Bishop Hill The Guardian debate
Jul 17, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Oxburgh Climate: Parliament Climate: Russell Atomic Hairdryer has produced this report of the Guardian debate.
Guardian Climategate debate, RIBA 14th July 2010
Panel
Fred Pearce
Trevor Davies
Steve McIntyre
Bob Watson
Doug Keenan
Chair
George Monbiot
A pretty full house for this debate, so approximately 300 attendees.
Monbiot got off to a good start by explaining origins of Climategate as either a "hack or a leak, who knows", releasing email correspondence into the public domain. Those emails appeared pretty bad, with data manipulation, FOI obstruction and interference with the peer review process. Monbiot described the UEA's immediate response as catastrophic, with a failure to engage with critics or answer questions. He then moved on to suggesting the content was blown out of all proportion by the climate change denial community". He mentioned the three inquiries, the "half hearted and shoddy" Parliamentary enquiry, and the two UEA commissioned inquiries, describing the Oxburgh review as the science review with Russell reviewing conduct. The response to these reviews broadly exonerated UEA and the scientists, but still left issues unexamined.
For the debate itself, the format was 5 minutes for each panellist to speak, followed by a 15 minute panel discussion, and 45 minutes for audience Q&A, with strict time limits. Monbiot chose the questions for the panellists
Trevor Davies was asked to explain why CRU's response to Climategate was such a carcrash? Davies responded that it was difficult for employers to balance the duty of care as an employer towards its employees, and the public interest. The media wanted Phil, other UEA members gave interviews; some were shown, but most were not shown. Jones was being hounded by the press and incapable of talking to the media. As for the emails, he said they were a very small sample size and far from reality. He claimed the three investigations, plus Penn State's inquiry into Mann, a NAS report, and the recent Dutch report into the IPCC as vindicating the science.
He recognised that there were lessons to be learned regarding better public engagement, and interactions between blogosphere and media. UEA intended to take part in initiatives later in the year. His presence at the debate was part of this new willingness to engage. He felt UEA and climate science needed to explain uncertainty better, especially when data are integrated in reports. He said uncertainty over the Medieval Warm Period (MPW) had been an important part of the recent debate, saying its nature would always be relatively uncertain compared with the Modern Warm Period. He stated that greenhouse gases are the current driving factor. While the longer term is valuable for context, the models and observations are compelling and can only be explained by GHGs. These confirm the challenges facing mankind, irrespective of the nature of the MWP.
He felt they'd learned their lessons about obligations under the law, and towards society. They needed to be more helpful regarding FOI and EIR requests, but there were resource and governance implications and they'd begun to address those. In closing, he said they and other universities needed to be aware of unintended consequences from FOI and EIR regarding responding to fishing trips.
Steve McIntyre spoke next. Monbiot started by saying Steve had spent a very long time pursuing UEA for the temperature series data, to which Steve replied initially with a simple 'No'. Monbiot then added the Russell finding that the data were already online, and the tools needed to analyse it could be produced by a competent programmer in a couple of days, asking if Steve was just wasting his time, or CRU's time. Steve objected to being on the clock for this question. He explained Climate Audit (CA) had said the same thing last July, so Russell had confirmed that view. He then moved on to his presentation. Steve drew attention to the differences between Pearce's conclusions, and the Oxburgh & Russell reviews, with evidence of conflicts of interest, sloppiness but not fraud. Given the importance of climate science to the community, we should expect better. He mentioned the initiation of the Russell enquiry, which demonstrated its "independence" by using the House of Lords' logo and the UEA registrar's office as an email address. He pointed out that no CRU critics had been interviewed, and he was grateful to the Guardian for inviting him as none of the other reviews had.
He pointed out during Oxburgh interviews with Jones and Briffa, no transcripts or minutes were taken, and the very short time between their interviews and the report being written and published. He said post publication, a reliable source had informed him that Jones admitted during interview that "it was probably impossible to do the 1,000 year reconstructions with any accuracy". This comment was not included in the Oxburgh report, despite it being the most contentious issue wrt the Hockey Stick debate. Steve contacted Oxburgh to ask for this to be included, getting the response that "the science was not the subject of his inquiry". He then spoke of Phil Willis reaction to altering the terms of reference and accusing the university of "sleight of hand"
He said the Russell review also neglected to interview critics, highlighting the "natural justice comment" that those accused should be heard, but not authors of submissions and other parties. Panel members told Roger Harrabin that if they'd wanted to hear from Steve, they could read his blog. and this may not have been best for natural justice or a balanced inquiry. The Russell report had been due in Spring, but as of May, no CRU interviews had been conducted and Russell did not appear to have met with either Jones or Briffa after the unveiling of the panel in February. They had been interviewed on April 9th regarding the Hockey Stick, but Russell was not present, and neither were other panellists. He said Russell's handling of email deletion "beggars all imagination". On May 27th, David Holland had submitted an FOI request regarding 'backchannel' IPCC communications, the next day Jones emailed Briffa and UEA FOI staff to say there had been no such correspondence, and a day later to delete the emails. Steve then mentioned the ICO's statment regarding prima facie evidence of an offence. Despite evidence to the contrary, Russell review found there had been no FOI requests prior to Jones' "delete" email. He said although the public may not understand PCA, they can judge that sort of thing.
Steve then moved onto hiding the decline, saying any inquiry should have explained the legitimacy, or disowned what was done...which none of the inquiries had done. He mentioned the Penn State inquiry had adopted the RC view that it was a valid statistical method, and used a slide from John Stewart, who satirised the report. The Oxburgh review said it was unfortunate that the IPCC had neglected to explain it, ignoring the CRU's role in preparing the IPCC report. Russell dodged the issue entirely.
He closed by saying that if inquiries are not going to renounce this sort of conduct, there is a price to pay which is public confidence in climate scientists, and they needed to regain public trust.
Bob Watson was next. Monbiot asked if any of the emails had suprised him, or was it normal practise in his view. Watson said he'd only read a few of them. He said if you had read them, they could have been interpreted them badly. He thought the Oxburgh and Russell reviews had "high integrity", all the review panel members had "impecable integrity". His view was the reviews found no evidence for manipulation of data, no undue influence on peer review or the IPCC. He mentioned he'd chaired the IPCC and there was "no way" contentious views" could be blocked. He said though that there were major lessons to be learned regarding data sharing. He said UEA should be given credit for the Oxburgh and Russell reports, and the reviews had solicited evidence from a wide range of people.
He then moved onto criticisms of the temperature record, saying a key issue is that there are two other "unbelievably parallel" interpretations from NASA and NOAA, with very similar results despite the very different methods used. He said he'd explained this in at least ten or twelve TV interviews. He compared the print media to TV saying (broadly) that print had assumed guilt, but TV had been more balanced in reporting Climategate. He mentioned the Guardian, and Monbiot's calls for Jones to resign, and some critical reporting from Pearce. He stated the public needed to be informed, but there should have been more in-depth analysis. He said they'd learned that there must be much more open debate, with some people taking sides, becoming too defensive, and what was known, not known and uncertain needed to be better explained. Data needed to be open to independent analysis, but with appropriate procedures citing a US model as an example, but also mentioning intellectual property rights. He moved on to balanced reporting, saying that amongst the scientists, 90-95% of working scientists believe that humans are altering the climate, so how to balance majority, minority or differing views with certainties and uncertainties. On the IPCC itself, he said when errors were found, the IPCC had failed to admit the errors quickly enough. In closing, openness viewed as essential, balanced reporting equally essential.
Doug Keenan. He was there, honest. Possibly too honest. This is a placeholder! [BH adds: Atomic Hairdryer has checked out the legalities of reporting what was said by Doug K and is somewhat concerned. Readers may wish to refer to Doug Keenan's account of the affair.].
Fred Pearce. Monbiot said his results were quite different to the review conclusions, and asked Pearce to explain. Pearce said there were some areas where the reviews didn't go, and were more process focused rather than science focused. On some areas, they may have simply accepted the scientific judgement, and did not go deep enough. He didn't feel the differences between himself and the inquiries were that large though. He said he was disturbed by the Climategate emails on first reading and it merited investigation, but for him Climategate was more a tragedy than evidence of conspiracy. He said after "years of fighting off commercially and politically motivated critics", they'd lost sight of potential value in some of the criticisms. They'd failed to spot that there was a "new generation" of critics, who may better be described as "data libertarians" rather than sceptics or deniers.
He mentioned the "siege mentality" adopted by some climate scientists, highlighted in the emails. Opponents may have misintepreted the unwillingness to share data as evidence of something to hide, which was a mistake and a "tragedy of misunderstood motive". Over the years, it turned into a form of "data war", possibly leading to the leak, possibly originating from within the UEA. No conspiracy, but some grubby behaviour. He felt there had been abuses of the spirit, if not the letter of the FOI or EIR law, as well as conflicts of interest relating to peer review and IPCC process violations.
The reviews didn't go deep enough in explaining why some of the questionable decisions were made by the scientists involved. But he did not feel the inquiries were a whitewash, and were better than the Penn State inquiry. He described that in places as being rather "kafkaesque" using the example of Mann's success as a researcher and fundraiser was evidence of integrity. The British inquiries weren't as bad, and had some good things to say regarding data sharing, but more candour was needed, especially regarding discussion relating to uncertainty.
The debate then moved onto the panel discussion, with Monbiot managing the debate.
First question was to Davies regarding the independence and impartiality of the the reviews. Davies responded that they were independent, attracting some mild heckling. He felt the science had been addressed, even in the Russell report. CRU had made a 70-80 page submission to the review in March or April, containing some quite detailed science. He said that during the review, he'd asked whether journalists had read it but apparently none had. Regarding Oxburgh, he said there had been specific and misleading accusations about their investigation and cited UEA statements that it would, and that was Oxburgh's remit.
Next question was to McIntyre, again on the ease of DIY temperature reconstructions and the "crusade" to find the data was a waste of time. McIntyre replied that 98% of the Climategate emails were about the Hockey Stick, with CRUTEM appearing in 20 or so, all after 2005. Steve explained his issue related to the proxy reconstructions and historical record. He mentioned that around that time, Jones had "laid down the gauntlet" with his reply to Warwick Hughes, which lead to attempts to get the data. 2006 saw Willis Eschenbach's FOI request and led to the evasive, or as the Russell review described "unhelpful" behaviour, and mentioned a conversation with a reporter that described it as deliberately deceptive. Steve explained his own request wasn't until 2009, He noticed the Met Office had the data, and sent them an FOI request hoping for a more open response. That was refused and referred to CRU, but triggered a comment on CA that another researcher, Peter Webster had been sent the data by CRU. Steve asked for the same data, and that request was refused citing confidentiality agreements preventing disclosure to non-academics. He said that wasn't a smart strategy given CA's readership included many academics, who then asked for the data, whilst others asked for the confidentiality agreements. He'd said on CA not to expect the data, or any smoking gun. Most of the work could be replicated via GHCN and the only secret being hidden was "how banal" the CRU work was, and there was little value added.
Next question to Watson regarding CRU's reluctance to reveal data, and what did they have to hide? Watson didn't think they had anything to hide, but couldn't speak for the people concerned. He said that all the data is available for the modern record via the national weather centres. He felt there were two issues: the long-term record and the instrumental record. The long term record is nowhere near as accurate, it was important to understand natural variability but the real question was human influence. He said there were three main data sets, all in broad agreement, all peer reviewed by "some of the worlds best statisticians". He said that to say there was inconsistency would be quite wrong, and at IPCC, governments review it, citing the Saudi government hiring experts to defend their oil interests. Anything in IPCC has a very thorough peer review by sceptics, and supporters alike. Doug Keenan responded to Watson regarding peer review as a process, stating that he'd had a paper rejected 35 times and extended delays. Yet a paper by Foster et al, 2008 coauthored by Mann and Schmidt saying a method used by the IPCC was "complete rubbish", and should not be used to analyse temperatures, handing Watson a copy.
Next question was to Keenan regarding the fraud accusation he'd made earlier in his [missing] opening segment. Monbiot cautioned him that it was a serious claim to make. Keenan restated the accusation. This relates to Jones, Wang and the Chinese temperature record. [Keenan provided his justification, but I'm not comfortable with repeating it, just in case.] This question was removed from the audio recording, but Davies response left in.
Monbiot asked for Davies response to this serious accusation. Davies agreed they were serious, and said Jones needed to respond in detail. Monbiot asked for Davies to explain on Jones behalf. He said that the later GRL paper made it clear that station moves would not have made any difference to the original Nature papers conclusions, and the individual station moves were not important. The 2008 JGR paper showed the adjustments were "bimodal" and cancelled each other out. For seperating out urbanisation and global warming signal was confirmed "absolutely" by the later paper, and after a very tough peer review process for both papers. In addition, there had been confirmation in a paper by Parker 2010, possibly in Climate Research. Monbiot asked if Jones should have issued an earlier retraction when they became aware of the station moves. Davies said Jones has considered a clarification for the Nature paper, but felt a new paper would provide more support and detail. Keenan was asked to reply, and said the JGR paper claimed 40% of the temperature increase was due to urbanisation, and Pearce had reported the same in the Guardian. Davies responded that that was only in one small area. Keenan pointed out the survey was for Eastern China, and this conflicted with the original paper's claim that the urbanisation effect was negligible. Davies claimed that the global warming signal was still greater than the urban signal. Keenan came back that 40% was far more significant than the original paper. At that point, Davies said he didn't have all the necessary detail.
Next question was to Pearce, regarding the reporting. Given the complexity in climate science, as shown by the China discussion, how should science be reported? Pearce said "I wish I knew" and said it was very difficult, painstaking work. He felt the best way was via an adversarial system and allowing different people to argue it out. He said a problem with the IPCC was it required scientists to sit down and reach agreement about things where they may not agree, with a potentially subliminal effect of supressing debate. This needed to be opened out, and doing that is hard. He felt post-Climategate, there had been more candour, but there needed to be more space for debate without name calling. He repeated the "tragedy vs conspiracy" comment again, and pointed out there needed to be movement from both sides, away from entrenched views.
So on to the audience Q&A. The audience had a max of 20 seconds, and tried to ensure a gender balance.
Q. How much debate before action is taken?
BW: IPCC shows uncertainty, probably best system, needs more openness. Peer review it with sceptics, supporters, governments but sceptical views must be in the document.
(transcribing next one because it was a truly bizarre question, I thought Steve handled it well, but Monbiot didn't)
Q. To Steve, "really simple question", since 1980 temps increased by 0.6C consistent with wide range of evidence, where has that energy come from?
SM: <rather puzzled> why?
Q expanded.. since 1980, atmosphere and oceans have taken on billions and billions of joules of heat energy, why?
SM: I've been studying proxy reconstructions covering the last 1,000 years and they don't give a whole lot of information on that topic.
Q you've asked a lot of questions tonight and I asked for you to give just one answer.
SM: In terms of climate policy, I'd never suggested climate change is not an issue and governments should not adopt policy. I'd challenged whether proxy reconstructions should rise above phrenology, and I don't think they do, but that does not mean another line of evidence may not be valid.
GM: The intent behind the question(?) was do you accept that climate change is taking place?
SM: In terms of whether it's a big problem, a little problem, I don't know
Q: I don't care, I just want the answer to that one simple question, where have those billions of joules of heat come from?
SM: If you take the Lindzen point of view, CO2 will lead to a 0.8C increase, the big issue is whether water vapour and cloud feedbacks are mildy negative, or strongly positive, I don't know if..
Q: I'm asking about the history, the historical record..
(during this exchange the audience was getting rather bemused, heckling to move on, Monbiot seemingly reluctantly agreed. Curious who asked this question because I'd like to know what answer he was expecting, and why.)
Q: Whether public perception has changed or been damaged.
FP: Short term, yes, long term it will be more beneficial, science will be more open. Like MP's expenses, short term, bad for democracy but was a purging process. Climate science will come out stronger, science will improve.
Q: Media's role in reporting climate, and whether GM's views had changed.
GM: He'd been picked as the ideal chair as he'd managed to alienate everyone involved in the debate. He was shocked on first reading. As an environmentalist, felt let down, intial response perhaps hasty. Some serious issues, not all dealt with by reviews. Both sides have interest in ensuring science stands up, and for environmentalists, the cause stands or falls based on the science behind it.
TD: UEA was shocked to by the emails. Decided to assess based not on the small number of emails, but via independent reviews. Reviews may not have answered all the questions, but put the emails into some sort of context.
Q: Should emails be subject to FOI?
DK: Becoming irrelevant as scientists switch away from University systems to Gmail, citing Queens University Belfast as an example to avoid FOI
BW: Emails can be FOI, don't write hasty emails, think what you are writing. He was not aware of anyone that had switched messaging to avoid FOI.
Q: How much certainty before action, do we wait till it's too late?
DK: None of the science he's looked at stands up to scrutiny. He questioned whether Jones could pass an exam regarding statistical time series, and briefly explained what a time series is. Financial data and climate data are both time series, so common skill in analysing time series data. He went on to the cost of dealing with AGW, estimated at $45-50tn. If 3rd world economic development is hindered that way, how many people suffer, how many die, how many millions die? Economic development cannot be put back that much.
SM: Businessmen and goverments make decisions under uncertainty all the time. If he were minister of the environment (go for it!) he would take advice from institutions, no matter how much that may differ from personal views. But he would expect better performance that we're getting from those institutions. From his own position, he took an interest in the Hockey Stick due to the way it had been promoted.
BW: To say nothing stands up to scrutiny challenges the work of hundreds or thousands of scientists. GHG's must warm the atmosphere, question is when and how much, hence IPCC range of 1.4 to 6.4C over the next 100 years. On cost of action, it has to be compared to cost of inaction which affects developed and developing countries. $45tn over 100 years is "only a couple of percent of GDP", which would slow economic development by 1-1.5 years. It sounds a lot, but it's not over a 100 year time period.
DK: He's not opposed to global warming, and agrees with Steve
Q: Do people filing FOI have a responsibility to file proportionately? How does FOI fit with peer review?
TD: FOI brought in to challenge secrecy in public life, and laudable. Now confused with assumption that confidentiality has no place in a public body. Real problem for universities, emails used as speech. Risk of a "chilling effect" for internation science if focus is on emails. Better mechanisms for discussing science, peer review is there, is imperfect.
SM: Reviews showed data subject to FOI should have been public. Multiple FOI arose after obstruction and data should have been online in the first place. Escalation due to obstruction and untruthful excuses, which lead to the 60 confidentiality agreements. One email from Jones said those could have been handled by publishing a simple web page.
FP: Requests can be disproportionate, but law has mechanisms for vexatious requests. Scientists were slow to recognise implications of FOI. Jones was one of the first scientists to spot the implications. Where was the Royal Society responding to FOI challenges?
Q: (Piers Corbyn). Will they drop the denier label, and aren't solar/lunar influences more significant?
FP: Solar activity alters climate, nobody denies this. Issues are still human influences, real issues about feedbacks and AR5 may have wider error bars, which may make best case/worst case uncertainties greater. Sceptics have helped by highlighting where there are uncertainties, but also suggested that uncertantity means no action neede.
BW: All of the simulations show AGW, solar can have an influence, but not a significance over last 50 years. Climate change is classic risk management question.
Q: Why has FOI responsibilty been moved away from Jones to VC's office?
TD: UEA will be more open, FOI responsibility will be handled administratively within Science Faculty.
Q: During last interglacial, CO2 rose while climate cooled, so although CO2 causes some warming, natural cycles more dominant?
BW: It's the magnitude, no debate, have a warming effect. You only have to look at 3 planets to see effect, Mars, Earth, Venus, Mars has almost no GHG's (GM threatens to throw Corbyn out for mentioning orbital distance, density). Physics of radiative transfer are simple Mars cold, no GHG. Venus hot, lots of GHG. Earth, just the right amount. Interglacials more complex, multiple forces and feedbacks stimulated by solar changes feeding back on CO2, so would expect some time lags. Even ardent sceptics like Lindzen agree feedbacks are real, just high or low.
DK: Cites Gerrard Roe, GRL 2006 as perfect match between orbital variations and major climate changes, and removes CO2 lags.
Q: To Davies, any thoughts on new platform for open science, would it be widened to the public?
TD: We see problems with engaging across wide ranges of knowledge and opinions. Difficulty of engaging with "denialist" campaigns, does not see Russell recommendations as major challenge.
BW: Were mistakes in IPCC process, panel working on how to improve process with report due in September which can help open debate.
Q (Roger Harrabin) DK made comments about systemic failure of accountability in science (in censored section). He'd found it different to trace like of responsibility. Is Watson happy with accountability in science in general?
BW: He would not trust an single paper regardless of author. IPCC process bringing together multiple scientists is good process, but could be improved. IAC review is looking at improving accountability. Authors should not be preselected with one set of views. Full range of stakeholders need to be involved in (IPCC) peer review.
DK: Does not seem to be high level of integrity in academia in general. He'd recently filed an allegation against an non-AGW researcher, university refused to acknowledge complaint. No procedures to deal with allegations because their professors always act with integrity.
Q: Consensus becomes law, eg Newton and gravity. Given degree of consensus on AGW, should it be law or is it objection based on politics?
SM: No scientific law given uncertainty range regarding climate sensitivity, yet only a page and a half discussing this in AR4. IPCC becomes a 'shout out' to scientists who want to get their name in it creating artificial consensus. Suggested 300 pages on the water cycle and cloud feedback problems to explain current understanding in detail.
Q: Was Jones interviewed by Russell, if not, who did?
SM: Based on minutes, 8 exploratory meetings in December involving Russell and Jones. More in January prior to panel announcement on Feb 11th. Two subsequent meetings, one covering CRUTEM the other Hockey Stick, neither attended by Muir Russell. Bewildered why Russell did not attend only material interviews.
TD: Checking detail, confirmed interview.. he interviewed Jones.
SM: But not where any evidence was taken.
TD: Steve will have to remind me when panel was announced..
SM: February 11th Trevor
TD: Later interviews conducted by specialists..
GM: thank you, time to move on.
And then we adjourned to the pub.
Reader Comments (39)
So Steve, Doug Keenan and the like-minded cry "foul". They make a case of overwhelming gravity. Then men of straw are wheeled in, stage a feeble simulacrum of an investigation, plagued by all the dimness and dissembling that characterises the Global Warmmongers themselves, and declare "All is Well". Isn't that about the size of it?
Oi, that wasn't me. oo's flyin' a false flag then? Bloody Bishop 'ill.
Or listen to the whole thing:
http://download.guardian.co.uk/audio/kip/standalone/environment/1279210786120/3457/gdn.env.100715.ad.Guardian-climategate-debate.mp3
Is it the UEA that has created the climate of fear of reporting events?
I genuinely don't understand. Is the BBC implicated in a murder conspiracy because it REPORTS it? Is the reason to withhold the information about what was said at the Guardian event for fear of repercussions for the blog or for Doug? The Guardian obviously is doing the same thing, and I don't understand why there either.
I'd appreciate some clarification on this if at all possible.
George Monbiot's belief that environmentalism "stands or falls" on the science of climatology is faulty. AGW is a false god for him, if only he could see it.
Conservationism and environmentalism are noble goals, and are not dependent on AGW being real or catastrophic. Anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 concentrations have no bearing on whether deforestation is an issue that needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed for other, perfectly viable reasons. Alternative energy research is an imperative not because of the perceived threat from the release of CO2 but because the goal makes good sense.
There is a convincing case to be made for both conservation and environmental matters, but George would do well to recognise that their cases are not well served by the fossil fuel CO2 emissions and cAGW suppositions.
Hi, I've updated my own initial perceptions -
Doug Keenan, I thinkcame across well to the journalists....
-------------------------------------------
I was there, second row…
George Monbiot was actually a very good chair overall.. (and I have been VERY, very critical of George Monbiot)
You do really need to see hear the audio, to see how bad the UEA’s Trevor Davis was, especially how, the admission that PHil Jones was not seen by Muir Russell after the enquiry panel had formed, was dragged out of him…
Audio LINK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/audio/2010/jul/15/guardian-climategate-hacked-emails-debate
I think it was The Time’s journalist, that asked for confirmation from Davis, whether Mcintyre account was correct, ie the head of the enquiry, had not the head of the department (Phil Jones) to be formally interviewed, after the panel had formed.
George to his credit, did not allow Davis (UEA) to get away with anything, Davis’ stonewalling after Steve Mcintyres filleting of the enquiry, George pursued the question, with Davis, until after much note shuffling, not sures, mumbling, refering to notes, Davis eventually mumbled Phil Jones,- met Muir Russell in January, Steve Mcintyre said, ‘confirming’, BEFORE the panel had formed.
Bob Watson’s admission, that he had only read a FEW emails was just laughable, given the debate…
Fred Pearce did come across very well (Fred and even George came across as journalists) – and I would recommend his
‘The Climate Files’ -to complement
‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ – A J Montford.
Fred in my mind, still trusts some of the ‘climate sceintists ‘ science too much, but he is very critical of the IPCC, he called it a ‘tradegy’ not a ‘conspiracy’, and I would agree, and perhaps add a popular ‘CAGW mass delusion’
Keenan was very concise and tough, maybe overstepped the mark, saying all climate science was rubbish (assuming he meant the man made kind)
What may be lost because he said that, is he talked about the human ‘cost’ of it all, hundreds of millions of poor affected, because we ‘must’ do ‘something’ about AGW,even as the uncertainties get bigger for AR5.
His other valid point, that struck a chord, was how there is no processes, for challenging academic fraud, incompetance, no way to hold anybody academic to account,(fraud/incompetance) Citing an example, (not climate science) that he was pursueing, where the university, said no method to do this.
Keenan I think impressed the journalists, like Fred, George, Roger Harrabin (BBC), Times, WSJ, etc, with his conciseness, and interest in accountability of academia, no ‘waffle’.
Former IPCC man Bob Watson, could only keep repeating, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, 95% scientists agree, very superficial platitudes, that just did not work in a debate, where every one was knowledgable.
Roger Harraibin asked him a question from the audience, and the response from Bob was very poor, totally not answering the question, whijh I heard at least one of the journalists present, saying Bob did not answer the question.
Fiona Fox (Director Science and the Media -advises governments!!) asked a question, pretty much attacking the Guardian journalists, for being irresponsble for reporting about climategate. She was quite scarey, sounded VERY angry, (listen to the audio)
Fred Pearces reply was perfect, comparing to how reporting MP’s expenses was referred as attacking democarcy initially, but long term better for democracy (cf climate science)
Fiona Fox, sounded to be like a very strident ‘activist’, really need to here it for yourself..
Personally, it was good to finally meet people, Fred Pearce was very easy to talk to, glad to meet Roger Harabin, if only so that I could introduce him to ‘Josh’ (cartoons by Josh) and a couple of others. I was in 2 minds whether to say hello, as I had perhaps ‘bothered’ him enough with emails, Roger has always been courteous to reply many times.
The journalists present could not fail to see, what the Muir Russell enquiry was really about, following UEA’s and Bob Watsons poor performance here
George Monbiot, WAS a very good chair… (in a potentially difficult debate)
I had thought – oh huh, when he started of with the ‘Climate Change DENIAL community’, but it would be picky to highlight any detail.
He fulfilled the role of chair correctly. (if only he’s stop denial stuff in his blog – that totally alienates me, annd many others,)
George came across well, with a sense of humour saying:
“He was the ideal chair, beacuse he had managed to alienate, everybody!”
Unfortuanetly, Piers Corbyn, imho, came across as a loon.
Getting angry, is not what it is about, I have read that several sceptical/advocates got together for drinks, swapped contact details and had interesting chats. Even Bob Watson and Doug Keenan. Not just an anonymous angry people anymore..
Even Dough Keenanm who clearly was angry about Phil Jones’ behaviour, came across as sincere, with no obviouls agenda.. I think the majority of journalists saw where he was coming from… (and maybe will not listen to propaganda against him, he came across MUVH better than Davis,Watson, who ‘waffled’ and new very little.
Let me repeat, Bob Watson said: “He had only read a few emails!”
Prompting a response from the audience: ” Do you always go out without doing your homework!”
And again, Steve Mcintyre, came across as a courteous canadian gent, whose portayal as some sort of sceptical/denying big oilf funded deniar, by the ‘alarmists’ just now looks ludicrous…. AND the Journalists could see this, VERY well attended by journalists…
The Times correspondent, (2 seats away) said it was shocking that Muir Russell had not been part of the process interviewing Jones, etc, after the panel had formed.
Trevor Davis, was atotal PR car crash for UEA and establishment procedures.
There is one major flaw in Pearce's juxtaposition of climate science and MPs' expenses, and that is that there is no MSM champion for the cause of cleaning up climate science. Unlike Michael Martin (former speaker of the House of Commons) of the expenses scandal, who lost his job specifically for his FOI obstructions, Phil Jones is not ejected and incredibly keeps a job.
Unlike the MPs whose crimes against the British public were exposed and who have been made to pay back in full their thefts and transgressions, climate scientists have somehow been "exonerated". There has been no purging of the system, climate scientists are switching to GMail and the purported evidence which we're told really does exist is still being secreted away from sight.
Fred Pearce's analogy falls flat because, as Doug Keenan rightly makes clear, in academia there is no accountability, there are no repercussions, there simply is no mechanism of justice to defend against impropriety or malfeasance.
SimonH,
"Is it the UEA that has created the climate of fear of reporting events?"
No. It's just the normal dread of lawyers.
"I'd appreciate some clarification on this if at all possible."
The Keenan controversy has previously been reported on extensively elsewhere. There should be no difficulty in anyone interested finding out what is being discussed. (And you can of course search the Climategate archive for mention of Keenan - 1188557698.txt and 1241415427.txt are particularly interesting. Not saying they're right, of course.) But when such statements are given the backing of a big media organisation like the Guardian where people take it more seriously, and libel lawyers have been invoked, it is considered the course of wisdom not to get in any deeper without checking. Even if you're in the right, you can still lose big time. (I'm talking £100,000+ in legal costs.) The libel laws are rather famous for it.
Keenan says he can back his accusations up, but the rest of us don't have his detailed knowledge so repeating the accusation would be risky. It would probably be best to just leave it as "the well-known Keenan controversy" and let people look it up for themselves.
"Sue".. I understand that Keenan's position is made clear by Keenan. I firmly believe he has evidence to demonstrate his veracity and I don't think he makes the accusation lightly.
What I'm unclear about is how that affects reporting of Keenan's position. The Guardian is not culpable in its reporting that an accusation of fraud has been made. The accusation of fraud is not the Guardian's, nor is it this blog's, it is Doug Keenan's accusation and the only person that can be held liable for it is Doug Keenan himself.
But the reporting thereof is news, and is newsworthy, and a sufficient explanation for preventing dissemination of Keenan's assertion is beyond the stretch of my ability to reason it. A Guardian headline, "Man accuses woman of rape" for example, is not the same as "Guardian accuses woman of raping man". So I don't get it.
Re SimonH
"I genuinely don't understand. Is the BBC implicated in a murder conspiracy because it REPORTS it? Is the reason to withhold the information about what was said at the Guardian event for fear of repercussions for the blog or for Doug?"
The above, plus myself. The UK unfortunately has very lax libel laws which can make it easy to sue and expensive to contest. Situation got a little worse last week when the court ruled against The Times, which potentially overturned the 'Reynolds Defence' used by journalists. Libel laws have already been used against scientists (and others) to supress information and it's an area where reform is needed.
I think the Guardian went a bit too far by removing Doug's entire opening section because he made some very good points about how academia polices itself, or not. If academia won't act on accusations, then publically accusing may be the only route left, but then leaves the accuser open to defamation charges. If libel law is too soft, then there is no route to challenge the integrity of science, and science will lose integrity. There's an example of this here-
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths/
in the Monckton vs Abrams debate, where rather than answering the challenge, the University hands it over to their lawyers to threaten Lord Monckton. This is part of the wider debate about how our legal system and academic systems interwork I guess.
A fair chunk of the debate involved FOI and EIR, which seem to have come as a suprise to some academics, despite having been in law for the best part of a decade, with time pre-enactment in 2005 to attempt to revise it. There was talk about possible 'chilling effects' on science, but there are others. I think Steve expressed suprise that there were no minutes or reports from some of the inquiry meetings, but that's a chilling effect of FOI. If you don't record meetings, there's nothing to potentially request under FOI later.
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:54:58 -0600
<x-flowed>
Phil,
Seems to me that Keenan has a valid point. The statements in the papers
that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone (WCW
at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect.
Whether or not this makes a difference is not the issue here.
Tom.
--------------------------
Is this the issue...
ie MUST have known....
..... and presumably decided to anyway?
I'd be cautious about any alleged 'F' words. Climategate may have been very well named given with Watergate, it wasn't the original crime that did the damage, but the coverup. We've seen a number of very shoddy inquiries into aspects of it, and I think journalists are starting to wake up to this. They may not all understand the nuances of the science, but they understand coverups. Hopefully this means they'll be more critical in future, and they certainly should be when science impacts on policy in such a big way.
The Bishop reported:
"Next question was to McIntyre, again on the ease of DIY temperature reconstructions and the "crusade" to find the data was a waste of time. McIntyre replied that 98% of the Climategate emails were about the Hockey Stick, with CRUTEM appearing in 20 or so, all after 2005. Steve explained his issue related to the proxy reconstructions and historical record."
I notice that *a lot* has been made by AGW proponents of this part of the Russell report. Is Steve's point that this is a non-issue? I.e., this is simply not something that appeared much in the CRU emails? Can someone clarify?
SimonH: without getting into the details of whatever Keenan said or didn't say: in very general terms repetition of a defamatory statement said by someone else can itself be defamatory and lay the promulgator open to legal action. There's nothing wrong with reporting that A accuses B of doing C, but repeating what A says can be actionable.
Roger.. I think it's more that it's not really Steve's issue. He's been focusing on the proxy reconstructions than the modern temperature records. It's not so much a non-issue, but a different issue. As I understand it, the CRU problem was not reconstructing global temperature records, but inderstanding how CRU constructed theres. There's a good summary of independent reconstructions people have been doing here-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/13/calculating-global-temperature/
So what Russell said about the ease of constructing temperature records was well understood before that report was published. Watson made much of this saying 'independent' records agreed with each other, but overlooks the quality of the underlying data and adjustments that have been made to that data, because the underlying data is often less independent, eg commonality using GHCN with the siting problems Watts has been uncovering. To me, that still leaves some unanswered questions about how data is adjusted, why and whether UHI effects are properly accounted for. Jones made a comment about the urbanisation effects of London during the Parliamentary enquiry and there was also a dispute between him and Pielke Snr over accounting for UHI, but I don't really understand the implications.
Watson and Davies also I think glossed over the implications for the historical and instrumental records. We're told regularly that new temperature records are being set, and this is 'proof' of AGW, yet if the proxy based record is inacurate/unreliable, how accurate are those claims? If the Modern Warm Period is really the same as we experienced during the Medieval or Roman Warm Periods, how much of a problem is AGW, and does it justify spending the $45-50tn Watson wants, especially given the human costs Keenan mentioned. The wrong climate policy can easily kill or harm as many people as AGW threats are purpoted to risk.
@Atomic Hairdryer
Thanks very much for the answer!
Atomic Hairdryer, woodentop: Thanks for helping clarify. I wasn't aware of the ruling against the Times last week. I will have to read up because it's clear I'm caught short on the current situation. My understanding was that the new government would be addressing the issues with libel laws. Great start, NOT, it seems.
I can see a situation approaching where the headline "Man accuses woman of rape" will be rewritten "Man says woman may have done something which may (or may not; we would of course not make such a determination) be considered bad."
This is not a good day for our freedoms on so many fronts, and the forecast for the coming week isn't looking any better. :(
Atomic Hairdryer
I think journalists are starting to wake up to this. They may not all understand the nuances of the science, but they understand coverups. Hopefully this means they'll be more critical in future, and they certainly should be when science impacts on policy in such a big way.
Hopefully.
I realize that I sound like a broken record repeating ad nauseam that this isn't an argument about science, but rhetoric. I agree that we all care about the science a great deal, but to 99% of the punters out there, they haven't the foggiest. Once again, my friend, you have hit the nail squarely. It is the journalists we need to convince, and this may well be a major step in accomplishing that.
An excellent report. Well worth the time you spent on it.
Oh I hate to do this because I have so many times criticized people from the AGW crowd for playing the man but.....after the "release" of the emails George Monbiot really seemed to be getting the point in his (I hate to type the next word!) Guardian (shiver!) column and seemed shaken. He was soon back on form and printing crap.
What I find astounding is the other MSN UK outlets did not get in before the (Knuckles clenched) Guardian and Monbiot and do their own debate!
To be fair, this should not be down to biased editors and blog writing corespondents (sorry J.D. need to get this point over!).
This debate should be in Parliament and the House of Lords! Its going to be the ruin of my Grand-Children's lives if they have their way with taxes! It just shows (with one exemption) that the UK politicians are what they are! A bunch of ..............(scared of a snip!)
I seem to remember (old bugger that I am) Poll tax etc demonstrations in Scotland and Ian Rankin's book, "The Naming of the Dead" had the introduction..."To everyone who was in Edinburgh on 2 July 2005" when the same bunch of activists were out in force!
Be it a "G" summit or AGW... these same bloody fools come out as they did the other night at Guardian do!
My apologies for the rant but I am tired of these idiots hurting Science that has made my living for the last 35 years!!!!!!!!
A.W. slap me down if you want but how you, S.M., A.W. etc keep your cool is beyond my understanding and as for Prince Charles ...: ;-) Phew! Shanghai is really warm tonight! I wonder why?
Pete Hayes: A fine rant. All I can say is that we have to keep plugging away with the truth. I write to my MP regularly, I write to ministers, I give talks and I tell anyone I meet that AGW is scientififc b*******s (but politely). The more we do, the more people will come round to the truth (IMHO).
Don Pablo, thank you. A key thing for me about Climategate is it's broken the debate out of the blogosphere and into the mainstream. Both Pearce and Monbiot expressed shock and dismay from what they read, with Monbiot making a comment that environmentalists need to be a bit more critical because bad science hurts their cause more than it does ours. We've also seen the response from the pro-AGW side with things like the PNAS paper trying to close down the media and only listen to 'CE Approved' scientists. That should ring alarm bells with journalists, who should be opposed to being sold to, or told what to report. It was interesting to me that Roger Harrabin chose his question about Doug Keenan's comments concerning the standards of accountability and integrity in science.
We saw inights into the minds of the 'Team' with comments about journals being controlled or lost to sceptics, yet they still seem to be trying the same trick and control the media. Better approach is to answer the sceptics properly, which is why I really liked Steve's comment about expanding AR5 to cover areas of uncertainty in more detail. Bob Watson also made a few comments about minority views, perhaps AR5 should include a more formalised minority report. But whilst the debate is still so polarised and politicised, who'd dare contribute to that or write it?
I was, at first, baffled by Bob Watson's statement, that he felt that the enquiries had high integrity. Then I remembered that this is the guy who failed to read the Climategate emails before agreeing to sit on the Guardian panel the other night and, putting two and two together, realised that would not be difficult for the enquiries to clear Bob Watson's perceived bar of integrity when it's plainly lying flat on the ground.
It shouldn't be any surprise that Bob Watson should think that the enquiries fulfilled their purpose since, implicit in his own words, he never really knew the first thing about what the enquiries were examining.
What can this man know of due diligence, integrity and standards when he sees fit to turn up to a debate, as a voice of authority, admitting to know so little about the debate's title?
Bob Watson:
I only have read a few emails......
Audience member:
Do you always forget to do your homework!...
Cue laughter, (is that on the audio?)
As a supposed scientist, Bob Watson is a joke. He appears to be like a ventriloqist's dummy or a record with the needle stuck He admitted that since Climategate he has done ten or a dozen TV interviews. The ones I have seen are virtually identical words, talking about the 90 to 95% of scientists who believe the only explanation for the current warmth is human activities. He talks about the warmth of the last 150 years as if that warming means that humans are causing it. He offers no evidence, except his argument of ignorance that his 95% of scientists have no other explanation.
To other scientists he appears very foolish, but the media and politicians, being almost 100% ignorant of science, seem to lap up his words.
I wasn't there, but I knew that a feast of excellent reportage would appear here and wasn't disappointed, except that the Guardian has not posted the complete video proceedings. None the less, all credit to them for hosting it, and to all panellists for stepping up to the plate. Obviously all had to defend their turf, and for the UEA, well, its tough in goal. Continuing the soccer analogy, it seems like the Christmas Day match in no-mans-land., and fierce fan base in each opposing trench. Only Piers with a yellow card from the ref for verbal abuse. Final score? You tell me, but a memorable contest. But I'm sticking with my team.
Interesting that DK cites Gerrard Roe, GRL 2006 as perfect match between orbital variations and major climate changes, and removes CO2 lags. My comment on Nigel Calders next glaciation prediction on page four of previous thread below refers:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/7/10/hsi-in-the-national-post.html?currentPage=4#comments
[Watson] thought the Oxburgh and Russell reviews had "high integrity", all the review panel members had "impecable integrity"
Is this still valid after the "inquries" ? Should not at least a few honory doctorships be reassessed in the light of the blatant shortcomings, tricks and failures of these "inquiries" and the massive damage that may have been done to mankind ?
Don Pablo says it is the journalists we need to convince. I agree. I think one of the problems is that some of the AGW believers who maybe waivering feel they are in a corner and don't know how to get out. So we have to "give them a way out". Simon H ( 5th comment on this thread) provides that way -- I agree with Simon about the issue of all environmental issues should not be wrapped up in AGW and for along time have not understood the Monbiots of this world who have alienated the average member of the public with their ranting and I believe have turned the public off all environmental issues.
If the journalists / commentators can be shown that alot of people agree with SimonH's view then maybe they can then let themselves out of the corner and start to report objectively.
The EAU folks need to invent (or continue with) the equivalent of a witness protection program.
Surely, surely, there's a reporter somewhere who's going to stick a microphone in Phil Jones' face and ask: "Why did you tell a number of the world's leading climate scientists to delete e-mails? Why?"
How long can Jones avoid this question, regardless of the so called "official investigations" unless he permanently goes into hiding?
On 7th July George Monbiot said ' The 'Climategate' Enquiry at last vindicates Phil Jones and so must I'
George does not take kindly to criticism. Witness his ongoing disputes with the likes of North, Ridley,Delingpole and Monckton. Even less does he like to be forced to recant. as he had to, on 7th July. So when the unfortunate Prof Davies presented himself as the champion of CRU, George ably abetted by McIntyre, Keenan and Pearce and an audience annoyed by three apparent 'whitewashes' exacted his revenge.
Possibly, but for those of us who pays for his product and are able to plan weather related activities months ahead with a high degree of precision I'd rather a loon was in charge of the asylum than a scientist
I am bemused about the apparent concern regarding the discussion of Keenan's accusation of fraud. For years, Steve McIntyre, WUWT and BH have been discussing the hockey stick fraud. For goodness sake, BH has written a book about it. Whether he states it or not his book is all about MM and the hockey team committing fraud.
Now Keenan mentions the F-word and because Monbiot suddenly looked all panicky at the debate when he suddenly realised that the man he had just reversed his opinion on and was now saying was the revered "Saint Phil of East Anglia" is actually the fraud that many of us believe he is, AND that Keenan had the evidence to prove it, everyone else is getting scared and panicky about the legal situation.
I mean even Tom Wigley said as much in the emails. Just look at the climategate emails
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=813&filename=1188557698.txt
The question is why is Jones is not being charged with fraud.
CRU, NASA and NOAA rely on basically the same raw data for their data sets. They each then ‘interpret’ what the temperatures actually were (Simplistic? Maybe).
I find it unbelievable that Bob Watson could then say that he finds their results "unbelievably parallel". What am I missing here?
"Mars has almost no GHG's" (Bob Watson)
One of the few facts I remember from school days about Mars is that the white bits at the poles are solid CO2. I gather that it has since been discovered that there is water ice underneath, but that the atmosphere is 95% CO2, so Watson is about as wrong as it is possible to be.
@james p
95% of diddly squat is still diddly squat. The point Watson was trying to make is that Mars has very little atmosphere of anything...so whether its 95% CO2 or not is immaterial.
Watson said lots of dumb things, and sometimes seemed to me to have failed to understand the big picture topic at all. But this remark is not really one of his dafter ones.
"still diddly squat"
Still enough for there to be strong winds capable of creating dust storms, and if my back-of-envelope calculations are right, there is still a greater volume of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere than there is in ours! The GH effect might be different there, with the lack of water vapour, but that wasn't the point that Watson was trying to make...
Thank you, Simon H. Simon H is about the only person I know who has pointed out that there are other environmental concerns besides global warming. We have a big pile of trash floating in the ocean and nobody ever talks about it. Simon used deforestation as an example, its okay but I would prefer to use water conservation. Imagine if Obama told everyone that when you shower, turn the water off while you put soap on yourself. We could save tons and tons of water this way. And I better not see any comments about "oh that socialist! oh your taking away my freedom!" Don't even start with that stuff, this is a very minor, non-commital idea.
"We have a big pile of trash floating in the ocean"
I agree. Unfortunately, in the simple minds of the MSM, anyone who doubts AGW is automatically in favour of conspicuous consumption and waste. I like to think of myself as a conservationist, but that doesn't mean accepting dodgy science or the word of people with not-very-well-hidden agendas. If Al Gore is the answer, it's hard to know what might have been the question!
Latimer
If NASA are sound on planetary matters, which I assume they are, there is roughly 23,000 Gtonnes of CO2 floating round Mars, which sounds quite a lot to me, even if there isn't very much else. If Watson was trying to make a point about lack of atmosphere, he could have chosen the Moon!
IanH
“for those of us who pays for his product and are able to plan weather related activities months ahead with a high degree of precision”
It’s interesting to hear from a paying customer. I’ve no particular reason, other than curiosity, to pay for Corbyn’s forecasts, but I get the impression that he’s pretty good at it, and I assume he would find it difficult to make a living if he wasn’t. Given our national obsession with weather and the Met.Office’s general ineptitude or, at least, difficulty with it, I find it mildly surprising that he isn’t more widely known and fêted. Some of his long-term predictions (the ones I know about), such as the very cold start to the year, which I gather he forecast the preceding summer, are astonishing.
I’m sure he doesn’t get everything right, but that’s never hindered the MO!