Bishop Hill Getting out of hand again
Feb 26, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Parliament FOI The pace of events is getting out of hand again and I'm struggling to keep up with the demands on my time and the regrettable need to earn a living. I must put a tip box up on the site some time.
The stunner for me today has been the Institute of Physics submission to the Science and Technology Committee, which is to the point to say the least. This is really starting to look very bad for the guys at UEA:
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
With retrospect, once the emails became public it was likely that some of the major learned societies might try to distance themselves from the climatologists. It may be that support for the CRU now starts to fall away. We'll see.
McIntyre has the full story.
Of course, there is also the story of the IPCC review, but that will require a more considered piece, which will have to wait for the morning. For now, the local hostelry is calling.
Reader Comments (69)
Aren't you snowed in? Take the lap top with you. Exciting times!
It looks like we have plenty to look forward to on Monday. Well done Andrew for everything you've contributed. To keep the suspense up, here one remaining mystery to ponder: who are Lawson and Peiser thinking of bringing with them?
3 cheers for The Physicists.
This is a beautiful thing...
Just looked at the IoP submission. This is staggering stuff and surely cannot be ignored, even by our half-wit, fraudulent, in-it-up-to-their-eyeballs MPs. Of course it is what His Eminence and many of us have been saying for ages, based on irrefutible logic, data analysis, common sense and the scientific method itself - but MPs need to see a 'prestigious' source saying these things! Climate science will surely be taking a much needed turn for the better shortly!
I would love to see Al Gore's face when he finds out about this (or even Dave Cameron's/Tim Yeo's for that matter).
Ouch.
That reads like 'I don't like your horse either.'
It seems they disagree slightly with the 'Nothing to see here, move along' crowd.
Way to go, physicists.
This is excellent news!
It would have taken the CRU all of 2 hours to download all the files and perform a file comparison against the originals. If a single character had been different, they would have called foul - their silence says it all!
Physicists still command great respect, and this will be hard to counter.
Huge thanks to all you investigative bloggers - you have probably saved the world a trillion dollars!
Bishop Hill has made his own submission to Parliament.
Thanks from all of us, Bish.
Thanks for bringing that to our attention Jack.
An excellent submission - another 3 cheers for BH.
Go for a tip box Bish, your efforts are very much appreciated. We all need to make a living and time is money.
Hey, I'm a physicist too and have made a submission. Hooray for physicists!
http://physicsworld.com/blog/2010/02/physicists_are_modellers_too_b.html
Schneider’s point is that when physicists make laws and theories by studying the relationships between pairs of data, they are still modelling - just with much less data.
I can't be bothered to check how much data the LHC is supposed to generate. Maybe all he remembers of physics is F=m.a?
I still remember my uni tutor relaying the results oh his latest experimental work to determine the mass of a neutrino, and the mean result being negative. Either the data is bad, or the model is incomplete...
I read yours Philip. Well done. I used to be a physicist too. That's why I'm applauding them so enthusiastically!
Douglas Keenan's submission ends with some scathing comments for Jones: "Simply put, Jones is an incompetent who has advanced himself by joining what is in effect a mutual benefit society."
The memorandum submitted by Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, is pathetic. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the scientific methodology. He says these things:
"I believe the integrity of British science stands of the highest order, with a strong framework in place to ensure this."
"In climate models developed to date the increase in greenhouse gases is the only forcing factor that can fully explain the magnitude and the spatial pattern of the warming."
How do they get to such positions of influence? I guess by giving the message the government wants to hear.
The IOP submission is indeed impressive. Considering the nonsense they were publishing in Physics World in January this is a remarkable turn around.
Drew: Thanks, but what do you mean by you used to be a physicist too? Surely you are still a physicist! I must say i agree with Keenan. They are mediocre environmental scientists in a world where they excluded competitors and called themselves top climate scientists.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm
is a link to the HoC page where all the submissions appear.
They will make uncomfortable reading for the people at CRU. I think that the submissions by the learned societies calling for transparency and release of data will be impossible to resist - otherwise the science community will be accused of a coverup. I sense that others in the science community are worried about the implications, as they should be. Funding is going to be tight; scrutiny will be more intense.
It will also be interesting to see the political response to all this. For the time being the main parties will want to punt it ahead while the election is fought, but they may not be afforded the luxury of staying silent.
I have not read all the submissions but appreciated that submitted by our host and others whose names I recognise from their postings here.
Well said oldtimer, those familiar names on that list, and there are quite a few, well deserve our appreciation.
Interestingly, Rasmusen, an economist has submitted on points of law, and his view that prosecutions should be pursued. Someone, he doesn't know who, seems to be hiding behind statute of limitations in order to avoid doing their duty. If they continue along this line he appeals to the committee that " their dereliction should be vigorously publicized."
Very kind of you Philip, and I'd like to think so too.
Just went through all the submissions on the committee site. The only supportive ones are very woolly. I join the applause for the Physicists, and as a chemist myself give a moderated two cheers for the RSC submission. It's a bit guarded in places, but there is one line that will mean we can all once more accept invitations to the smarter dinner parties, and not have to hold our fire, I quote:
"In fact, advances in science frequently occur when the prevailing view is challenged by informed scepticism, this is fundamental to the scientific method and should be encouraged, even if controversial".
Halleluia!
"Simply put, Jones is an incompetent ..": 'ow bloody dare 'e? My Phil's very competent. The shelves 'e put up for me last Easter are just fine. Mostly.
A prahd Mum.
Made of Siberian larch they was, them shelves. 'e's good to 'is ol' Mum is my Phil.
Yes please to a Paypal tip box. We really appreciate the work you do.
Phil Jones's Mum
From Yamal?
It's about time the Geologists waded in also.
You seen one Siberian Larch, you seen Yamal.
Far from being offended by a tip box, I would welcome it. For some time I have wanted to be able to make my thanks tangible.
This is a very interesting submission.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0702.htm
Most intriguing!
Tell me more.
'For now, the local hostelry is calling'.
Priorities are important. :)
@ibjc
This source http://hei.mills-reeve.com/dispimg.asp?id=1159 says Lalu Hanuman tried to sue UEA in the European Court of Human Rights for not awarding him a degree.
@Turning Tide.
Thanks for that. It explains the "why".
How to find out more about the "what"?
It's worth check out the comments near the end of the discussion over at http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=3041 where the IOP submission comes up.
Some of the posters have decided that the IOP must be a shill for the nuclear industry (somehow this makes them climate deniers, I don't know how), a political front for ditto heads, or just bad scientists. It's amazing to see the preconceptions in action, when they could have just looked it up (there is even an article about the IOP in wikipedia, and IOP have a very good web site of their own as well).
(if they had looked it up, they would have found the IOP has 36,000 members, has a history that dates back to 1873, and is authorised to granted Chartered Engineer and Chartered Physics status)
Anyway, the other thing that's interesting, is the realclimate moderators still don't recognize they should release their data, e.g. Jim's reply inserted into comment 290:
[Response: [...snipped...], you are wrong on "the worst that can happen"--it can be used by those without the proper training and understanding of the issues, whose goal is to find fault and defame rather than improve understanding, as McIntyre is an outstanding example of. This is, combined with his demanding attitude and tactics, are why he engenders animosity--Jim]
They still don't understand that allowing others to find faults (even people you don't personally like) is a good thing - it's the way for errors to get discovered and fixed.
Aren't any of you a little suspicious of how perfectly in line with 'sceptic' talking points this submission is?
This seems to me like it was largely written by a 'sceptic', specifically one who fully swallows the climate audit line. Point 4 in particular makes this obvious - nobody talks like that unless they are immersed in the blogs. Let's face it - if this had pretty much any of your names under it, it wouldn't look out of place (OK maybe not 'atomic hairdryer' or 'phil jones' mum' :-).
The only names actually attached to the submission are those of Peter Main and Tajinder Panesor. Main wrote the covering letter and Panesor is shown as the author of the PDF. There is a 'sceptic' called Peter Main posting online - he would fit right in here - and I wonder if it is the same guy or just a coincidentally shared name. Tajinder Panesor organised an IOP seminar about the predictive power of models with Lindzen and Piers Corbyn speaking for the 'sceptic' side - though what Panesor's own views are I have no idea.
They say they had input from the 'science board' and the 'energy group', but what input? Did they sign off on it? The submission seems to have been pretty quietly released with no mention on the IOP sites 'news' page.
An obvious question is whether these people really speak for "The Physicists" or if it is simply a guerilla effort from the usual small bunch of geezers. Surely even you 'sceptics' have to actually be a little sceptical for once.
As a statistician I was disappointed by the dry and detached statement produced by the Royal Statistical Society.
The IOP "appear to be extrapolating beyond their knowledge in this submission" says Gavin.-:)
@Frank
The IOP's submission IS on their website, right here: http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Consultations/Energy_and_Environment/page_29792.html, in the list of responses to consultations.
Turning Tide,
Yes I know it is there. It is just not prominently announced - I don't see it in their main news / press release feed for example.
Surely if this is really the considered position of the IOP this would be major news for them to announce to their members, many of whom will probably be as surprised to hear it as you are. No?
Tip Box: Do it now.
Thanks for all your hard work.
They don't seem to announce ALL their responses to consultations in the News section.
Looking at all the submissions, which I have.
It's seems that I spot a bottom line generic sentiment of "release the data and code"
I did look at the Met Office entry and it seemed that they were singularily divergent from that sentiment.
I think they protest too much
Otherwise bottom line seems to be "release the data and code"
Of the submissions - every one with a brain and no dog in the argument seems to agree
If this idea is not accepted - and I can't see how now- but if not a precedent like that could f*ck up a lot of the whole of English law.
According to the BBC's Science correspondent there are two enquiries being carried out by the UEA.
Firstly about the emails, are they genuine, how they leaked, are there ethical issues - the one that gets all the press, and
Secondly one about the quality of the climate research - which has had no press coverage but would potentially be much more damaging to the University's reputation if the quality was poor
@Frank:
Who's in denial now? They put it on their official web site, they filed it with the British parliament - so why can't you accept that it's the official submission of the IOP, whether you agree with its content or not?
The fact that they obviously have looked at the emails, and looked at the complaints about data-release, rather than released a generic bland statement about how things should be open), is surely a good thing, even if you don't agree with the contents of their submission.
FWIW, I think you'll find that their values apart from promoting the study of physics generally, are very much focused around openness, objectivity, rigor and fairness - so it's unsurprising that these will be the sorts of issues that will focus on, and that they don't like suggestions of things that are perceived or alleged to fall outside high standards on these issues.
P.S. @Frank
Professor Peter Main is the Director of Education and Science at IOP. So he's hardly some rogue guerilla who sneaked in the back door.
And not so long ago, he was citing the challenges of climate change as being a reason to study physics - http://www.independent.co.uk/student/into-university/az-degrees/physics-1659791.html
Likewise Tajinder Panesor is a manager/officer at IOP, so is hardly a rogue guerilla either.
FWIW, he is on the record as saying that there's evidence around of us of climate change (but predictably for somebody from IOP, we need to spend more money on physics)
Frank is rearranging the deck chairs as he wonders if the life boats will be needed.
Copner,
Yes I know they are senior officials at the IOP and I know the submission is an official one in that sense. I just question how representative the submission is of the IOP governance in general never mind the actual membership. I think that matters.
Apart from anything else it doesn't square with other stuff that has come out of the IOP, for example around Copenhagen (which was also after 'climategate'). The IOP itself was also in the news last year for supposedly censoring an article on 'global cooling'.
It's also striking how the submissions are dominated by those from 'sceptics'. This just feels like another one in the same mould.
I'm not at all surprised at this development. There's a fire burning in UEA, and it's threatening to engulf the whole university if it isn't handled properly. I think the reputation of UEA may have suffered considerably already. Hard sciences (like physics) need to distance themselves from relatively soft sciences like climate science if they want to avoid being caught up in the conflagration. The fact that UEA doesn't have a physics department (I believe this to be the case) probably helps a lot in this respect.
@Frank - if youre right, I'm sure we'll hear the howls of protest from the warmist members of the IOP before too long.
Frank, the submissions from individuals may mostly be from skeptics, but most of the professional organisations all basically say the same thing: The science and data should be fully open and transparent. Some say it in much more detail than others, others are general. The IOP is in former category.
Do you really live in such a bubble that you think a typical professional science organisation wouldn't say that?
(And you're mischaracterizing the IOP submission by saying it's a skeptical document. There is nothing in their pro- or anti- any particular theory about climate. It's all about scientific process and integrity).
Hmmm, Turning. Surely Hanuman should not have entered 'None' in the line 'Interest.'
Re your tip box comment, I have been feeling generally guilty - I am amazed at the effort that you, wuwt, id, CA, as the 'main' unfunded sites that also direct to chiefio et al put in. I would gladly subscribe, and I have not done so even on CA.
Tomorrow's job. It will be a pleasure. I did buy your book, but that's probably 50p to you.
My two favourite submissions so far are the IoP you refer to, and Sonja B-C. She is a marvel.