Thursday
Feb252010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Acton's submission to the parliamentary inquiry
Feb 25, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Parliament Sir Edward Acton's submission to the parliamentary inquiry is available here. I'll post a reaction once I've read it.
Reader Comments (30)
I don't have Word, and so can't open it. Any ideas, anyone?
@HotRod: http://www.openoffice.org/
Thanks, got it, and read it.
On a swift read-through they have done nothing wrong at all. Not a thing. Stalwart defence. Straight bat. Mike Atherton in Jamaica vs Walsh and Ambrose. Maybe not a good analogy, I need a ball-tampering allegation in there somewhere.
Here is a good example of how to lie in an attempt to save face:
Sir Edward Acton: "The use of the term “hiding the decline” referred to the method of combining the tree-ring evidence and instrumental temperatures, removing the post-1960 tree-ring data to avoid giving a 'false impression' of declining temperatures."
A deliberate falsehood is not a false impression.
You cannot compare apples (tree ring proxies) with oranges (instrumental temperatures). The both should stand independently of each other to contrast the difference. When that is done you realise that tree ring proxies are not good thermometers and the instrumental record has been so tampered with that it lacks ant credibility.
I personally would be a little more circumspect than the VC, as he's just set up an independent review to establish if the things he's saying didn't happen, happened. It's bizarre. I would think even one of our legislators might pick up on the noted bias in the VC's response and ask him about the outcome of the enquiry given his prejudgement of the results. Or does he know something we don't.
There is also the meme of the well organised, well funded enemies of science, someone should ask him for evidence of that, as far as I can see the sceptics are a non-funded rag tag army keeping the science straight.
They have again focussed on the "trick", they're like illusionists trying to attract our attention to something while we miss the main point, that Jones openly said he'd destroy data rather than give it to the sceptics, Was that scientific banter?
As it happens the word "trick" is so common among scientists that it occurs no less than 12 times in over 1000 emails, maybe our legislators might like to ask him about that.
Agree with HotRod, pretty much "nothing to see here, move along please", but didn't really expect anything else TBH. Now back to finishing off your excellent book.
He also mentions the FOIA requests causing them inconvenience, well maybe in 2009, but Jones was complaining long before that and they had only received 6 FOI requests in four years. He says 61 were for contracts between CRU and met offices, yes and they were stimulated by the fact that Jones was hiding behind them so his data couldn't be independently examined, in fact aren't there only 3?
If they wanted to they could mince him on this submission, and I'm not particularly worried about the CRU as such but anyone with half an eye can see these emails weren't just climatologogists having a little banter they are an advocacy group.
Absolute rubbish. No attempt to engage with the real issues.
"It is referred to in the literature as the “decline” or “divergence” phenomenon. The use of the term “hiding the decline” referred to the method of combining the tree-ring evidence and instrumental temperatures, removing the post-1960 tree-ring data to avoid giving a false impression of declining temperatures. What it did not refer to was any decline in the actual thermometer evidence of recent warming."
Whoever said it did? Talk about a straw man.
"In this case it was “the trick or knack” of constructing a statistical illustration which would combine the most reliable proxy and instrumental evidence of temperature trends."
So proxy measurements from 1660 -1960 are more reliable than thermometer measurements are they? They are 'the most reliable' are they? It's pretty obvious that they cherrypicked which datasets to use to give them the graph they wanted.
By their own admission the meaning of the phrase is "the knack of hiding the divergence between proxy and thermometer data". And how long is the divergence? 350 years or so.
Lets no forget what CRU already admitted in Nov 2009: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data."
The raw data was dumped, deleted and destroyed by CRU.
Remember that he's a Vice-Chancellor, and as someone (!) once said "All power tends to corrupt".
1. Publish the submission in an incompatible proprietary format - the interweb thingy uses HTML, so here it is in DOC format.
2. Produce multipage waffle that says 'Wasn't me guv, honest, woz all of that lot over there.'
3. Look confused when someone later asks 'So what was it exactly that you did to justify all those millions you were given over all those years, since your submission implies that you have never done nuffink, sorry anything?'
@Hotrod,
Are you suggesting they are playing or tampering with their balls in public?
He doesn't say there are powerful commercial or political interests only that there are fears they exist. Had he phrased it differently I'd have been tempted to submit a FOIA request for his evidence of their existence.
1.9 Independent Review
... following the theft of CRU emails in November and allegations ...
Overall it appears to be an impressive statement that "We did nothing wrong".
It needs a succinct "fisking" for public consumption.
Well, here's the key.
"Given that the stakes for humanity are so high in correctly interpreting the evidence of global warming, we would meanwhile urge scientists, academics, journalists and public servants to resist the distortions of hearsay evidence or orchestrated campaigns of misinformation, and instead to encourage open, intelligent debate."
As always, the agit-prop language lets the Warmists down. The "stakes for humanity are so high" is an implicit acceptance of the AGW creed -- wasting trillions of dollars on following a useless crusade doesn't affect "humanity", just that portion of it which has managed to create a level of comfort for its own existence.
Add in the usual AGW psychological projections of "orchestrated campaigns" (by whom? the blogs?) and arrogant dismissal ("disinformation", "hearsay evidence") and you have a classic arrogant hard-green screed.
By their language shall ye know them.
WRT 'proprietary formats', this can be useful, as it copes with the latest (docx) format, and is a smaller download than Open Office (as it should be, of course):
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3657ce88-7cfa-457a-9aec-f4f827f20cac&displaylang=en
For those that just want an Office clone, I've used this with success:
http://www.softmakeroffice.com
A smaller download than the Word reader above and it can be run from a memory stick!
Note the presence of a letter exchange between UEA and ICO. ICO apparently now admits that the violatin of FOIA has "not been established".
I would be interested in Doug Keenan's take on the Wang issue.
Rick
Well said! You have to wonder who the orchestrators are, but I suppose it’s unthinkable that we might all have reached the same conclusion independently.
Unbelievable.
Does this man not understand the meaning of the word "hide"?
I just telephoned the Science and Technology Committee and asked if giving untruthful statements to the Committee could be considered a criminal act (e.g. perjury). The answer is apparently negative: submissions to the Committee are covered by Parliamentary privilege.
"This observation (that some otherwise temperature-sensitive tree-ring chronologies do not track the observed rise in recent temperatures) is well known. It is referred to in the literature as the “decline” or “divergence” phenomenon. The use of the term “hiding the decline” referred to the method of combining the tree-ring evidence and instrumental temperatures, removing the post-1960 tree-ring data to avoid giving a false impression of declining temperatures."
This is a remarkable statement. He is saying that 'we know temperatures are increasing, so we are justified in excluding any contrary evidence so as not to create any confusion among the common people'.
Presumably, if the tree rings show increasing temperatures, then it's justifiably to include those data and its justifiable to issue a press release. Its only when the tree rings should a contrary result that they should be excluded -- and only for the period where the contrary result is present.
Here, I think we have a new scientific principle, lets call it the Sir Dr. Acton Principle: any evidence that is contrary to the consensus belief within a scientific community should be excluded.
I think the Sir Dr Acton Principle is the essence of what's wrong with Climate Science.
Doug:
I thought they had misrepresented what happened. Can you make some more explicit comments about what Lord Acton said?
Also it was (another) Lord Acton who said "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." (1887)
Interestingly it was apparently written in a letter to a Bishop!!
(see http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/288200.html)
Oops, he is not a Lord -- and with this performance is unlikely to be one unless of course all his older siblings die before him.
In para 1.7 he says:
" Currently there are deep concerns lest scientific analysis has exaggerated the rise in global temperature. But equally, there are fears that the rise may be underplayed, or dismissed altogether, by powerful commercial or political interests."
He fails to point out the real fears that the rise has been exaggerated and overplayed by powerful commercial and political interests (read Greenpeace et al). As the Vice Chancellor of the University at the centre of this particular storm he is just such a person. Hype it up to secure the state funding on which they all depend. He sounds as bad as the discredited, expense fiddling politicians who are to sit in judgement on the work of his University.
"3.3 Fabrication of primary data
(a) The CRU global and hemispheric land area temperature record
All of CRU’s primary (raw) station temperature data were accessed from National Meteorological Services (NMSs), or from published collations of such station data (e.g. the Global Historical Climatology Network, GHCN), to which anyone can gain access."
"3.7.2 CRU has been accused of refusing to release data requested under the FOIA. There are many obstacles outside CRU’s control surrounding the release of data provided by NMSs. Many FOIA requests made to CRU related to primary data provided by the NMSs. Some of these data are subject to formal non-publication agreements between the NMS and CRU."
"...anyone can gain access.." vs. "...these data are subject to formal non-publication agreements..."
Which one of these statements is true? (I am assuming that one of them is true, which could be a bad assumption).
PS to my earlier comment
Para 1.9 asserts that there was "theft" involved in the release of these e-mails. On what basis is this assertion made? Have the police confirmed this? Why is he certain that the release of the e-mails was not the work of a whistle blower from inside the University?
He should be probed on this by the Committee.
So - even if there was any wrong-doing by CRU (which there wasn't, right?), it wouldn't matter, according to this statement (3.1):
"They would also damage the elements would also damage the elements of CRU’s contribution to the body of international climate science involved; given the scale of that international body of work, it is doubtful that they would weaken the implications of modern climate research as a whole."
Move on - the science is settled, a few human errors don't matter ...
Gah!
And with this statement he's lots me:
".5 Misrepresentation
3.5.1 CRU has been accused of hiding data flaws and research findings. But here there has been a simple misunderstanding of technical jargon."
Translated: the sceptics are too uneducated to understand the finesse of the oh-so-complicated science, so no need to listen to them.
See - that patronising, from 'haut-en-bas' attitude is one of the things so utterly wrong in the debate with AGW proponents.
The key passage has to be
Of course they go on to argue that none of these have happened. What struck me is how mealy-mouthed (iv) is. Put simply, should Warwick Hughes, Steve McIntyre (and many other others) have received the data they asked Phil Jones for? The answer has to be yes - indeed the answer has to be that they should never have needed to ask, that it should have happened as a matter of course that all data and source code supporting papers authored or co-authored by CRU should have been made publicly available on the Internet on publication. This I believe should be the major constructive focus of the Parliamentary, Muir Russell and Royal Society recommendations. It would have sorted 'hide the decline' - where I agree the Vice-Chancellor's statement is ridiculous - and everything else in a trice. We should continue to focus on this central culture change required in climate science. Nowadays I would add to open data and open source the advent of open preprints and open review. That is a deeper revolution again, that the Net makes possible. Note I'm not advocating "Wikipedia for climate science" as some have mooted. Wikis have their place but there are some key process issues with Wikipedia before it can serve as a model of transparency and integrity.
So the original data is not lost? We can obtain it from the same places they got it before they dumped it. The arrogance and dishonesty in that document are absolutely breath taking. If the Parliamentary Select Committee allows this to go unchallenged.... I suppose a reference to Guy Fawkes would be taken amiss here?
Well, I did skim through to the end, where I found this gem:
"5. Concluding Comments from the Vice-Chancellor
The University looks forward to the results of the two reviews of the CRU. Given that the stakes for humanity are so high in correctly interpreting the evidence of global warming, we would meanwhile urge scientists, academics, journalists and public servants to resist the distortions of hearsay evidence or orchestrated campaigns of misinformation, and instead to encourage open, intelligent debate."
'Evidence of global warming' - exactly: no other evidence needs to be presented, admitted or debated ...
And do read slowly what the Vice Chancellor tells everybody to resist - he says in civil-servant language that only the in-group, The Team, needs to be listened to.
Sceptics are distorters and leaders of 'orchestrated campaigns of misinformation.'
Reminds me of parents admonishing heir children not to speak to those from the other side of the tracks.
And that is what this representative of a University regards as open scientific debate.
Words fail me!