Bishop Hill Nature tries to move on
Nature Geoscience is trying its darndest to move on from Climategate, with an editorial declaring the affair closed and accompanying articles looking at where we go from here (although the latter are behind a paywall, one is discussed at Klimazwiebel).
There is an interesting point made about climate scientists at CRU, the ones whose "rigour and honesty as scientists" has been found to be beyond reproach...
[I]n an exchange in late July 1999, climate scientists discussed how to present projected climate change scenarios to best serve the purposes of the WWF (who had apparently expressed concern that the initial presentations were more conservative than those from other sources and asked for one section to be 'beefed up' if possible). Such considerations should not enter into scientific debate.
Indeed they should not. Honest and rigorous scientists do not change their presentations for the benefit of environmental campaigners. I wonder how Nature Geoscientist reconciles the contradiction between the findings of the Russell panel, which it appears to support, and its observations about the conduct of the scientists in this instance?
Reader Comments (37)
They WISH the Climategate saga were closed.
In the real business world, if a mistake is made the first question you ask is where the failure in the system occurred, and the second question you ask is how you're going to prevent a recurrence of the error.
So far as I can ascertain, the first question is still to be answered. In fact, as far as I can determine, the first question hasn't even properly been asked! Consequently, the second question - which safeguards should be introduced to prevent these systemic failures - has not yet even been posed.
No, the Climategate affair will not be closed until there is systemic acknowledgement of the genuine issues, a revolutionary system of procedures introduced to prevent breaches of legal and scientific process, and a thorough testing of the new systems to demonstrate beyond doubt that transgressions not only WON'T happen, but CAN'T happen undetected in future.
All we've seen so far are a few prescriptive proposals to address loosely framed issues. There are no goal-based proposals at all. Hell no, it's not dead yet.
"in this instance"? as far as I can tell, the fact that WWF pressured the scientists to "beef up" the science does not constitute evidence that they, in fact, did so, nor that they did so *because* of WWF's pressure. So I don't know what the hell are you trying to fish here. Seems the pond is empty.
Luis, there's an 80 billion dollar whale in Amazon REDD funds for the WWF lurking beneath the surface. Don't jump in.
================
? Kim, I'm actually asking for evidence for Montfords' innuendo, not to look beneath any conspiracy theory that you have somewhere inside your mind.
Luis
My reading of email 0933254004.txt is that they did change presentation for the benefit of WWF.
Of interest are the two letters from 1998 to Nature from Mann, et al and Jones.
We have the claim in both that the long instrumental records were/should be used to verify the proxy data.
Jones initial letter in 1998 was seen to be critical of Mann's research, but both Mann and Jones were later in the year singing from the same hymnsheet in Nature's letter columns.
Why could that be?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
I suggest "Luis Dias" actually read some of the CRU emails, and then look at some of the lame excuses and total misrepresentations put forward as an explanation by the CRU scientist and their supporters. The AGW alarmists and eco-fascist supporters are prone to gross overexaggertaion and will do anything to get their way. Here's a few examples..
WORDS TO PONDER
"To capture the public imagination ... we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. ...Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."
-- STEPHEN SCHNEIDER, Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports,Discover Magazine interview, Oct.89 [88]
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true. ... You are what the media define you to be. [Greenpeace] became a myth, and a myth-generating machine."
-- PAUL WATSON, co-founder of Greenpeace, on the "secret of Greenpeace's success",
Forbes magazine interview, 11.Nov.91 [90]
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
-- SIR JOHN HOUGHTON, first co-chair of the IPCC and lead editor
of its first three reports (1990, 1995, 2001),in his 1994 book "Global Warming, The Complete Briefing" [89]
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"
-- MAURICE STRONG, founder of the UN Environment Programme,
WEST magazine interview, May.90 [91
If you need to be a Troll, then please go somewhere else or do some research.
Luis, if you don't know what's in the water, don't dive in. You could hurt yourself.
======================
You are allowed to 'follow the money', however.
====================
Lucy
I dont see where the Bish creates any Innuendo?
Nature Geoscience makes the claim that a meeting took place.
NG claims that it discussed how to beef up presentations about AGW
NG claims this might have been because WWF requested this
The Bish reports that and adds some comments.
I dont see the problem?
ups Luis sorry
wow, mactheknife, why don't you relax a while and stop spamming the internetz with these tireful memes? I read the e-mails, but I did not make the connection that they were making the presentation for the IPCC. I thought they were helping to make a leaflet for WWF or something.
If this is the case, it doesn't smell good.
Of interest are the two letters from 1998 to Nature from Mann, et al and Jones.
We have the claim in both that the long instrumental records were/should be used to 'independently' verify the proxy data.
Jones initial letter in 1998 was seen to be critical of Mann's research, but both Mann and Jones were later in the year singing from the same hymnsheet in Nature's letter columns.
Why could that be?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
It's called "cognitive dissonance"
"climate scientists discussed how to present projected climate change scenarios to best serve the purposes of the WWF". That's not how I did science. I presented my results as factually correct as possible. Computer model results were presented warts and all, with uncertainty ranges given together with all assumptions and justifications clearly spelt out. I suppose that's the difference between the real world of business and the virtual world of academia and government funded science.
@ Luis Dias
wow, mactheknife, why don't you relax a while and stop spamming the internetz with these tireful memes? I read the e-mails, but I did not make the connection that they were making the presentation for the IPCC. I thought they were helping to make a leaflet for WWF or something.
If this is the case, it doesn't smell good.
===============================
Unfortunately you have to look under the stone to see whats really there. The connection between governments, NGO's, and eco-activist groups who are lobbying the AGW alarmist fraternity is there and propogated by the IPCC ( look up "Amazongate" for reference ).
The quotations from leading AGW supporters are there to show the real intention behind the "science". They are far from "tireful memes" - they should tell you in just those short sentences all you need to know.
As you point out "it does not smell good".
"Internetz"...shall I call you "dude" ?
What we do know is that by the time AR4 rolled out, there'd been sufficient mutual back-scratching (well, manipulation of some part of the body, at least) and sufficient confluence of position between the 'science' and the 'advocacy' that they were quite comfortable citing each other's work (against the rules, in the case of the IPCC 'science') to further their own interests.
mojo
It's called "cognitive dissonance"
Psychologically speaking, it's a lie. He admits that he did the Mann Trick. That is a lie.
Cognitive dissonance is a term used when the subject really believes two (or more) contradictory beliefs at the same time. The subconscious mind gets upset (dissonance) and that leads to all sorts of bad behavior. This is what we are seeing from a number of people in the AGW who are realizing that they may have made a mistake.
There is a a fairly good summary of CD in Wikipedia, or at least may still be until the bun fighters get at it.
HERE
I have no idea what sort of Eigenvector CD came out of years ago, but it is an interesting cocktail party topic and probably a way to describe some of the more interesting behavior we have seen out of Mann, et al.
OOPS!. That will teach me to cut and paste with old glasses on. SORRY!
COLLECTION FOR DON PABLO!!
If we can fly Steve McIntyre to England we can buy Don Pablo some new specs ^.^
I just finished reading Stanley Trimble's 2007 essay The Double Standard in Environmental Science about scandals (involving Nature and Science) within the field of Soil Erosion. I found it via If the Science Is Solid, Why Stoop? An Environmental Scientist Parses Climategate, published Feb 2010.
Maybe these articles are old news, but I found them quite pertinent to the discussion. History keeps repeating itself, it seems.
Dung
Wouldn’t a monocle be more appropriate for Don P, I think it would sit nicely with his deerstalker hat, tweed breeches and handlebar moustache, not forgetting his Gau 8 Avenger sitting in the back of his pickup. Could be a new Mr. P.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GAU-8_avenger.jpg
Martyn,
That's odd. I have a much different mental image of Don Pablo, along the lines of don Quijote de la Mancha, riding a horse rather than a pickup.
Probably just the name.
Don Pablo
Your adoring public would like you to post a photo!
Nature is now known in academic circles as 'The Trick'. Publication in 'The Trick' is sure to have wide impact, and is widely respected as a sign in academia of joining the establishment. However, those wishing to publish about scientific matters tend to avoid 'The Trick'.
"Nature is now known in academic circles as 'The Trick'."
Truly?
No doubt there is a great deal of hypocrisy evident in the actions of some in the climate establishment.
It is apparently acceptable to take direction from an advocacy group (e.g., WWF) while making (often spurious) accusations against skeptics for associations with energy industry advocates.
It's also apparently acceptable to set up a blog for the express purpose of influencing people's opinions on climate change while at the same time deriding people who have been influenced by skeptical climate blogs ("you're just repeating what you read on a blog", they say). The treatment of Judith Curry on RealClimate a few week's back was a particularly appalling example of this, in my opinion -- I even blogged about it here: http://webofbelief.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/curry-faces-her-accusers-again/
And while the establishment has done a remarkably effective job of weathering the climate-gate storm, I can't help but feeling that, in the long term, they have done themselves a disservice by failing to disavow the bad behaviour that has recently come to light. The average person who reads those e-mails is not going to be convinced that "everything has been taken out of context." On the contrary, the e-mails provide plenty of context.
- Dave
@j ferguson
Yup - Nature has been gouging scientists for quite long enough - and this activism farce has just made the rag a joke.
Hmmm sadly the only problem at the moment is that the average person does not even know about the emails let alone has read them hehe.
Still we all live in hope :)
However if the oil companies were to make me an offer of even a few thousand measly pounds a moth I would seriously consider changing sides ^.^
Month! pls dont go with any Moth jokes -.-
HaroldW
I think your image must be correct since the older version did strongly object to wind farms hehe.
Latimer Alder
Your adoring public would like you to post a photo!
Sorry, but too many people are looking for me given my years of doing -aahh- interesting work. However, perhaps Josh would do an interpretation? About 70, I am thin, about 160 lbs (11.4 stone or 72.7 kilos), 5'10" or 1.78 meters tall and I definitely do not wear a monocle. And as HaroldW guessed I have a beard and mustache along the lines of Don Quijote de la Mancha, but riding a pickup rather than a horse. (I do live in the 21th century after all!) However, an image of Don Pablo charging a troll on horse back with a long lance might do. I don't do windmills any longer. I got my lance stick in the blade on one and went round and round of a hour. Never again!
Or maybe charging a troll with a lance on a pickup . Sorta appeals to my weird sense of humor.
Mactheknife:
By 1991 Paul Watson of course was no longer associated with Greenpeace and was speaking "of" them not speaking "for" them. I happen to count Paul Watson and Startlett as personal friends -- and no we did not agree on everything so please don't raise that issue anyone. I spent many hours with him and he made many comments of the nature you posted. Now, I don't believe that he was paying them a compliment but rather describing why there was a parting of the ways. I do not in any way speak for him but am simply stating what I recall. I believe that my recollection is correct. fwiw.
I think the quote takes on another meaning if you understand what I believe to be his intent. I believe my memory to be correct.
Just some additional food for thought.
And I know that this thread should not be turned into a discussion of Paul and his acts and motivations so respect that thought and recognize that I am just trying to add some perspective to the comment.
They "sexed up the dossier".
Don, of course, and I should have done a cartoon for you ages ago, how remiss of me.
Bish, I read the email you linked to and agree.
As Barrie says in the email
"I would be very concerned if the material comes out under WWF auspices in a way that can be interpreted as saying that "even a green group like WWF" thinks large areas of the world will have negligible climate change. But that is where your 95% confidence limit leads"
@Ulf,
Thanks for the links - worth reading.
It's interesting that the longer piece - written in 2007 - ( "The Double Standard in Environmental Science" ) describes the academic skulduggery that was revealed to all in the climategate emails.