Bishop Hill Judith Curry on Oxburgh
Apr 18, 2010 Climate: Curry Climate: Oxburgh Judy Curry continues her tireless efforts to bring down abuse on herself from all sides.;-) I'm reproducing her comments from the earlier thread here because they are important and because they seem to be attracting some interest around the blogosphere. Real Climate's Gavin Schmidt has weighed in here with a typically robust response.
The primary frustration with these investigations is that they are dancing around the principal issue that people care about: the IPCC and its implications for policy. Focusing only on CRU activities (which was the charge of the Oxbourgh panel) is of interest mainly to UEA and possibly the politics of UK research funding (it will be interesting to see if the U.S. DOE sends any more $$ to CRU). Given their selection of CRU research publications to investigate (see Bishop Hill), the Oxbourgh investigation has little credibility in my opinion. However, I still think it unlikely that actual scientific malfeasance is present in any of these papers: there is no malfeasance associated with sloppy record keeping, making shaky assumptions, and using inappropriate statistical methods in a published scientific journal article.
The corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue. The assessment process should filter out erroneous papers and provide a broader assessment of uncertainty; instead, we have seen evidence of IPCC lead authors pushing their own research results and writing papers to support an established narrative. I don't see much hope for improving the IPCC process under its current leadership.
The historical temperature record and the paleoclimate record over the last millennium are important in many many aspects of climate research and in the communication of climate change to the public; both of these data sets are at the heart of the CRU email controversy. In my opinion, there needs to be a new independent effort to produce a global historical surface temperature dataset that is transparent and that includes expertise in statistics and computational science. Once "best" methods have been developed and assessed for assembling such a dataset including uncertainty estimates, a paleoclimate reconstruction should be attempted (regional, hemispheric, and possibly global) with the appropriate uncertainty estimates. The public (and some scientists) has lost confidence in the data sets produced by CRU, NASA, Penn State, etc. While such an independent effort may confirm the previous analyses, it is very likely that improvements will be made and more credible uncertainty estimates can be determined. And the possibility remains that there are significant problems with these datasets; this simply needs to be sorted out. Unfortunately, the who and how of actually sorting all this out is not obvious. Some efforts are underway in the blogosphere to examine the historical land surface data (e.g. such as available from GCHN), but the GCHN data set is apparently inadequate in terms of completeness.
Sorting out the issues surrounding the historical and paleo surface temperature records should be paramount, in addition to tightening up and improving the assessment processes (particularly the IPCC).
Reader Comments (34)
I wish you wouldn't link to UnRealClimate - it ruins my whole day!
"inappropriate torquing"
Torquing, torquing, torquing, happy torque
Torque about things you like to do
Torquing. If her application of the term is new with the good Doctor, we owe her something. It's a great usage. Quite vivid.
I doubt that "paleoclimate record" is a term we should be using. Record implies a reliability that doesn't seem to be there -- yet. "Paleoclimate inferences?"
She's right, though. These things should be done.
“Absent that documentation, I see no reason to take them seriously”…….ummmm there seems a pot and a kettle somewhere in there Gavin but thanks for reminding me.
Judith Curry .....
"Sorting out the issues surrounding the historical and paleo surface temperature records should be paramount ...."
I believe that the "sorting out" has already been appropriated by the UK Met Office who recently announced they would take 3 years to produce the new temperature series. I was going to give a link but the Met Office web site is such a rats nest I cannot find the announcement. What a relief that such a reliable, ethical and disinterested body has volunteered to do this important work. Hands up those who think that this will not result in confirmation that the man-made warming is worse than we thought.
"in addition to tightening up and improving the assessment processes (particularly the IPCC)."
Please have a look at the Met Office guide to "Writing and reviewing the IPCC Assessment Reports" http://tinyurl.com/y4wmncy.
Side Heading: Writing
"However, where peer-reviewed literature is not available for a topic regarded as important by the IPCC reports end-users, authors also use selected non-peer-reviewed literature where needed, including everything from government reports to industry journals. In each case the information must be critically assessed and reviewed. Conclusions are drawn based on multiple sources of evidence."
They then have a an example of how this works by "Dr Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts, gives an insight into the review process" This contribution covers the Glaciergate problem - i.e.all gone by 2035.
First off it seems the skeptics were partly at fault for not spotting the mistake during the review period before publication - then the glacier experts were not checking the report - then everybody took their eye off the ball - finally sceptics were more concerned with fundamental evidence than future projections. So, nothing to do with the authors of the piece it was all because the sceptics and glacier experts were not paying attention.
Dr Betts must not have read the bit about "In each case the information must be critically assessed and reviewed. Conclusions are drawn based on multiple sources of evidence."
Surely the only way all this can be sorted out is for the gang of 40 "scientists" to be brought before the courts - crimes against humanity for starters?
Judith Curry's comment: "I still think it unlikely that actual scientific malfeasance is present in any of these papers: there is no malfeasance associated with sloppy record keeping, making shaky assumptions, and using inappropriate statistical methods in a published scientific journal article."
OK, she may have a point but given the institution is in such disarray, but would the folks that keep sending these clowns money be considered derilect in their duty if they did not cut those funds off?
Dr. Curry brings some long-overdue clarity to the murkey debate, for which we should all be grateful.
The problem is that there is too much profit in consequences. The more dire the predicted consequences of CC and AGW, the more political power, public money and private investment is poured into climatology establishments like UEA/CRU, GISS, the Met, etc. If the most catastrophic consequences are discounted, people like Jones/Mann/Hansen/Trenberth/Pachauri become, well, inconsequential.
Dr. Curry,
Thank you. You are brave to make these demands in the midst of such a vitriolic issue.
For what it is worth, I see AGW as in effect two movements, with people switching roles frequently.
The first is the science, where CO2 is a climate forcing.
The second is a social movement where CO2 is the hand of God's wrath against an evil humanity and is causing a global climate catastrophe.
The first movement offers some interesting science. The second demands complete and total faithfulness.
Mr Schmidt is bloviating thus because he assumes that the 'evidence' he seeks - will fall through the cracks between the Oxburgh and the Russel panels
Whilst I did see a mention of Lord Oxburgh in connection with Deutsche Bank, did anybody note that he is on their Climate Change Advisory Board with the following luminaries, including Patchy?
Lord Browne, Managing Director and Managing Partner (Europe), Riverstone Holdings LLC and former CEO of BP
John Coomber, Member of the Board of Directors, Swiss Re and Chairman, The Climate Group
Fabio Feldmann, CEO, Fabio Feldmann Consultores and former Executive Secretary, Brazilian Forum on Climate Change
Amory B. Lovins, Chairman and Chief Sientist, Rocky Mountain Institute
Lord Oxburgh, Member of the Advisory Board, Climate Change Capital and Former Chairman of Shell
Dr. R. K. Pachauri, Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, CBE, Founding Director of Potsdam Institut for Climate Impact Research
Professor Robert Socolow, Co-Director, The Carbon Mitigation Initiative and Professor, Princeton University
Professor Klaus Töpfer, Former Minister for Environment, Germany (Former UNEP) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Töpfer
Professor Hongren Zhang, Former President, International Union of Geological Science and former Vice Minister of Geology and Mineral Resources, China
DennisA,
The good Lord is now raising money and investing it after deliberately declining to do reasonable due diligence into potential problems with his investment strategy. He has chosen to dissemble and deny any problems exist in something that makes him money and for which he has a fiduciary obligation.
While he might get away with this politically for now, I think it would be interesting to find out if his clients are so sanguine about obvious and self interested cover ups? In most investment situations one has an obligation to do thorough and reasonable efforts to protect investors. I wonder if what he has done in this case would meet any realistic definition of that standard?
Must be a slow news day, Bishop. Since you are recycling news -- does that make you Green? -- so I will recycle my comments as well. :)
And as a comment on Judith Curry's comments, I agree with most of what she said but not:
However, I still think it unlikely that actual scientific malfeasance is present in any of these papers: there is no malfeasance associated with sloppy record keeping, making shaky assumptions, and using inappropriate statistical methods in a published scientific journal article.
Madam, these are what the proper Scientific Method is all about. It is why there should be proper peer review of papers by knowledgeable third parties. The fact that they conspired to to hide their data, computer codes, and have their "results" published by Peer Pal Reviews (my thanks to a member whose post I can't find at the moment) tells me that it was FRAUD. That, in my law book is malfeasance.
Still, an interesting post, and I hope you are a frequent visitor to this blog.
This blatant smoke and mirrors of the IPCC, no heralded runaway increase in temperatures means the conjectural hypothesis AGW is irrevocably blasted.
El nino is weakening and la nina will cool the Pacific, the world will cool naturally and the northern hemisphere has moved into a cold phase, ordinary folk living in Europe and N. America will realise the earth's atmosphere is a thermodynamically chaotic climate system and in it, very cold winters are a fact, the Arctic Ocean sea ice is recovering and the polar bears are safe.
AGW paranoia will wither in the msm and for the mass of public opinion (if they were ever bothered).
Eventually the politicians will 'get it '(always the last and by then it may be too late for Britain's CC emissions lunacy - we'll all be back in the stone age).
The temperature record is flawed and wholly compromised, GISS and the CRU have cooked the books to suit the hypothesis.
Paleoclimate records will always be at the centre of arguments, the scandalous attempt to efface the Medieval Warm Period was utter lying with figures, all to emphasise the 'warming' of the recent half century, further 'open' research is to be welcomed.
Now and today is where we need to concentrate our efforts to make sure the present temperature record is as accurate and true as we can measure it, also data sets are freely available to all with statistical methods published world wide for all to 'crunch' if they wish.
No more cloak and dagger.
Athelstan-- Your "Earth's atmosphere is a thermodynamically chaotic climate system" reflects a point we've repeatedly adduced in ye olde Blogosphere for months. In 1960, deep in computing's punch-card era, the meteorologist Edward Lorenz originated Chaos Theory with its "strange attractors" as a "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" (the so-called Butterfly Effect). In brief, Lorenz built on Newton's gravitational "three-body problem" to assert that complex dynamic systems --those with three or more interacting variables-- are inherently beyond detailed cyclical or linear extrapolation, exhibiting a "punctuated equilibrium" not amenable to statistics' Principle of Mediocrity which drives regression-to-the-mean.
"Climate science" is not an experimental discipline, but an ad hoc, hindsight classification system akin to botany. Warmists' Green Gang of agenda-driven partisan sycophants can corrupt peer review because they propose no empirical hypotheses to falsify. Fitting manipulated and selective data to preconceived computer models is mere bumpf-- "not right, not even wrong" but prima facie meaningless, incapable of addressing substantive issues on any objective, rational --scientific-- basis whatsoever.
Fitting thermodynamic entropy to Chaos Theory plus Benoit Mandelbrot's seminal Fractal Geometry, whereby complex phenomena are "self-similar" on every scale (1974), ensures that Climate Cultists' gloom-and-doom projections are mathematically and physically invalid for fundamental reasons. Meantime, as Earth's current 12,250-year Holocene Interglacial Epoch fades to a recurrent 102,000-year Pleistocene ice time, Warmists' decades-long sabotage of global energy economies on behalf of Luddite sociopaths' nihilistic anti-industrial/technological ideology, populations had best prepare for a catastrophic, long-term planetary chill-phase that is no more anthropogenic than the cumulating CO2 that doltish alarmists claim responsible for everything from earthquakes and volcanoes to wilted greens for lunch.
Dr. Curry's post simply asks for less heat and more light in the climate science field. For that, she is being excoriated by the AGW zealots on RealClimate.
Judging by the CRU emails,* they'd prefer more heat and less light.
*January 5, 2009: email 1231190304 – Phil Jones to Tim Johns, Chris Folland, and Doug Smith, regarding temperature predictions:
“I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.”
*February 2, 2005: email 1107454306 – Phil Jones to Mike Mann:
“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the United Kingdom, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”
I have read all the e-mails and although i am not trained in jurisprudence but from what i have read, I would be very surprised if a charge of cospiracy could not be made.
As to the science, to the best of my knowledge, these people have not produced a hypothesis or a theory which is falcifiable. In my opinion, that is not science.
I must learn to proof read. conspiracy not cospiracy.
I just posted this over at RC:
Several RC readers have emailed me, and after a quick perusal of the comments regarding my post at Bishop Hill, I have a few comments to make.
I haven’t come across any posts in the blogosphere with my name on that were not written by me. I haven’t posted anything on RC in several years, although I did invite RC (gavin) to post something on my “Part II: Towards rebuilding trust” essay. Gavin declined, although he did email comments to me on the essay. I have not made any public statement regarding my not posting at RC. I post mainly on sites where I feel there is an opportunity to provoke people to think and challenge their own prejudices on a particular topic. I have posted on blogs ranging from climateprogress to wuwt, and I have received a broad range of responses, with highly negative responses coming from across the spectrum. I don’t stay away from blogs that aren’t “friendly” to me, and I rarely spend time trying to preach to the converted.
So what am I up to? I am trying to provoke people to have open minds and think critically about climate research. The charges of “groupthink,” “cargo cult science,” and “tribalism” have some validity in my opinion. The field of climate research faces some unique challenges owing to the extremely high relevance of our science for policy, and the scientists and the institutions that support the science have not yet adapted to dealing effectively in this highly charged and politicized arena. We need to have a broad discussion on how to improve this situation.
As to whether I have gone over to the “dark side.” First, I’m not sure why we are talking about “sides” (that tribalism thing); we should be talking about science and how to improve the integrity of science. With regards to the “dark side,” there are people making politically motivated attacks against climate research (Marc Morano and Myron Ebell come immediately to mind). And then there are people questioning many aspects of climate research and the IPCC process and making arguments based upon evidence (e.g. Steve McIntyre, Andrew Montford). To dismiss all criticisms of the climate establishment (e.g. IPCC, RC, etc) as the “dark side” is hampering scientific progress and diminishing the credibility of climate science. So yes, I talk to people that many RC readers would classify as the “dark side”: the skeptical bloggers, “mainstream” skeptical scientists, and even some people from the libertarian think tanks. Regarding my personal opinion on where I stand regarding climate science as presented by the IPCC. I place little confidence in the WG2 and WG3 reports; these fields are in their infancy. With regards to the WG1 report, I think that some of the confidence levels are too high. During the period Feb 2007 – Nov 2009, when I gave a presentation on climate change I would say “don’t believe what one scientist says, listen to what the IPCC has to say” and then went on to defend the IPCC process and recite the IPCC conclusions. I am no longer substituting the IPCC’s judgment for my own judgment on this matter. So if the readers here assess that this constitutes going over to the “dark side” then so be it; my conclusion will be that the minds seem to be more open on the “dark side”.
Gavin’s statement “-especially in the light of the tsunami of baseless accusations against scientists that have been hitting the internet in the last few months-“ makes the mistake of dismissing all accusations/criticisms. I agree, it is difficult to sort through all the crazy statements and identify the substantive arguments. So I will help you out. I have seen no mention on RC of Andrew Montford’s (Bishop Hill) book “The Hockey Stick Illusion.” If Montford’s arguments and evidence are baseless, then you should refute them. They deserve an answer, whether or not his arguments are valid. And stating that you have refuted these issues before isn’t adequate; the critical arguments have not hitherto been assembled into a complete narrative. And attacking Montford’s motives, past statements or actions, etc. won’t serve as a credible dismissal. Attack the arguments and the evidence that he presents. I for one would very much like to see what RC has to say about this book.
And there it is: 'I am no longer substituting the IPCC's judgement for my own judgement on this matter'. The world in a tiny little sentence.
========================
Judith Curry - Bull's eye! :)
Well that should set the cat among the pigeons!
Very well said, Dr Curry. Most sensible people, the majority here, WUWT, C.Audit etc, want science not opinion. I think that the "science is settled" group have alienated a large number of intelligent, informed people and that, sadly, has sometimes reduced the level of debate.
Someone now needs to convince policy makers to step back from the ruinous path they have set themselves upon. Surely there is now enough doubt in all aspects of AGW to allow a year or two to reassess the temperature records.
Keep up the good work Andrew, politicians and their aides are well aware of your contributions.
Bishop - I just followed the link you give to RC. It is a hoot! RC lecturing on credibility! If you feel inclined I do think there is scope for an "Overheard in the RC canteen" piece.... :)
Brilliant, Judith, and many thanks for another 'good bit'
In my opinion the climate science community have a myopic concentration of effort, amounting almost to religious paranoia, on the effects of atmospheric CO2, rather than the kaleidoscope of all the natural influences. Furthermore, this community has aided and abetted the political mischief of deliberately framing CO2 as a pariah gas, and implying that a flat-lining climate regime is normal and optimum at the conditions pertaining in the immediate pre-industrial era for life forms in general.
No beneficial effects of increased warmth and CO2, such as growth rate and crop yield, are ever emphasised. In other words, climate science has heavily leaned on the political advocacy foot, when it should have been leaning on the scientific one, primarily investigating and quantifying the terrestrial and galactic climate drivers, and modelling the massive changes in the geological record. Particularly, the long thermal decline trend through the Tertiary to the present ice age, how long we might have before we are thrown back from this interglacial to the next glacial advance, which I suspect is the sole genuinely grave predictable climatic threat to humanity, at least in the higher latitudes.
Just so, Pharos. The only climate nightmare we are likely to face is the next Ice Age, when whole civilisations will be swept away, and likely forgotten. Even a Little Ice Age would be pretty hellish, though our technology would help us cope with that.
Judith:
I am no longer substituting the IPCC’s judgment for my own judgment on this matter.
I am sorry, Madam, but somehow, in all those words you posted, I failed to find what is your judgment in this matter. Could you elucidate? In say, 50 words or less?
And I would like your response to my comments about:
there is no malfeasance associated with sloppy record keeping, making shaky assumptions, and using inappropriate statistical methods in a published scientific journal article.
They are posted above about five or six posts above yours in this thread,
You do make many interesting points in your previous posts, but this is the issue at the heart of the matter. It should be debated if you do not agree with me.
Well done, Judith. I had a letter published in Australia's national newspaper, The Australian, about Sept 2007 saying that the first priority should be to deal with concerns about the data and underlying science, and ensure that work was based on good data before pursuing economy-changing policies. It's good that someone who was perhaps inside the AGW camp is now supporting that. No offence intended by that remark, Judith, but your concern about the underlying data and science seems to have increased since I first came across your articles and posts last year.
I first proposed a study on the potential economic impact of global warming as an Australian Government economic adviser in 1988 (having been briefed by Sir John Houghton), persuaded a right-wing State government to support Kyoto on a precautionary basis around 1997, but the more I've learned, the more sceptical (as a non-scientist but having used statistics and economic modelling for years) I've become, and there seem to be too many unanswered questions to base drastic policies on the AGW hypothesis.
Judith Curry,
In your comment at RC, you wrote that you used to say: “don’t believe what one scientist says, listen to what the IPCC has to say”, but no longer do. Isn’t it merely the perception of a portion of the public that has changed (the ‘lost credibility’), or did something more fundamental change or come to light? (I find 'corruption of the IPCC process' way to strong of a description, though I realize I'm in the minority here.)
I'd wager that the IPCC process is still the best we have in terms of broadly supported (by scientists at least) scientific assessment. If so, it would be best to stress that point. If not, what would be a better alternative?
Gaving responded to a similar commetn of mine at RC as follows, which I think makes the point a more cogent than I did:
[Response: Bart, this touches on a bigger issue. Almost every scientist will prefer to rely on their judgment rather than that of a committee like the IPCC. But the reason why IPCC and all similar bodies are set up in the first place was to allow policymakers to distinguish between individual judgments of particular scientists (which are often contradictory) and the general consensus in a field. (...)]
I agree with you that generalizing and discarding all kinds of criticism as being 'from the dark side' (or other wording) is not constructive at all, and that due to the heated nature of the internet debates, scientists (and their supporters) have gotten too defensive.
Bart,
The AGW promotion community has been over the top defenisive and highly misleading for many years.
It is precisely because she is bringing down abuse from both sides that I respect her even more than I did before.
BOOM!
"I am no longer substituting the IPCC’s judgment for my own judgment on this matter."
Dr. Judith Curry April 18, 2010
BOOM!
Wow, it doesn't get any clearer than that.
Perhaps in the UK there are earnest types who think this debate is about science. In the US it is not. Science- and a pretty shoddy contorted version of it - is used by deniers as a smokescreen for their real issue- socialism. The right wing here has been manipulated by special interests to think that climate legislation is a step to bigger government, socialism (although you hear communism, marxism and all manner of other silly appellations) and the greatest threat of all: One World Government. They came to that conclusion first and have forever been seeking a "scientific" answer to support their argument. Thus the silliness in ALL of denier arguments.
Bart
I am probably too late, considering the date, but I feel must respond to your comment.
First of all, please consider what the acronym IPCC stands for. It is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. By definition and intent, a political body, not a scientific one. It's purpose is to provide political solutions for policy makers.
I believe that what has caused lost credibility are revelations that the IPCC has all along been pretty much an advocacy group, and not an impartial sifter of scientific work, Many problems have come to light that indicate a lack of integrity, sloppy work, or perhaps even downright fraud. So I, for one, don't believe "corruption of the IPCC process" is too strong a term.
Something in Gavin's response to your RC comment should immediately jump out at you: the words "committee", and "general consensus" are political terms, not scientific ones. Science is not produced by either of these. Scientists "voting" on something doesn't give it legitimacy.
You said: "I'd wager that the IPCC process is still the best we have in terms of broadly supported (by scientists at least) scientific assessment. If so, it would be best to stress that point. If not, what would be a better alternative?"
Does that mean you believe that we need an IPCC, or something like it, to provide answers of some kind, even if those answers aren't entirely correct?
The unspoken implication is that there is a serious threat from higher temperatures, that is being caused by humans, and can somehow by averted by humans, and needs to be addressed at once.. I don't think any of this is clearly evident.
The solutions being offered, to a threat that isn't very clear, seem to require great increases in government control over our lives, and great sacrifices. We should ask for very strong evidence that there is a very real and serious threat to our existence before we agree to sacrifice what is being asked. I don't see that kind of certainty being offered.
Ed Shearon, from your comment:
>"The right wing here has been manipulated by special interests to think that climate legislation is a step to bigger government..."
What "special interests" would those be? And do you NOT see climate legislation as a step toward bigger government? If you think big government is your friend then the you are naive. That's the kindest word I can think of.
>"...socialism (although you hear communism, marxism and all manner of other silly appellations) and the greatest threat of all: One World Government."
You forgot Statism and Collectivism. Are you in favor of bigger government or any of the "silly appellations"? If you are, you should keep in mind, that the Great Experiment in socialism, the USSR, failed. Those people were NEVER better off, in fact tens of millions of them died when an ideology was forced on them that ultimately didn't work out. Look today at socialist countries such as Cuba, North Korea, and lately, Venezuela. Do you really think those people are somehow better off than we in the US are? Note that people are willing to risk their lives to LEAVE those countries, not ENTER them. If you check, I think you will find that more government almost always means a lower standard of living, especially for those who are poor. Just the opposite of what the intent might be.
>"They came to that conclusion first and have forever been seeking a "scientific" answer to support their argument. Thus the silliness in ALL of denier arguments."
Those of us who are opposed to more government control of our lives, reject ideas that call for it. When a fraudulent idea dressed up as "science" proposes more government control, we reject that also. There's no need to look for "scientific" answers.
Incidentally, before you post again, please look up the word "tribalism". Your arguments might be taken more seriously if you didn't present them in such absolute terms.