Bishop Hill Acton's eleven
Apr 16, 2010 Climate: Oxburgh Royal Society Steve McIntyre has followed up on the intriguing question of who selected the eleven papers for the Oxburgh panel to assess.
Oxburgh didn’t disclose how they selected their supposedly “representative” and “fair sample”. “Fair sample” and “representative” are statistical terms – terms were used in a report coauthored by a very senior professional statistician in a context where statistics are very much at issue. So I presume that the Royal Society took some care to ensure that the eleven publications actually were “representative” and a “fair sample” – and not ones that were pre-selected by UEA, rather than the Royal Society.
Interestingly, I telephoned the Royal Society yesterday, to ask who exactly it was had selected the eleven papers. Readers may remember that I had speculated whether the Royal Society Climate Change Advisory Group (which includes Phil Jones among its members) had been involved.
The press officer was very helpful, and agreed to find out for me, and I indeed got a very swift response...
...which consisted of this:
We should all be grateful to Lord Oxburgh and his expert colleagues for a thorough report offering an authoritative assessment of the CRU's research and making clear recommendations. Climate science currently attracts enormous public interest. It is therefore crucial that research sustains the highest standards of rigour and openness.
Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society
Not exactly responsive, would you say? I'll try again today.
Reader Comments (16)
Clearly, the Press Officer @ the RS was in no position whatsoever to investigate & provide the desired information. Standard Procedure in public bodies I am afraid to say. Nothing has changed in 30 years when I used to work @ RAL, Oxon. Despite the FOIA they have too many "get out of jail free" cards to hand. He was probably given short shrift & given the statement published to dish out. As you say, not exactly an explanation of how the "representative" & "fair" the 11 papers were. You'll wait a jolly long time me thinks!
This is a substantive issue. The Oxburgh review talked about the danger of selection and confirmation bias in the report, but it seems that the selection of these papers highlights a very similar bias. These papers directed the review panel away from the contentious issues that have been subject to much criticism.
In would seem that the Royal Society have been caught cherry-picking to suit its one agenda on climate change.
Quote, Royal Society, "It is 'certain' that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years."
It appears that real scientific inquiry must not be allowed to get in the way of such expressed 'certainty'.
It is clear from your enquiries, and the analysis provided by McIntyre, that the Oxburgh panel decided to don outsize blinkers and not look much further forward than the end of their collective nose when conducting their enquiry and finalising their report.
And who can blame them? The RS takes no responsibility for the conclusions. Oxburgh and co know that this is a very hot potato so, in their own words, "The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct." Instead they offered a small figleaf of support to fail to cover a big embarrasment (to put it at its mildest) and a few bones to the sceptical with remarks about the absence of decent statistical analysis even though that is at the heart of what CRU does.
We know they dodged the fact that individual CRU staff were intimately involved in the IPCC process. So it looks to me to be an attempt primarily to get the UEA, the institution, off the hook as far as possible and heap the blame on others - notably the IPCC and those connected with it when wearing their IPCC hats. In short it looks like an exercise in damage limitation.
Rees is such an embarrassment.
Martin Rees must be adhering to the Alexandre Dumas political motto... all for me, and all for myself. Credibility rating zero.
The “establishment” are in a quandary and are not being sure footed in dealing with it.
It’s acknowledged that these enquiries are dealing with matters of enormous public interest, but they feel unable to take the steps they know are necessary to achieve public confidence because that would amount to “feeding the trolls.” They know that the public expect the various panels to be formally impartial, but to respond appropriately to legitimate comments on the appearance of bias would be “feeding the trolls”. They know that the public expect them to hear from all sides of the dispute, but to take evidence from the critics or the aggrieved or the victims would be seen to be “feeding the trolls”. They know that that the public want their decisions to be expressed accessibly, fully and transparently, yet they say as little as possible as vaguely as possible as opaquely as possible to avoid “feeding the trolls”. They know the public require procedural transparency yet they find themselves mired in a culture or non-disclosure for fear of “feeding the trolls”.
We now have a motley collection of enquiries with confused and overlapping terms of reference, none of which finds itself motivated to do what they know to be necessary to claim public confidence because they believe in trolls. There are no trolls, there is just the public.
This “establishment” paranoia will result in 4 or 5 enquires which can resolve nothing.
bobdenton, I'm not sure it's that they are afraid of feeding trolls. I'm not convinced they really understand the way things have changed. To a large extent the internet has opened many new avenues to information, and this means that the old system of the formal committee sitting to its own terms of reference and then handing down a verdict with which there is little way of demurring is gone, dead, passed away.
Take the current committees. As they are announced we can identify the participants, their degree of expertise and likely bias. We can comment on their terms of reference with the benefit of detailed and relevant information, we can see the evidence as it's presented, and we can pull the press releases apart as a report is released and have our own authoritative view within minutes. We no longer have to "be grateful to Lord Oxburgh and his expert colleagues" for what crumbs that may fall from the Noble Lords table.
That is what they don't follow: the fact that the Oxburgh report, given it's patent lack of rigour, is basically irrelevant, superfluous, a paper bag blown in the wind in terms of effectiveness. Why, because it lack rigour. 'They' don't understand that they don't control information anymore, and the civil service can no longer have things it's own way.
And unless my Lord Bishop and his acolytes are going to run a series of Cap Doffing and Forelock Tugging seminars for us all to teach us how to properly "be be grateful to Lord Oxburgh and his expert colleagues" that is how it is going to stay.
Cumbrian lad, you have hit the nail on the head, they are 30 years behind the times. The question is, do these people care what the general public think and know?
Cumbrian Lad "They' don't understand that they don't control information anymore, and the civil service can no longer have things it's own way."
True enough. However, you've probably noticed that much of the legislature as well as private businessmen have huge vested interests in greenery, 'renewables', carbon trading etc etc. Whilst there is some loss of control on information, they are not going to let go the levers of power, influence, propaganda, policy making, and money making. They appoint their own cronies as controllers of all those levers. Do you think anyone in China, for example, is anywhere near wresting those levers from the Communist Party, just because it's somewhat easier to get information into China these days?
Cumbrian Lad,
I certainly agree that they have not trimmed to catch the wind of change caused by the internet, and the availability and velocity of information. To claim to have a more authoritative opinion than “joe public” who can access all the original documents, all the submissions by the parties and all the arguments by either side they need to do more to comply with the conventions of impartiality, rigorous investigation, hearing both sides and production of a reasoned decision. They have gone in the opposite direction and retreated from these conventions.
I doubt I would agree with you about the substance of the Oxbrugh report, I think it’s substantially critical of CRU: but no critic of the report could be expected to accept it as authoritative because they have retreated to the age of biblical revelation and acceptance of the decisions of authorities simply because they claim authority no longer happens..
bobenton
I think I am probably closer to your view that the report was pretty damning of CRU (damning with faint praise was my first take) than I may have indicated. I think I saw red on reading that comment of Martin Rees that we should be 'grateful'. That's a sort of Marie Antoinette line, and it really raised my hackles.
Typical Rees. In my opinion, [snip-you need to substantiate claims like that], yet Astronomer Royal, President of the Royal Society, and honoured by the establishment with a peerage. The drivel that he writes is in the same vein as the Oxburgh report and a hundred and one 'political' spin masters who cannot be straightforward. They spout motherhood-and-apple-pie sentiments that they know everyone would agree with such as "It is therefore crucial that research sustains the highest standards of rigour and openness", and then go off and do the complete opposite, while the public expect that they will practise what they preach. How disarming, and how deceptive. I have some comment on the same behaviour with regard to Obama on science here
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/all-who-hate-me-love-death/
Of course Oxburgh's report wasn't a 'thorough report', nothing like it. Neither was it an 'authoritative assessment'. As for the 'clear recommendations' - did anyone find a section on recommendations, or indeed ANY RECOMMENDATIONS AT ALL? Not in the copy I read - check yours! So Rees has either not read the report, or had a PR man spin a statement that is a lie. The word 'recommend' or its cognates is not found in the report. There are no recommendations. The closest you can get (and they are not proper recommendations, never mind 'clear recommendations') are the statements in the Conclusion: 'Indeed there would be mutual benefit if...'; 'This is unfortunate and seems inconsistent with...'; 'We agree with the CRU view that...', and two of those are opinions that relate to government policy and legislation. If Rees thinks that that amounts to 'clear recommendations' regarding the CRU then he needs his brains tested: he doesn't know the meaning of 'clear' or 'recommend'. But nothing surprises me with Rees or the Royal Society these days.
No, most of the public won't read the report but will take Rees' word for it, unlike the motto of the Royal Society which exhorts 'Nullius in verba', 'on nobody's word', or 'take nobody's word for it'.
"We should all be grateful to Lord Oxburgh"
For what? Allowing integrity to be shovelled under a pack of lies? This report is all abut arrogance and that one sentence shows the "old boy" network still being used but as Cumbrian Lad succinctly put it, we have the tools and we are, for sure, not going to take the "Walk on, nothing to see here" line! The fight for the real truth simply continues, they have just have not got over the denial stage yet.
Cumbrian Lad and Scientist for truth - I agree with you both. The report is a shameful reflection of the fact that we are no different to China. So there is information in the public domain which demonstrates what a sham these inquiries are and how wanting is much of the science that has prompted them, but does anything change? It doesn't because they are the untouchables.
Oxburgh put it as "We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians". Implicit in this is that, if there was any way they could wriggle out of this painful admission that four years after the Wegman Report the same shambolic and half baked statistical minds and methods are in use, they would have loved to have "helped it". Oxburgh also seeks to undermine the FOI/EIR regs with his fourth conclusion which supports the notion that authority to release data remains with those who collect it. My reading of EIR is that once data is aquired by a public agency it should be available for public access.
The fate of the planet is apparently at stake and this is the best our National Guardians of the scientific standard can do. That they have apparently no understanding for the ramiifcations on scientific practice and education beyond the narrow confines of the AGW debate only makes it worse. Absolutely pitiful.
I thoroughly agree with this poster's idea:
<quote>To a large extent the internet has opened many new avenues to information, and this means that the old system of the formal committee sitting to its own terms of reference and then handing down a verdict with which there is little way of demurring is gone, dead, passed away.</quote>
...except for his conclusion.
I believe the idiots ar CRU and the bailiffs for the defence at court are both totally out of touch with modern politics. The effects of the Internet have gone completely over the empty heads of all those concerned.
This thing will rattle on for years as references in climate arguments.
The idiots marched on to their goal, losing the game set and match and becoming ostracised from the community they once lead. And will continue thinking they are still in charge.
The mark of the true believers is upon them. Religious mania and attempted self immolation. Successfully attempted self immolation.
The idiots are dead. Long live the idiots.
To Bob Denton
[quote]I doubt I would agree with you about the substance of the Oxbrugh report, I think it’s substantially critical of CRU: but no critic of the report could be expected to accept it as authoritative because they have retreated to the age of biblical revelation and acceptance of the decisions of authorities simply because they claim authority no longer happens..[/quote]
Whatever the daydreams might be for the idiot climatologistas, their black art is dead for the moment at least as no polytrickster worth his salt will care to comply with them in public, as every interviewer from now till the oceans run dry, will have something to say in rebuke.
Polytircks is about misleading sheep. And nobody who'd give enough of a toss about politics these days would be swayed by a eye-blanket puller using the CRU to back up his stance.