Bishop Hill Brushes at the ready...
Mar 30, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Parliament The report of the Parliamentary Inquiry into Climategate is due in a few hours time, and I've just seen what looks like the first news report of the press conference today. The general theme seems to be:
- breaking the FoI laws was naughty
- apart from that please move along because there's nothing to see here.
In particular,
The balance of evidence "patently" failed to support the view that the phrases "trick" and "hide the decline" used by Jones in one email were part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not support his view. The report reads, "[Trick] appears to be a colloquialism for a "neat" method of handling data," while "[hide the decline] was a shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous".
On peer review, "the evidence we have seen does not suggest that Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process" and academics should not be criticised for "informal comments" on papers, MPs said. However, Willis acknowledged that because of "lack of time" they were only able to scratch the surface of these allegations. The report recommends that this should be examined in detail by a separate review of CRU's science being headed by Lord Oxburgh.
The report did not address the controversy over Jones's 1990 Nature article, which used weather station data from China that has subsequently turned out to be deficient - and the allegations that Jones did not acknowledge these deficiencies in the paper.
Bishop Hill
Guardian coverage here.
Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact
Leaked emails from UK's Climate Research Unit show scientists withheld information - but inquiry blames university
Reader Comments (33)
Yep, and the university one will be the same.
Next.
I'm shocked. Really, I am. Shocked.
Since nobody was under oath during this "inquiry", nobody is held accountable. This is just political grandstanding. Very unfortunate.
No kidding.
Just as predicted. All the written evidence appears to have been ignored.
MPs say the science is intact, remains settled. What better endorsement could be asked for?
Since the committee had specifically said it was not looking at the science it seems odd that it should then say the science is OK. Apart from the FOI issue, which I trust the full report hits hard on the UEA and CRU info officer, going by the report (not always a good idea) it seems the committee acknowledges that it simply didn't have the time to do a thorough job on almost all other issues. The written evidence doesn't seem to have recieved much of a look in, but then I guess we'll need to see the full report.
I wonder if the Guardian loses brownie points with the Select Committee for busting through the embargo?
A corrupt process will not produce good results.
And this GLOBE thing is a bit like a spy novel, no?
It's final then, Parliament has spoken- the science is settled!
We don't have long..shutdown the generators- outlaw fossil fuels- abandon the cars, trains,boats and planes- castrate the animals- abandon the coastlines- stay clear of glaciers- hand out the asbestos caps- have your last smell of roses- send Al Gore a note of apology- bring your cheque books to the ready..
Is it April fools already.
The conclusion about the meaning of "trick" and "hide the decline" is so far off the mark, that I'm inspired to coin a new rhetorical category to describe its fatuity: 'an argument from lobotomy.'
I am certain no-one is surprised but I'm still upset for being taken for a fool. "Lack of time" they claim. Two hours max. to read the particularly incriminating e-mails and a further two hours to understand the hockey stick and other proxy reconstructions.They didn't even try!
No doubt, the 'scientific' inquiry will reveal all.
Another ten years is needed before the whole scam is revealed, by which time we will be surrounded by Don Quixote windmills and the 'poor' will be digging peat to keep warm.
Sorry I'm really cross.
Is there no high profile politician, journalist, celebrity who can bring the scandal of AGW to the masses?
Lawson, Andrew Neil, Joanna Lumley(?), anyone.
I'm even prepared to march into Parliament square.
'...and academics should not be criticised for "informal comments" on papers..
I think they went to far.
They could have shortened this to '...and academics should not be criticised'.
Quite right too, it was rather a neat trick, shame it was dishonest.
I submitted written evidence to this so-called "inquiry" and read the other written evidence.
It was abundantly clear, "robust" in fact, that climate "science" is a house of cards.
No-one with half brain cell will view this conclusion as anything other than a hasty and not very subtle Establishment cover-up.
"Leaked emails"? From the Guardian, not hacked, not stolen, but leaked. Stated as a plain fact. That's a bil ol' win for us climate realists, right there, is what that is.
Pat Frank:
Now that made me laugh. Which I needed. But there are a couple of good things from the MP lobotomy labs, if the report is to be believed (on googling the title the Guardian article called very cutely climate-mails-inquiry-jones-cleared seems to have been taken down). The first is that they have completely endorsed open data and open code for all of climate science, not just CRU:
Well done Mr Willis for that. And they agree with Nigel Lawson that the Muir Russell needs to go public:
Those two would change a lot.
They picked a good day for release. Pass the snow chains and wellingtons.
Bad Weather causing Northern Ireland chaos http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8594268.stm
Blizzards warning for Scotland:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8594190.stm
There is a God!
The release now on the Select Committee web site has a different slant:
"The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that "global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity". But this was not an inquiry into the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built."
and Phil Willis:
"Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable. What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided."
official press release at:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_pn32_100331.cfm
Bishop, your book has a mention on page 14, para 40
From a brief run through, I think the early press reports were not really reflecting the reality of the report. It is in many places rather hard hitting. Whilst expressing views, it does not make any conclusions on the validity of the science, and leaves that to the other inquiries. I think it's a good piece of work overall.
However, I think they are wrong on one point: para 66
"66.
Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the words “hide the decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous. We expect that this is a matter the Scientific Appraisal Panel will address."
I think this shows that the committee have not really understood the issue of divergence, and its importance for presentation as well as the actual temperature record. It certainly ain't a matter of discarding erroneous data. They are though throwing it over the the scientific panel.Whether they understand the issue any better remains to be seen.
31 March: Norfolk EDP: Tara Greaves: UEA chief 'cleared' over Climatgate scandal
But one of the committee members, Graham Stringer, underlined the point that he had taken a dissenting view, and that he was less inclined to exonerate Prof Jones because he felt the committee should have made a more comprehensive inquiry into the whole issue...
http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=NewsSplash&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED30%20Mar%202010%2019%3A19%3A49%3A333
UK Express: CLIMATE COVER-UP PROFESSOR CLEARED OF DISHONESTY
But one committee member, Labour MP Graham Stringer, said: “The committee has gone further than it should have done in trying to exonerate Professor Jones.
“And it went further than it should have in not saying we’ve found evidence that he had done things wrong.”..
A statement from the university added: “It is a matter of regret to us that the theft of emails and the misrepresentation of their contents has damaged the reputation of UK climate science.”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/166157/Climate-cover-up-Professor-cleared-of-dishonesty
Business Wk: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: U.K. Climate Science ‘Damaged’ by Leaked E-Mails, Lawmakers Say
The lawmakers also said that because a general election is due by June, they didn’t have enough time to hold an in-depth enquiry...
The lawmakers cleared Jones of dishonesty in one of the most widely-cited e-mails, in which he discussed a “trick” to hide the decline in one temperature record. Graham Stringer, one of the four members of the panel who attended the hearings and a lawmaker from the ruling Labour Party, voted against that conclusion. He argued that not enough evidence had been heard...
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-30/u-k-climate-science-damaged-by-leaked-e-mails-lawmakers-say.html
bish,
there must be some typos in this transcript, but thought u might be interested:
31 March: ABC Radio Australia: President of Royal Society perplexed by climate sceptics
TONY EASTLEY: As a British Lord and president of the Royal Society, Martin John Rees, is somewhere near the pinnacle of the conservative establishment in the UK...
He's in Australia giving a series of talks and lectures. Last night he delivered the inaugural Derek Denton lecture in Melbourne...
TONY EASTLEY: Professor Rees, as president of the Royal Society and of course, a prominent scientist, you presumably have a lot to do with scientists yourself. Even though climate change isn't your speciality, what do you think about the current scepticism about climate change science?
MARTIN REES: Well, I am perplexed by it because of course, although not an expert, I have talked to a great deal of the experts and there is a general consensus that climate change is something which could have very worrying consequences if the world goes on burning fossil fuels at the present rate....
I mean obviously there are some people who are not experts who are sceptical about this but the analogy I'd give is if you've got some medical problem, you look on the Internet, you find a whole variety of remedies and ideas but if you've got any sense, you go for treatment to someone who has got real credentials; you don't take account of the bloggersphere and I would say that those who are not experts should respond to the bloggersphere and the debate about climate change in the same way.
They should look for the people who have credentials and among them you would find a consensus that there is something we need to worry about. It is an unprecedented effect on the climate that carbon dioxide is being produced by fossil fuels.
TONY EASTLEY: Here in Australia some people believe there is what is called a 'group think' on the issue of global warming. Is that your observation?
(sic)MARTIN REES: Actually it is not scientific consensus just as there is that germs cause diseases but I don't think one should disparage that as 'group think'. There is a consensus based on good scientific arguments...
TONY EASTLEY: The head of the UN's climate change panel has accused politicians and prominent climate sceptics of a new form of persecution against scientists who work on global warming. Have you felt that heat?
MARTIN REES: I don't think so. I think we want robust debate on how we respond to this. I think if you look towards the second half of the century we are going to have a combination of problems, shortages of water, problems with food production, all aggravated by climate change and growing population and I think we want to look further ahead.
And certainly it is my experience also and I am a university teacher, that it is the young people who are more aware of this, people under 30 will still be alive 50 years from now. So it doesn't surprise me that the so-called sceptics tend to be among the older people and that the younger people have much deeper environmental concerns. So they, in my view, are the hope for the future.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s2860819.htm
The (embargoed) v2 of the report is at Jeff Id's site here. The link on the Committee's own site doesn't yet seem to work.
Pages 52-54 indicate the paragraphs where Graham Stringer disagreed with the other three members of the Committee who bothered to turn up to agree the report, including the report as a whole. Nine members did not (and another one was in the chair so did not vote, though could have had a casting vote if needed).
Congratulations, yer Grace. You are featured in an official Parliamentary Report. I have to confess to a certain, uh, disappointment, shall we say, at these results. Just where is Guy Fawkes when you need him?
I was wrong; they did read the written evidence. Part of my written evidence is quoted in the report.
It is interesting that Prof Beddington (chief scientific advisor) 'did not consider that “UK science has been damaged”.' whilst the committee concluded 'It is self-evident that the disclosure of CRU e-mails has damaged the reputation of UK climate science.' (Paras 130 and 132).
So who is correct?
The Times report by Ben Webster today [page 11] gives the result game, set and match to the AGW brigade. Even dismisses the attempts to undermine Energy and Environment. Very disappointing.
As expected - superficial, one-eyed and in the end stupid, because as they have admitted themselves parliamentarians barely scratched the surface on Climategate. It appears that the written submissions counted for northing.
This worthless report is just a prelude to the UEA whitewashes.
At least the BBC (Roger Harrabin) quotes Martyn and Don, from Bishop Hill:
Also mentions the dissenting voice of Graham Stringer.
Unless my ears misheard, at approximately 7.11am on R4 Today programme, Mr WIllis described the CRU members as "3 sort of scientists". I can now sleep easy in my bed knowing that the UK is governed by politicians without morals who want to spend our money on schemes dreamt up by "pretend" scientists.
Not a surprise -- just think of all the money they can pull in as taxes and all the contributions those making piles of money in the Cap and Trade business they could set up.
Certainly time to replace those in office in both the US and UK.