had huge Authority but without Responsibility. Once that Authority started to have an effect on more and more of the populace, the system starts to correct itself. That is is what is happening here, and what many Alarmists/Warmists cannot understand.
UEA liked the Authority, well I am sorry but now comes the inevitable Responsibility.
Tough as they say.
Yes it is tough, but I don't have much sympathy. It is going to take this sort of collateral damage to finally bring UEA to its senses. These people must have been smoking dope to have believed they could ride out this level of PR catastrophe by running such a contaminated enquiry process.
It really is a shame to see an institution degraded to this point, but the responsibility rests squarely on the UEA leadership.
If the researchers in other departments immediately pressurise senior UEA management (right up to the Vice Chancellor) and make them aware that the whole instituion will fall into disrepute if the CRU and its shoddy investigation aren't sorted out then they avoid the worst of the long term effects. Otherwise, expect student numbers to fall, staff to leave and the whole untrustworthy institution to fade away.
Er....this is 'fallout'? The anonymous comments at the end of an article in a pop sci magazine will filter through to threaten the potential for Nann et al. to get further backing and development? "Yer,we wuz that close to signing a startup deal with one of our venture partners when a comment by a bloke called weezer on a magazine article cruelled it for us .Damn that bluddy Phillip Jones...."
Just google UEA and Marxism and you get an idea what that place is all about.
JohnRS, UEA can't throw the CRU under a bus to save the institution because the VC is implicated in the FOI refusals. Their only sensible strategy is whitewash.
It's seems premature, and over-egging the pudding, to read anything into finding one comment on one site!
Regarding UEA generally it has always seemed odd to me, that with 20 years, piles of money going into the field, and a supposedly super-important subject, Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, UCL, and the other usual suspects, haven't come to dominate leading-edge research into climate change.
I'm not putting down UEA in the above comment, it's just that the others so much more resources that they could potentially draw upon. Of course the one thing that they might not have, but UEA does have, is all of that data? (perhaps that explains some of the secrecy too?)
I'm not sure if this is relevant, but UEA is ranked 28 by the Times Good Universities Guide - just slightly above the University of Reading at 31.
There are another 70 odd 'universities' beneath that, but the names that matter are all well above UEA
Actually it isn't a single comment. There are about 10 comments making much the same point.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18511-sunpowered-water-splitter-makes-hydrogen-tirelessly.html
I am sure there is much excellent scientific research going on at UEA, but until the University authorities demonstrate that they are on the side of science rather than agenda-driven research their reputation is hopelessly compromised. It may already be too late.
I am wondering if the fallout might be wider - to British universities as a whole, given that CRU's influence has been international.
The UEA is a good university and hasn't done anything wrong, neither has CRU. There's a saying, "innocent until proven guilty". Phil Jones has been accused of making mistakes and is willing to account for his actions, but the other scientists working there should not be drawn into this dispute.
Agree with Jonathan above - UEA's only position must be a whitewash (which is pretty much a foregone conclusion anyway). If they admit that slipshod, or worse, practices were adopted their reputation is shot. If they brazen it out, their reputation is still contaminated but they can claim that they have been independently exonerated and therefore everything is fine and dandy.
The inquiry to be held by UEA is their opportunity to get the drains up and re-establish their professional reputation. They will not be judged by the problems within the CRU (damaging as they are) but by how they then dealt with the problem once discovered. If they fail to do so then it will quietly be assumed that the rot must go much deeper and be more widespread and raises doubts about the institution as a whole, its research output and the qualifications is has awarded. How often is it the cover up which when itself exposed is the proof of deceit that is the most damaging rather than the original "crime".
As Andrew says it could also damage the international reputatation of Britsh Science and Engineering institutions as a whole through guilt by association or complicity through silence or inaction. Again the judgement will be harsher on their actions after the problem was discovered. Would you want at present to fly in a Space Shuttle designed by UEA or any one associated with them.
@ AWatcher
The traditional universities are more interested in the hard sciences than soft sciences. CRU is part of the School of Environmental Sciences at UEA. When UEA was set up it tried to find a niche doing these soft sciences. It's reputation for hard sciences was never good (it lost its physics department). As others have said, climate science is a sub-branch of physics. At CRU it is a sub-branch of environmentalism, practised by dendroclimatologists and the like.
@Tilde:
Guardian ranks UEA 35th in 2010 and 40th in 2009
http://www.how2uk.com/university.ratings.4/the-guardian-2009-british-university-rankings.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2009/may/12/university-league-table
These are of course general guides, and particular subjects vary, opinions vary, etc. I have a feeling (I haven't researched it) that if you go back over the years, UEA might have risen up the rankings.slightly over the last few years and reached a higher position than it once was.
The UEA is a good university and hasn't done anything wrong, neither has CRU. There's a saying, "innocent until proven guilty". Phil Jones has been accused of making mistakes and is willing to account for his actions, but the other scientists working there should not be drawn into this dispute.
So Phil Jones is a sacrificial lamb? UEA/CRU got involved in being one of the principal supports of a planned trillion dollar industry. As mentioned above, when the responsibility comes knocking on the door it cannot be avoided, certainly not by having a whitewash and a sacrifice.
When we start hearing UEA staff calling for a independent inquiry then people might be more inclined to have some sympathy. UEA staff have to decide which horse they want to back.
@Phillip:
I agree somewhat; Some other universities such as Cambridge etc., are more focused on hard sciences
But, even though Cambridge (etc.) are more focused on hard sciences - even in soft sciences - they rank more highly.
For example, in 2008, according to the Times Online, UEA ranks at 19th (below Cambridge et al) in "Geography and Environmental Sciences"
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/gug/gooduniversityguide.php?AC_sub=Geography+and+Environmental+Sciences&x=36&y=9&sub=15
UEA's other claim to fame is their course in Creative Writing which Malcolm Bradbury set up in the 1970s. Famous alumni include Ian McEwan and Kazuo Ishiguro, but it is not known whether Geoffrey Bolton or Phil Jones ever attended.
Indeed, but I feel this way about any scientific research I read about now. It's not just the CRU that's sufferring, it's the integrity of the entire scientific community.
Indeed, but I feel this way about any scientific research I read about now. It's not just the CRU that's sufferring, it's the integrity of the entire scientific community.
That is actually an interesting point. On the University merry-go-round how easy will it be for UEA staff to find good placements? Will they be at an disadvantage in the waiting room with the other 20 applicants?
This inquiry is a political sponsored event to save CRU in the short-term. UEA in the long term? Currently NOBODY cares.
People complain abaht my Phil, but is anyfink 'e said any worse than that stuff people write abaht cholesterol, eh? Eh? It's just not fair.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8521821.stm
"Yvo de Boer, the UN's top climate change official, says he will resign after nearly four years in the post."
> On the University merry-go-round how easy will it be for UEA staff to find good placements? Will they be at an disadvantage in the waiting room with the other 20 applicants?
Maybe some disadvantage, but I doubt it would be crippling for those from other departments or not directly associated with the climategate scandal.
The more interesting question is - and one where I think the effect may be bigger - will UEA struggle with recruiting quality staff in future?
If you were a scientists or researcher, would you want to take a job at UEA? Would you even apply? Would you want to have a UEA job on your CV?
(I could make a joke at this point, about how even Professor Geoffrey Boulton doesn't want UEA on his CV, but I won't, since that might be construed as insensitive).
It would be a shame for good work to be overlooked just because of Climategate and, what?, Muirgate?, Reviewgate?
Fortunately, this water splitting work aught to be readily reproducible by other labs.
That being almost entirely the point, in fact, and what was lacking with CRU work. Well, not so much lacking as actively evaded, undermined, blackguarded.
So if Malcolm Bradbury was at UEA then the setting for The History Man was probably UEA. Ye Gods! That explains a lot.
I'm starting to think that anything from the University of Edinburgh should be looked at rather carefully too, if their Vice Principle is an example the standards and conduct they expect.
Penn State should be on the watch list too.
Re: Andy Scrase
That might be closer than you think. UEA Environmental Science was located in what was known as "UEA Village" back in the 1970s.
Re: Mickey Mouse
The UEA/CRU colluded with Phil Jones to suppress legitimate FOIA requests. They allowed the data for some key research (temp reconstructions and UHI effect) to be so badly managed that it has been lost. They have been aware of the loss of UHI data for several years yet have sat back and not attempted to institute any research data management policies (if they had of done then their press releases would have mentioned this).
Where is Frank O'D when you want him?
Were my questions about the reliability of research coming from Penn State, and the employability of Penn State graduates so far off the mark, and so buried in conspiracy theories?
As to the value of whitewash, just look at the response the Pope's failure to apologies for clerical sex abuse cover ups is having in Ireland at the moment.
Attending church and attending UAE or Penn are both volountary actions, you bet attendences will suffer!
I'll repeat,
A fish rots from the head
The comment by "dave" at the THE site is fascinating.
He begins by saying that empirical evidence will never persuade the skeptics. Fair enough - there are lots of warmists who feel that way. However he then continues: "If Jesus Christ himself appeared 100 feet tall in St Peter's Square to demand action, it'd be dismissed as a hoax - or, worse, a conspiracy."
Maybe it's just a figure of speech, but I find it how often religious and theological analogies are used by warmists. Continuing on this path, its seems inevitable we will eventually get a "Jesus image appear on toast to tell me climate is warning" story.
P.S.
Python sketch at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNBNqUdqm1E - UEA reference begins at about 2:40
Would that be Andrew "what an asshole" Watson of the UEA SES?
Errr.. LOL?
[BH adds: C'mon, Watson is right. It is unfair on these people]
The left infested Academic Hothouses have no idea of the blow back they are going to receive. The whole system has been corrupted to the core and will suffer a similar fate as the UEA Enviromental group, complete failure. The system will self correct and it is coming, hard & fast! These fraud's have stolen $80 Billion dollars and were trying to steal $40 Trillion more and they think they can get away with it...the tiny/empty, dangerous minds of these tools must be something remarkable.
Yer Grace
Apologies if this has been mentioned -
12 February 2010
"The Royal Society will provide advice to the University of East Anglia in identifying assessors to conduct an independent external reappraisal of the Climatic Research Unit’s key publications."
http://www.royalsociety.org/Advising-UEA-on-independent-scientific-experts/
BTW, what news on the second print run of your book?
[BH adds: The Royal Society thing we knew - this came out when the CCE panel was announced last week. The reprinting should have happened by now I think]
@ mickey mouse
"The UEA is a good university and hasn't done anything wrong, neither has CRU. There's a saying, "innocent until proven guilty". Phil Jones has been accused of making mistakes and is willing to account for his actions, but the other scientists working there should not be drawn into this dispute".>
Read The Hockey Stick Illusion
"the VC is implicated in the FOI refusals". I think you will find that the current VC is not implicated in the FOI refusals, since he only took over in an acting capacity in early 2009, and was confirmed in post in September 2009. But for UEA as a whole there must be serious worries about its medium term reputation, and the attempt to divert attention through the Muir Russell inquiry has seemingly done the opposite, due to the cack-handedness of Russell.
My own sense is that the problem lies more with Trevor Davies, the Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research, Enterprise and Engagement, a proper mouthful, who was a previous head of the CRU, and a serious climber of the greasy pole at UEA for many years. It is quite possible that he might have expected to become VC after the retirement of the last VC, and maybe he doesn't do much to support the current VC, Edward Acton. In addition it is probably Davies who goes out and gets funding for the CRU.
[BH adds: Yes, you are right about Sir Edward Acton. Someone pointed this out via email a few days ago. The email where Jones says that the VC is aware of what they were doing dates back to Acton's predecessor's time. I suppose one could point out that the breaches continued on Acton's watch, but there is no evidence that he was aware of them.]
Pfff skeptics want an independent review but the review must conclude what they believe. If it doesn't they'll call it a whitewash. Riiiight.
Nu-definition of whitewash: Something that doesn't confirm our shoddy "analysis" of the CRU emails
I have more sympathy for the students at all the institutions who've done some years of study on a degree which may turn out to be based on a fallacy.
@bobd: I'd be happy with a review conducted in open, all evidence in the open (preferably posted on the Internet), all hearings in the public (preferably streamed online), and with a panel of people who have not expressed strong views on the CRU, have campaigned on global warming policy, haven't signed petitions that exonerated the CRU, and who are not associated with the university. It shouldn't be impossible to find scientists (from the other fields), statisticians, and data management experts who fit those criteria... so why did they select a panel where 2 people (remember one has already resigned) are arguably unsuitable
It may not be possible for UEA to fully undo the damage to their reputation - but a fully independent and public inquiry would help even more.
Whether the inquiry exonerates or condemns those involved - justice needs to be seen to be done, and seen to be done by an impartial process.
bobd,
The evidence is already publicly available. The accused have already provided their defences. There is really no new information that an independent review can uncover and any one with an interest in the topic has already come to decision based on the evidence available. The only way a review panel could change anyone's mind is if it bent over backwards to demonstrate its neutrality. The review has failed before it has even begun on that point.
jpkatlarge, thank you for a very relevant observation. Blaming it all on Trevor Davies would indeed be a highly plausible strategy.
While I generally agree when you say, "You can only feel sympathy for researchers who are suffering guilt by association in this way," it is true that they do have at least one alternative course available to them.
They could take a stand for academic integrity, and publicly petition or otherwise urge Prof. Boulton to step down from the climategate inquiry committee.
After all, Boulton's curious CV omissions (until publicly "outed" by you and others like Steve McIntyre), and his failure thereafter to even accurately state the timeline for his professional connection to EAU, both strongly indicate a tendency for deception, or at a minimum, evasiveness.
Moreover, his initial hiding, and later dogged minimizing of both his past connections to the EAU, and especially to the AGW/climate change advocacy community (again, until "outed"), also indicate at best a lack of forthrightness, both of which clearly tend to undermine public confidence in his capacity for impartiality.
It seems to me that these are also a few of the very most undesirable qualities alleged about the CRU correspondents, thereby ultimately forming the basis for the conduct of the inquiry in the first place!
Really, when you think about it, what could possibly be his line of defense for remaining a member of the inquiry committee, if he was openly urged by several other academics at the University to step down?
Would he say he was staying because, "It takes one to know one!?"
It may be that links between Trevor Davies and Geoffrey Boulton ("the man, the legend", according to Facebook) are the most relevant. I think you will find they have much common history at UEA in the School of Environmental Sciences for most of the 70's and 80's. Given Boulton was in a senior position at Edinburgh while Russell was at Glasgow, I think we can assume they were at least well acquainted. A route: Davies - Boulton - Russell could work.
Gore and The UN IPCC should be forced to give back their Nobel Peace Prize. The flaws in Gore's film and the errors in the 2007 UN IPCC Report that have been discovered since the award was given should disqualify both parties. Irena Sendler who risked her life daily during World War II to save the lives of over 2,500 Jewish children is much more deserving. Please sign the petition to demand that Gore and the UN IPCC have their award taken away. http://www.stripgore.com
Has Frank O'D nothing to add?