Bishop Hill Rees transcript
Aug 5, 2010 The transcript of Martin Rees' recent evidence session at the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee is now available. The relevant excerpt for readers here is as follows:
Chair: Can we move on to a subject that I know that has caused you some angst over the last few months?
Q75 Graham Stringer: Do you think public confidence has been damaged (and, if so, by how much) by the leak of emails from the University of East Anglia? Where do you think public confidence is in climate science, at the moment?
Lord Rees of Ludlow : In climate science in particular?
Q76 Graham Stringer: Yes.
Lord Rees of Ludlow : Obviously, the publicity over those emails did have an effect, and that combined with the cold winter, etc, did have an effect. What the Minister said last week to this Committee, I think, reflected the situation that nothing has really changed regarding the science. The scientists have been exonerated of any sort of unprofessional conduct. As I say, the science is not affected. However, I think there are lessons that should be learnt. Firstly, the IPCC procedure needs to be modified, and I mentioned that had been done by this InterAcademy study, which will report next month, when The Royal Society hosted a final meeting last week. So the IPCC procedure is going to have to be modified in order to restore confidence and to make it less cumbersome to make the interaction between governments and science slightly different, and also to ensure that it is not just a seven-year cycle where things go into orbit in between but where there is a secretariat that can update the science and respond to concerns. That is one thing. The other lesson that has been learnt is the need to have proper protocols for ensuring that data is made available to anyone who is able to analyse it. I think that, again, is something which has been brought under control now in many sciences, but in space science there are firm protocols. I think what went wrong in this particular case was that some of the data goes back a long way and was collected when clearly climatology was a rather arcane and under-funded subject, whose practitioners had no idea of the importance it would subsequently have. I think lessons have been learnt and this leads to, I hope, a change in the mindset of scientists towards being more willing to share their data with genuine enquirers.
Q77 Graham Stringer: I think the last point is well made. I do not think David Willetts’s point, that you referred to, is as well made because the three inquiries - the inquiry by this Committee, the inquiry by Muir Russell and the inquiry by ---
Lord Rees of Ludlow : Oxburgh
Q78 Graham Stringer: None of them looked really looked at the science, and where they stepped over the science, as Oxburgh did, he said that he was rather surprised that methods that depended on advanced statistics had not used advanced statisticians; he said that they had also used subjective methods. So I think David Willetts was wrong to say that somehow these had validated the science, because the science was not looked at. One, do you think the science should be looked at? If it was to be looked at, how would it be done?
Lord Rees of Ludlow : I would, to some extent, contest what you have just said. These papers were refereed, but the key thing which the Oxburgh Committee did was to actually go and sit with the scientists and see what they actually did and how they analysed the data. As regards the statistics, Professor Hand from Imperial College, who is one of the UK’s leading statisticians, was put on the Oxburgh Panel precisely because he had that expertise. What the report said was that indeed they had not used the optimum sophisticated techniques but he thought it would not have made any difference to the results. So, again, I do not think the science from that group is severely under question from the techniques they used. Of course, I should also emphasise that the science from that group is just one small element in the overall body of evidence on climate change in the past. In my view, the most important piece of evidence that policy makers need to take account of is not the past climate at all but the completely uncontroversial rise in the carbon dioxide concentration over the last 50 years, which is due to, primarily, the burning of fossil fuels. That is, I think, the most important data, and that is not controversial.
Q79 Graham Stringer: Can you explain to us a little bit about your own new pamphlet that you are going to produce on climate science? At the end of May there were three elected Fellows of The Royal Society who complained about the information that was being put out. I paraphrase but they said that the information was too sinister (?) and did not reflect the totality of the sciences as well as it could have done. Is that document being produced and will it be very different from what went before?
Lord Rees of Ludlow : I think you are referring to someone who criticised the document that we put out a few years ago which was a response to the Channel 4 programme The Climate Swindle.
Q80 Graham Stringer: Yes.
Lord Rees of Ludlow : So we need to update that in a number of ways, and we are doing that. More importantly, what we have done at The Royal Society is had a whole series of conferences to address what is happening in climate science. We had a meeting on greenhouse gases in the early spring, followed by a meeting on uncertainty in science. We have another one on computer models. So these are all meetings and all our Royal Society discussion meetings are open to the public, and I would hope that those who are sceptical about the science would take the opportunity to attend these meetings. I think the important thing is to try and push forward the science and reduce the uncertainties. As you say, in terms of expressing the scientific consensus in a form that is important and that is accessible to the public and to politicians, that is one of our roles, and that is what we are doing. So we are updating the one which was on the web earlier. I would say that if anyone looks at The Royal Society’s literature there are several volumes of our journals reporting conferences we have had on climate change which have been very controversial. Anyone who attended these meetings would certainly not be able to say that there is a quiet consensus and that people who make assertions are not tackled. It is a very controversial subject.
Reader Comments (22)
I think lessons have been learnt and this leads to, I hope, a change in the mindset of scientists towards being more willing to share their data with genuine enquirers.
I'd say you need to define the phrase "genuine enquirers", yer Lordship.
Yet again here is that opinion with reference to the Climategate leak that although the key IPCC authors have played fast and loose by proactively managing climate related data and information to skew the apparent result, they insist on claiming that "the science is not affected".
If you cannot trust the core data on which any hypothisis or theory, (ie the science) is based then the science is indeed affected since it has become largely worthless unless verified elsewhere.
Also can anyone remind me "when clearly climatology was a rather arcane and under-funded subject" Arcane I can believe, but underfunded?
After the response to Q76, Stringer says: " I think the last point is well made." ?
I search the text and I find no points that are well made just a lot of drivel. Lessons have been learnt, brought under control, methods will have to change, more cooperation etc etc.
Mr Stringer could have driven a horse and cart through the credibility gaps in this respionse but all he does is praise Rees.
Many commenters here seem to regard Stringer as someone who can "get things done" but on the basis of the above I would describe him as a bit of a wet Lettuce!
A slightly broader statement on sharing data from the UEA press release to include “interested parties”.
Climate data to be opened up
The UEA team, led by Dr Tim Osborn, is one of eight departments around the country who will be working towards models of better data management practice and making data more openly available for reuse by universities and other interested parties.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2010/july/homepagenews/climatedataproject
I love the way Rees applies his scientific mind, mixing the bad email publicity with the cold weather to come out with, not a hypothesis, but a result that definitely explains the publics attitude.
You see, you really have to respect scientific authority like this. Whats latin for "You better believe it!"
Rees as an observational astronomer should be capable of assessing unambiguous patterns, trends, as depicted using valid --not "modeled"-- data via standard statistical techniques (emphatically not those hoicked up by Green Gang propagandists such as Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al.).
To say, "... the completely uncontroversial rise in ... (atmospheric) carbon dioxide concentration(s) over the last 50 years ... is due ... primarily (to) ... burning fossil fuels. ... that is not controversial" is simply asinine. AGW of course does crucially rely on this indefensible canard, but such Warmist hysteria was conclusively refuted years ago. Acting in bad faith, under false pretenses, credentialed Luddites' mindless repetition of this foolish dogma completely undermines every other aspect of their contentious rants.
Rees has disgraced himself. Unless and until his once-great Royal Society extirpates Climate Cultists root-and-branch, no disinterested observer need grant its minions any slightest heed.
I would love to have been able to ask Lord Rees if he thought the rising level of CO2 was evidence enough to justify action to avoid global warming, and if he didn't, would he please explain which additional pieces of evidence, he considered reliable enough to justify the cost of reducing atmospheric CO2!
As opposed to today where it is an unscientific over-funded subject, whose practitioners have an over inflated idea of the importance is should have
Would it be too naughty to paraphrase his penultimate sentence above to 'There is no consensus'?
More like:
It is a very controversial subject.
"As regards the statistics, Professor Hand from Imperial College, who is one of the UK’s leading statisticians, was put on the Oxburgh Panel precisely because he had that expertise. What the report said was that indeed they had not used the optimum sophisticated techniques but he thought it would not have made any difference to the results."
Interesting. The recent fallout from the ClimateAudit "The no-dendro-illusion" versus the corresponding admissions from Realclimate could prove embarrassing for Professor Hand (who opted not to communicate with McIntyre). Perhaps CRU's statistics were more than just a little dubious. Now not only is The Hockey Stick broken, but the medieval warming period is no longer scientifically interesting. Hmmmm. That means current (manipulated) temps can no longer be claimed to be the warmest in a millennium. Perhaps Rees might want to reconsider.
In my view, the most important piece of evidence that policy makers need to take account of is not the past climate at all but the completely uncontroversial rise in the carbon dioxide concentration over the last 50 years, which is due to, primarily, the burning of fossil fuels. That is, I think, the most important data, and that is not controversial.
This is irresponsible BS, head obviously in the nebulousphere.
I think Athelstan hits the nail on the head :) Despite still protesting their peer reviewed innocence over the hockey stick, they really have moved on. The battleground now is the last 150 years.
"CO2 IS rising"
"Temperature HAS risen"
"This can only be explained by greenhouse gases including CO2"
This is where AR5 is going and I think it is their last stand, they have nowhere else to go.
The following words jumped out at me:"The other lesson that has been learnt is the need to have proper protocols for ensuring that data is made available to anyone who is able to analyse it."
What bloomi' difference does it make if a person is able to analyze the data or not?" For all we know he/she may just print it out and use it for a dart board target. The data, if it's on a public archive site, should be available to anyone who wants it, regardless of their ability to analyze it The only protocols that are needed are the ones the tell where the data is and what steps you need to do to download it. Period....
Smack on Mr Arnold :)
Amidst all their talk about more being more open, more cooperative are those interesting little caveats which boil down to meaning "the right people".
I wonder who will decide who the right people are :)
Dung,
I suspect you are right about changing the AGW focus to the last 150 years. If so, look for upcoming attacks on the credibility of Surfacestations.org and Anthony Watts. If you do not have it, you can download D'Aleo and Watt's surface temperature records analysis at:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
"Many commenters here seem to regard Stringer as someone who can "get things done" but on the basis of the above I would describe him as a bit of a wet Lettuce!"
August 5, 2010 | Dung
Disagree Dung.
The Honourable Stringer asked some very pointed questions to which the admirable Martin answered evasively.
Don't confuse the questioners lack of follow up with an inability to pursue.
Tis enough to provide a sufficiency of hemp for a noose and then bide ones time for a public hanging. Never bring a prosecution to court until circumstances, and an overwhelming weight of evidence, are in the bag.
Mr S, I'm beginning to suspect, is that most rare of creatures. An honest but pragmatic politician who puts probity above party, truth over triumphalism and dogged, steadfast patience .
A slow fuse gives no hint of the magnitude of the subsequent explosion!
A career worth the watch, I think.
I was flicking through my copy of Nigel Calder's The Magic Universe and noticed this quote from Martin Rees on the back "He is really exceptional in his energy, his range of comprehension, and his quality as a writer. . . . Nigel Calder remains supreme in his range and depth . . . he goes to immense trouble to get things right, and also takes pains with the clarity and elegance of his writing."
After being an Earth scientist in the nineties Geology, Oceanography and Meteorology, this is the book that made be seriously question the the AGW consensus of the time (2003 I think). The book immediately got me interested in chapters such as 'Ice rafting events' and alternative hypothesis to co2 (The sun maybe). I also remember scratching my head at the time when the IPCC pushed the hockey stick, just wondering where the MWP had gone.
Interesting to see Calder and Rees have taken slightly different paths and I also agree with Sir Rees that Calder 'goes to immense trouble to get things right'
"Many commenters here seem to regard Stringer as someone who can "get things done" but on the basis of the above I would describe him as a bit of a wet Lettuce!"
August 5, 2010 | Dung
Disagree Dung.
August 6, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterroyfomr
Sorry Terry but I agree with Dung for one simple reason...Stringer is one of the few in the H.O.P that has a science background. His questioning during the "Committee" inquiry showed a total lack of knowledge about the emails and had he had the backbone, integrity and in depth understanding he would have thumped the table! Thats not the way M.P's work, they have an eye to the future and I think that Stringer let himself and us down that day! He could have destroyed not Jones but that sad idiot that sat next to him defending a second rate university!
Stringer is elected to represent his electorate and where I one of his voter I would be all over him like a rash for his failure! I so hope he reads Bishophill! We have so little support in places of power and he actually let us down big time! IMO!
"Of course, I should also emphasise that the science from that group is just one small element in the overall body of evidence on climate change in the past."
So if the temperature record had declined over the last 150 yrs, it wouldn't matter?
Interesting. The recent fallout from the ClimateAudit "The no-dendro-illusion" versus the corresponding admissions from Realclimate could prove embarrassing for Professor Hand (who opted not to communicate with McIntyre). Perhaps CRU's statistics were more than just a little dubious. Now not only is The Hockey Stick broken, but the medieval warming period is no longer scientifically interesting. Hmmmm. That means current (manipulated) temps can no longer be claimed to be the warmest in a millennium.
Gavin also went onto say that even if temps did not rise the science still supported AGW because of the physics eg CO2 is a greenhouse gas. He has yet to answer the supplementary question 'What would you need to see before you considered AGW theory disproved'
Wonder what the Physics Society will think of that.
FrankSW says: "If you cannot trust the core data on which any hypothisis or theory, (ie the science) is based then the science is indeed affected since it has become largely worthless unless verified elsewhere."
Frank, you are absolutely right. The situation is actually much worse than Climategate reveals because the basic data purporting to show global warming is corrupt. If you look at Figure 18 in my book you will see that the entire "late twentieth century warming," that was supposed to have happened in the eighties and nineties is fabricated. That figure compares Met Office HadCRUT3 temperatures that originate from CRU at East Anglia University with satellite temperature measurements. Satellites do not see this warming, only a temperature oscillation, up and down by half a degree for twenty years until the super El Nino of 1998 shows up. Remember that Hansen testified in 1988 that warming had arrived and that CO2 was the cause. Well, real warming did arrive but ten years after he spoke. The temperature oscillations I spoke of are caused by the ENSO system in the Pacific that has a global climate influence. What the record shows is an alternation of warm El Nino peaks interspersed by cool La Nina valleys. What HadCRUT3 does with it is to raise up the bottoms of all the La Nina valleys and this way change a horizontal temperature curve into a rising temperature curve. NASA does too. This is colossal scientific fraud compared to which Climategate is only the tip of the iceberg. It looks like the word went out in the late seventies to stay with the peaks and adjust the intervening temperatures accordingly. NASA and the Met Office did this by making La Nina valleys shallow but NOAA completely eliminated them. An inside job like this that involves three organizations is nothing more than a criminal conspiracy to deceive the public. Trillions of dollars now ride on the existence of that "global warming" in the eighties and nineties. My work shows it to be imaginary and the real warming that brought us the twenty-first century high was non-carbonaceaous. This means that no anthropogenic global warming has ever been observed. That is because it is physically impossible. Ferenc Miskolczi has shown, using NOAA's weather balloon database, that the global average annual infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere has been unchanged for 61 years. Optical thickness he speaks of is a logarithmic measure of the transparency of the atmosphere to heat radiation from below. Constant addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere for 61 years straight has not changed its transparency or its optical thickness would have increased, and this did not happen. This means that the greenhouse absorption signature of the added carbon dioxide simply isn’t there. No absorption, no greenhouse effect, case closed.