Tuesday
Jul272010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Stringer grills Rees
Jul 27, 2010 Climate: Parliament The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee questioned Martin Rees today, and Graham Stringer chose to use his time to ask about the effect of Climategate on confidence in climate science. Some highlights of Rees' responses:
- CRU scientists exonerated
- IPCC procedures need to be modified to restore confidence
- Need to have protocols to ensure that data is made available to anyone who is able to analyse it. [Check that wording carefully]
- Lessons have been learned and Rees expects that scientists will share their data with genuine inquirers.
- Stringer asks if the science should be looked at. Rees disagrees that science not looked at.
There are two things to take away from this. Firstly, it is quite clear that Oxburgh did not look at the science, because he said so. It is extraordinary to see Rees telling the panel otherwise. Secondly, if one reads between the lines it seems clear that Rees is going to put the Royal Society's weight behind a shift away from the scientific method, so that data becomes available only to those who will not rock the boat.
Video is here and Stringer's questions start at 37:25.
Reader Comments (22)
It is not extraordinary. Nothing surprises me any more about Martin Rees and the Royal Society. This is just typical Rees - he always has behaved like this. Does anyone really think that Martin Rees is an honest broker when it comes to science? A little investigation into his role in astronomy should suffice to demonstrate that he is not, and never was. The corrupt promote the corrupt.
The audio is almost impossible, so I'll have to accept your characterization at face value, Your Grace, but if there is a link to a transcript (I did notice what appeared to be a stenographer at the start of the tape) I'd be grateful. If I have time later I may go rooting around myself to see if one is available....
But taken at face value, Lord Rees' statements are just extraordinary. When will HoC finally tire of being deceived and treated with contempt by these titled !@#$%^&*?
[BH adds: The audio picks up later on. I've also asked the HoC for transcripts, which I'll post when I get them]
The audio was soft - and I had to use a head set to hear it on my machine.
As to the content, Stringer was way too polite and did not ask any follow up questions. I assume that is the standard behavior in these meetings. Clearly Rees is no fading violet, viz., his sharp reaction to the notion that manned spaceflight was more compelling. With all due respect to Prof Hand, withut checking you cannot say what the results would be of a more appropriate statistical technique - besides that is not quite the point.
Let's hope that Stringer follows up and clarifies the point about greater access to the raw observational data (without the sly caveat).
Watching in Silverlight, the audio is fine when Stringer begins. 14:45:30 is the starting point.
Am I right in thinking that FOI legislation does not make it a stipulation that 'the requester must be able to analyse the data'? But that there is an absolute right to access unless some particular exemptions are made.
And that it is for the requestee to prove why data shouldn't be made available, not for the requestor to prove that it should?
If Rees's strange test of 'being able to analyse the data' will require primary legislation? Which should be quite a fun process through Parliament with huge opportunities for discussion.
If the caveat is allowed to stand, it will be abused.
likely excuse being something about frivolous requests....
Let me fill in the missing 'of...' for those not familiar with the British tendency of coming up with grandiose names for things but being vague in the process. (e.g. 'Great' in 'Great' Britain).
Rees is in charge of the Royal Society _of Phrenology_
As a scientist, I find it very depressing to witness the cronyism and lies. The RS may have been a great organisation once, but today I have zero repect for it. Shame on them all.
What is so complicated about doing linear regressions with valid data, running perfectly standard confidence-level tests with canned programs? "Able to analyze"-- what, is Martin Rees that clueless to scientific enterprise? But then, he is an observational astronomer, a first-rate data-gathering technician who typically leaves "analysis" to others.
Analyze this: If electromagnetic radiation (EMR aka "light") is a wave, what is it a wave of? Einstein did not "analyze" this question, but with supremely creative intelligence --Special Relativity-- put it in wholly different context. Rees strikes us as a scientific fossil, an aging philistine concerned only with appearances. You'd think the heirs of Galileo, Kepler, Newton, would have outgrown such geriatric bumpf by now.
Need to have protocols to ensure that data is made available to anyone who is able to analyse it.
No change there then, thats just a play on words of the situation Steve McIntyre found himself in, they are stonewalling even now.
Stringer needs to ask the question to clarify what Rees meant. Does anyone have a connection to him?
The next question to Rees should have been "How do you ascertain whether someone is able to analyse the data".
This is the Information Age. It's just as easy to make the data (provided it is in a commonly used format) available to millions or billions of people, as it is to make it available to one person.
If the data falls into the hands of someone who can't "analyse" it, who the hell cares? What are they going to do with it? Make a bomb out of it?
It just gets dumber and dummerer.
Andrew
I was one of those who found the sound impossible even with a decent headset (being a bit deaf doesnt help either hehe)
Stirling, one of the frightening aspects of the last government is the way that they engineered laws through Parliament with very very little opportunity for proper debate or examination, and it looks as if the current lot are unlikely to change that if we take, as example, the recent rather large bill covering very major changes to the education structure that were given less than a week for all stages. I'd bet sixpence to a bent farthing that very little in the way of proper scrutiny would cover any suggested change of law.
@dung
You managed to hear 'Would you like a pint?' in the Masons Arms though! :-)
If you whizz through to the start of Rees's evidence the sound is much better.
In 2007, I submitted a request for the tree ring data held by Queen’s University Belfast. QUB resisted, claiming in particular that I did not have the capability to analyze the data. The Decision Notice from the ICO, issued in March this year, required that the data be released. Of relevance here is paragraph 45 of the Notice, which is as follows.
The EIR and the FoI Act seem to be the same in this.
(Preliminary analysis of the data has already turned up some errors, albeit minor, in QUB’s work.)
ZT
To be fair, the 'Great' in Great Britain is a geographical term that goes back to Roman times, to differentiate the main island of the British Isles from Britanny. There's nothing pompous about it.
Audio on this was terrible until about 30mins in, when someone may have turned the mics up or stopped playing with the mixer.
Favorite quotes for me were Rees describing climate science in the early days as being "Arcane, underfunded, no idea of the importance". Many years later, it's still arcane allegedly underfunded and the scientists still have no idea of the importance of maintaining and sharing data.
On the quality of climate science, Rees said "Science is just one small piece of the evidence". The rest is I suppose pseudo science, or computer modelled pseudo science, or press releases from NGO's, advocates and lobbyists.
He also mentioned the Royal Society had held a number of meetings, which the public could attend, and "People attending would not say there was a consensus amongst the scientists". Perhaps when he approves any new statement on climate change, he could mention this lack of consensus?
Bernie,
Graham Stringer's email address which is published on the House of Commons website is:
stringerg@parliament.uk
Regards
"able to analyse the data" - surely the point much of Steve McI's work is that many of the data holders have been shown to be incapable of analysing the data appropriately using relevant statistical techniques. Perhaps The Team have demonstrated enough ineptitude in this area that they should be refused access to the data too?