Bishop Hill CRU "not especially honest" on MBH98
Nov 25, 2011 Email 1656
date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:05:20 +0100
from: "Douglas Maraun" <d.maraun@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Informal Seminar TODAY
to: cru.internal@uea.ac.uk
Dear colleagues,
I'd like to invite all of you to todays discussion seminar, 4pm in the coffee room:
"Climate science and the media"
After the publication of the latest IPCC, the media wrote a vast number of articles about possible and likely impacts, many of them greatly exaggerated. The issue seemed to dominate news for a long time and every company had to consider global warming in its advertisement. However, much of this sympathy turned out to be either white washing or political correctness. Furthermore, recently and maybe especially after the "inconvenient truth" case and the Nobel peace prize going to Al Gore, many irritated and sceptical comments about so-called "climatism" appeared also in respectable newspapers. Against the background of these recent developments, we could discuss the relation of climate science to the media, the way it is, and the way it should be.
In my opinion, the question is not so much whether we should at all deal with the media. Our research is of potential relevance to the public, so we have to deal with the public. The question is rather how this should be done. Points I would like to discuss are:
-Is it true that only climate sceptics have political interests and are potentially biased? If not, how can we deal with this?
-How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that "our" reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not especially honest.
-How should we deal with popular science like the Al Gore movie?
-What is the difference between a "climate sceptic" and a "climate denier"?
-What should we do with/against exaggerations of the media?
-How do we avoid sounding religious or arrogant?
-Should we comment on the work/ideas of climate scepitics?
If you have got any further suggestions or do think, my points are not
interesting, please let me know in advance.
See you later,
Douglas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Douglas Maraun
Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
Reader Comments (119)
Nov 25, 2011 at 2:05 PM | Richard Betts
Thank you.
Cumbrian Lad.
Very true. Apologise if I came across arrogant. But I am not alone in that view. This from Judith's current post thread
patrioticduo | November 25, 2011 at 1:28 pm
After having read through a couple of hundred of the emails, what I find really striking is that, CRU and “the team” are in almost total “issue advocacy” mode. Sure, they do some science but the amount of time they spend promoting, filtering, organizing and promoting their “science” is inordinately high.
pokerguy | November 25, 2011 at 1:55 pm | Reply
Agreed. That’s one of the huge takeways from this. The question to be asked is where do these guys draw the line? What won’t they do to further THE CAUSE? At what point does their end no longer justify the means?
Scary.
There's nothing to apologise for Pharos; they are just a small part, but then I suppose to have 5000 dodgy emails is not exactly a sign of rectitude is it!
There is very much a sense of mission there isn't there. Remember the multiple comments about 'right wingers' or deniers. In a closed community (which is what it is really) you expect some convergence of view, but I've worked in big organisations and small, and never come across this level of groupthink other than perhaps in political parties. Perhaps they should all get out more!
A dumb word count shows that the most mentioned people are Jones, Briffa and Mann. Now, poor Phil and Mike both appear in unfavorable light, whilst Briffa is just shy of being a hero. More evidence KB might be behind all this.
For an example of Superhero Briffa, see 2707.txt
@geronimo
As someone involved at a high level in global consultancy companies, where the pressure to deliver new projects, and maintain existing ones, is high, I have not seen language like this. I have not seen behaviour like this. And this type of business is fairly cut throat.
Even if people are going to be removed from a project or position, or the project is going t*ts-up and has to to be risk managed, a professional language is used.
What I see here is small minded people with too much authority but no responsibility for that authority. In my line of business, authority has to match responsibilities.Those with more authority than responsibility are hated. Those will less leave due to the hassle.
Here they had the power without the come-back. Until now.
In a democratic world, responsibility will always try to bring into balance authority. CG2 is the system balancing itself.
And it is something the Guardian, and many others, does not understand.
It is democracy in action.
I wonder if Richard Betts or/and Tamsin would be good enough to consider and provide answers to a number of questions I have? At the outset I should say that I am not a scientist. For 17 years before my father died I was a full time carer. Round the clock duties made it difficult to keep up with the subjects of this blog. With an industrial relations background I did, in the early stages of caring, work in universities on behalf of university academics bringing and defending complaints. I say this to show that I am a very ordinary Joe. Any answers Richarrd provides will I hope be readily understandable and lack the jargon I sometimes see.
Also, I regard weather as a range of natural events and am somewhat uncertain about the degree,if any, to which man can affect it. Climate is man-made. It is the measurements we make to do with the weather.
Question 1
The 2007 IPCC AR4 report says: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
(a) What value scientifically has this conclusion?
(b) Do you agree with the strength of certainty expressed in the conclusion ("very likely" means more than 90% confidence)? If you do not agree with the confidence level expressed above what quantitative value would you place on the certainty/uncertainty of the conclusion?
Please cite evidence in support of your opinion and explain breifly the uncertainties involved in deciding such a matter?
Question 2
Are global temperatures today within or outwith the range of historical natural varianbility?
Please give a quantitative value to the level of certainty/uncertainty you assign to your answer. Also, please cite evidence to support your conclusion and briefly explain the uncertainties involved in reaching the conclusion.
Question 3
(1) How accurate is the measured temperature record
(a) on land?
(b) at the sea surface?
(c) by satellite?
"Accurate" means "showing a negligible or permissible deviation from a standard".
(2) How reliable are paleoclimate reconstructions?
"Reliable" means "able to be trusted".
(3) How reliable are computer models, particularly your own?
In each case please cite evidence in support of your answer and provide a quantitative value of certainty/uncertainty. Please list the uncertainties involved.
Question 4
In providing information to scientists/ policy makers/ journalists/ people do you normally provide a quantitative value to the level of certainty/ uncertainty to any conclusions you have reached? if you do not do so, why?
My thanks in advance, Richard.
Sam
Some more questions for Richard Betts
Have you used less than robust data, methods to achieve a published result that discredits a rival paper?
Have you put pressure on journal editors to prevent publication of a paper?
Have you put pressure on journal editors to retract a published paper?
Do you know of Met Office colleagues that have done the above?
Have you collaborated with other scientists in the above?
The reason I ask is this;
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/25/behind-closed-doors-perpetuating-rubbish/#comment-312601
What ethical standards are you and the Met Office constrained by in the publishing of science (i.e. how do you prevent Team poisoning of the science well)?
"After having read through a couple of hundred of the emails, what I find really striking is that, CRU and “the team” are in almost total “issue advocacy” mode. Sure, they do some science but the amount of time they spend promoting, filtering, organizing and promoting their “science” is inordinately high."
But exactly what science is there really to do in looking at old thermometers and tree rings which covers the bulk of CRU and the 'Teams' scope. The stuff that gets talked about is mostly a decade old and the 'sides' disagree on the conclusions.
It would be nice though if they spent a few weeks doing the science properly though. It's not exactly hard stuff looking at a simple database of recorded data and basically drawing some graphs - we're not talking quantum mechanics here..
Nov 26, 2011 at 9:56 AM | sam
Thanks for your important, deep, and scientifically-based questions. I'll be very happy to answer, but it will take me a couple of days as we have family visiting and if I spend the whole time blogging I won't be very popular! :-)
Mac, I'll respond to your questions after Sam's.
I definitely will get back to you both!
Thanks, Richard - I am sure there are/will be many who read your replies with interest.
Perhaps you could either ask BH to put your replies into a thread of their own, or perhaps start a discussion thread with the questions repeated at the beginning?
Enjoy your family break!
"What is the difference between a "climate sceptic" and a "climate denier"?"
... and a climate objectivist, a climate credulist and a climate activist?
"Does anyone think that anything will happen this time to change things for better?"
Nov 25, 2011 at 2:48 PM | genealogymaster
In terms of honest enquiries and the facts suddenly registering with governments? I doubt it. The easiest course would be to say that the new revelations offered nothing new and everything was investigated and came out with a clean bill of health with the previous enquiries. This would depend a bit on the public mood, and what was seen as the best way to manage it. My guess is that further enquiries would undermine the work of past enquiries and draw further attention to a matter best ignored.
However, this is part of a larger political process which governments are largely in favour of and have staked too much on to admit they were wrong. As far as that process goes, the highly unlikely event of Jones and co. fessing up, would be a blow, but it wouldn't deflect them on its own. Climate alarmism is mainly a political phenomenon, not a scientific one.
It's a political process which is gradually unravelling as people become tired of the scare and are increasingly aware of the ruinous costs and the damage. Climategate 2 is another step along the way.
What would be a significant step is to see the Climate Change Act repealed.
Skeptic vs. Denier:
It's like bias vs. prejudice - bias being "if I can read the evidence as supporting (X), I will do so." and prejudice being "I will support (X) regardless of any evidence."
Personally, I find bias acceptable, if not very nice. Prejudice, not so much.
Nov 26, 2011 at 5:08 PM | matthu
Thanks, good idea, I think I'll do that.
Didn't get time to answer Sam's detailed questions today as I'd hoped, and it's late now, so actually I'll answer Mac's questions now (as they are quicker to answer) and then get back to Sam's ASAP. Bear with me a little while longer .... (sorry) :-)
Mac
No
No
No
No
No
Just the usual ones of publishing the scientific results as supported by the evidence, making clear any assumptions upon which the results depend, and seeking to ensure that the same occurs in papers by peers when we act as reviewers or editors.
Richard thanks for the reply.
It would appear that you are a 'man of science' rather than a supporter of 'the cause'.
Do you know you are also bound by the Civil Service code of conduct; namely
As a civil servant, you are appointed on merit on the basis of fair and open competition and are expected to carry out your role with dedication and a commitment to the Civil Service and its core values: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.
• ‘integrity’ is putting the obligations of public service above your own personal interests;
• ‘honesty’ is being truthful and open;
• ‘objectivity’ is basing your advice and decisions on rigorous analysis of the evidence; and
• ‘impartiality’ is acting solely according to the merits of the case and serving equally well Governments
of different political persuasions, and must not act in a way that unjustifiably favours or discriminates against particular individuals or interests.
Also you have a responsibility that if you become aware of actions by others which you believe conflict with this Code you should report this to your line manager or someone else in your line management chain.
So I assume all your replies, the "Nos" are honest answers, freely given and without qualification?
Mac
Yes of course.
I've responded to sam's questions in a discussion topic (thank you matthu for the suggestion!)
Cheers
Richard