Bishop Hill Paul Nurse on FOI
May 26, 2011 FOI Royal Society The Guardian has one of those articles with no comments thread, usually a sure sign that they have written something...disputable. The subject is an interview they have done with Sir Paul Nurse about FOI and scientific research. You can probably guess the contents.
Freedom of information laws are being misused to harass scientists and should be re-examined by the government, according to the president of the Royal Society.
Nobel laureate Sir Paul Nurse told the Guardian that some climate scientists were being targeted by organised campaigns of requests for data and other research materials, aimed at intimidating them and slowing down research. He said the behaviour was turning freedom of information laws into a way to intimidate some scientists.
Why does he keep repeating things that are so readily shown to be false? Shall we go through this again?
- the Deputy Information Commissioner told Parliament that the number of FOI requests made to UEA was not high
- UEA could have refused burdensome requests on cost grounds (as they had done in the past)
- UEA answered all the 50-odd requests by pointing requesters to the same web page. The whole process could have taken them no longer than an hour.
Some of what Nurse says is seriously, seriously wrongheaded. Take this for example:
I have been told of some researchers who are getting lots of requests for, among other things, all drafts of scientific papers prior to their publication in journals, with annotations, explaining why changes were made between successive versions. If it is true, it will consume a huge amount of time. And it's intimidating.
Shall we read the legislation?
12 Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit.
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.
Or how about this one...?
14 Vexatious or repeated requests.
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.
Why does he keep saying things that can so readily be shown to be false? Why? This is the president of the Royal Society, the living embodiment of British science. Why would this man want to keep scientific data locked away? Why would he actually be in favour of the idea that nobody should be able to replicate scientific papers?
It's rather as if the science has taken a leave of absence from the Royal Society and only the scientists remain.
Bishop Hill
Steve M has picked up the story here and has written to Sir Paul asking for background on some of his more outlandish claims.
Reader Comments (71)
Does anyone else find it especially worrying, given the occasionally-dubious history of his profession, that a medical researcher argues in favour of secrecy in scientific endeavour?
I don't think he's arguing in favour of secrecy, Richard. What I believe has happened is that he has been conned by the climate science fanatics who are enlisting every reputable (non-climate) scientist they can find as well as a few dabblers who had better remain nameless to push the (fallacious) argument that they are being hounded by sceptics trying to .... trying to do what, exactly?
I cannot see how it benefits any of us to disrupt genuine reserach. If the 'other' side believes that we are funded by anybody with that in mind then (i) they can come and look at my bank balance anytime; (ii) have they not noticed that their pet bogeymen appear to be donating more money to climate researchers than they are to funding sceptics?
Nurse believes he needs to defend his colleagues against attacks from outside. Fair enough, provided those who are on the receiving end are honest and diligent and carrying out worthwhile research. From where I stand they are behaving in a way that calls into question both their honesty and the value of their research.
My scepticism (and I am sure that of others) has gone beyond the point of considering that anthropogenic CO2 seems a highly unlikely candidate for the armageddon they are prophesying to the point where they are being so cavalier with their data and in their attitude towards those who would genuinely seek to improve the science that I doubt they believe it themselves.
“He has been conned by the climate science fanatics...” (Mike Jackson)
“Nurse must be the target of frequent lobbying and lunching...” (London Calling)
Nurse is a bit misguided to tangle with guys here and elsewhere who are intimately familiar with the climategate story...” (Joe Sixpack)
There’s an idea around that Nurse and the RS are being used. But Nursey knows what’s going on. He’s read our rude comments on his Horizon prgramme - he said so. So he knows he’s been caught out telling fibs, and has chosen to ignore the fact, and carry on with his self-appointed mission.
Alok Jha is just a journalist pushing the Guardian’s propaganda line. Bob Ward is - well - Bob Ward. Nurse is the public face of British science. If no British scientist is willing to come forward and correct his numerous errors and unsubstantiated claims in public, we might as well give up on our claims to be a leading member of the civilised world and resign ourselves to our role of purveyors of tv soaps and royal weddings to the world.
@Mike Jackson: What I believe has happened is that he has been conned by the climate science fanatics ...
That's quite possible and at least gives Nurse the benefit of the doubt, something which he is demonstrably unwilling to do in kind. On the other hand, whatever other subjects Nurse may be an able student of, human nature is not one of them.
I have invented a perpetual motion machine that creates more energy than it consumes, up to 17% more. All of my models have proven it to be operational without fail, and the data from experiments show my Perpetual Motion Machine to be as real as rain. I need a grant of $7.5 billion to build it.
You don't believe me? This is Science! There are no questions, the matter is settled!
You want to see my papers, the studies, the methods, the design in the construct of the models?
Harrassment!! Don't you understand Science and how it is conducted?
Unless you are a Perpetualisticological Dynamics Scientist you cannot understand the subject, the models and the research.
You still don't believe me? You don't believe Science?
Deniers!!
And yes, I understand the Laws of Thermodynamics, but Perpetualisticological Dynamics are not Thermodynamics, much in the same way Climatology is not Meteorology, or Astrology isn't Astronomy, or Phrenology isn't Internal Medicine!
And yet in the American media, there is not a hint that this controversy rages. American media has decided that working for liberal Democrats and whatever they want to promote as truth this week is preferable to working for their former clients, the public. Notice I said preferable, not profitable. They are going down the drain even faster than the reputation of their favorite science.
"Never underestimate the evil intent and power of the oil lobby"
I live in Yamagata (that's part of Tohoku), where we have recently had few difficulties. Locally we have been able to manage food and shelter problems. The most serious problem was a lack of fuel to distribute what we have to where it was needed. From here, Greenthink reads as sociopathic.
OK, geoffchambers, so I still retain a little of my youthful naivete! I still try to believe that people are fundamentally honest.
But if you're right then we need to go carefully because we are heading down the path of saying that Nurse is either a liar or a fool. If he is paying attention then he must know that there are a large number of reputable scientists in relevant disciplines who do not accept the global warming meme. So he must accept the groupthink that says Lindzen and Spencer and the Pielkes and Lomborg and all the others are themselves either liars or fools.
OR
He has become convinced that climate science is a special case, that the danger to humanity is so great that normal scientific rules no longer obtain, and that whatever a climate scientist says has to be believed even where the evidence itself casts doubt on the hypothesis and where alternative hypotheses (Svensmark) are looking at worst possible and at best quite reasonable.
It's a pretty big ask to get me to go down that road when we are talking about the head of RS and a real Nobel prize winner, as opposed to the pseudo-laureates of the IPCC.
If I have to choose between naivete and dishonesty I must plump for the former in the absence of pretty convincing evidence.
Yeah right the public should not want to scrutinise how their money is spent by those noble selfless academics. Perhaps if they were more transparent, the public might realise what poor value for money their work really is.
The Royal Society was once a great institution but is now a refuge for sycophants.
"But if you're right then we need to go carefully because we are heading down the path of saying that Nurse is either a liar or a fool. "
May 26, 2011 at 5:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson
"The Royal Society was once a great institution but is now a refuge for sycophants."
May 26, 2011 at 6:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterCinBadTheSailor
If anyone knows anything about the Royal Society it should be that the great institution has often stood in the way of the advancement of science! One only has to read about Darwin and his followers to see the tricks they had to pull to get his works forward.
Also, one only has to understand that the people that tend to get to the top of institutions tend to have a power/political bent as is proved time and time again. How in heck do you get to the top without gathering votes etc? Power corrupts?
We have seen Jones and Mann colluding in the emails doing exactly the same thing. The trouble is, we like to think that all scientists are there for pure science and its advancement but in reality science is just like any profession and has its share of low down..
I will now stop before Bish gets me!
Mike Jackson: “if you're right then we need to go carefully because we are heading down the path of saying that Nurse is either a liar or a fool..”
Excellent analysis. Your willingness to give Nurse the benefit of the doubt does you credit.
My calculated rudeness is due to my despair at our lack of progress, not in winning the argument, but in even getting the argument heard outside the tiny circle of sceptical blogs. Jha, Ward, and Nurse in his role of “Horizon” presenter and Guardian conspiracy theorist, break every rule of honest journalism - let alone any scientific errors they commit. Yet there appears to be no way of holding them to account before a wider audience.
Pleading naiveté or ignorance would be an odd defence for a man at the summit of establishment science - it’s not as if he stumbled into this debate by chance. Yet it’s quite possible that he’s never heard of Lindzen, Spencer or the Pielkes. Why should he have? He may spend every waking moment discussing climate science with the finest minds around him, and never hear a dissenting voice.
The fault lies not in Nurse’s IQ or good faith, but in the entire social political nexus in which he operates. But you can’t argue with a socio-political nexus. You can point out that Nurse utters numerous untruths which he is in a position to rectify. He won’t. He can’t. Why he won’t is a most interesting question.
Then they won't like this application of FOI in Virginia. Via Instapundit at 9:41 this morning.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2011/05/judge-orders-uva-release-climate-documents
This was an FOI request, not in response to the Attorney-General's subpoena. The AG said:
.......
Cuccinelli said he's waiting to see what documents the university releases before deciding how to proceed with his own demands.
"It's kind of hard to tell what isn't produced," he said. "You don't see what isn't there, so we'll see how the process unfolds."
If [the university] essentially disgorge everything, then there's no cause for them to be going to court to try and cover it up," he added. "You know, you wouldn't think if you're going to respond to a FOIA you wouldn't respond to a subpoena."
Mann on Wednesday derided efforts to discredit his research.
"I think its very unfortunate that fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers ... continue to harass U.Va., NASA, and other leading academic and scientific institutions with these frivolous attacks," he said.
*************
That last bit sounds awfully familiar! Parsed: -> "Deniers harass with frivolous attacks"
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2011/05/judge-orders-uva-release-climate-documents#ixzz1NU40sqUk
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, I haven't read this whole thread yet. There is a discussion on this subject at RD.net and having skimmed the comments they seem to be less one sided than they usually are on science blogs.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/630929-freedom-of-information-laws-are-used-to-harass-scientists-says-nobel-laureate
Dyspeptic Curmudgeon of course when the person at U.Va 'who did not support Mann's work, was being chased down by FOI requests by green advocates , he had no problem with that and off concern with 'academic' freedom no sign , guess that was 'different'
I suspect that 'big-brained' (according to the Times) Paul Nurse has 'progressive' views on life (or should one say choice these days?). Perhaps his fervent, if counterfactual, activism in AGW should be viewed in this context?
Why not store all of the data on a single drive or site where it can be accessed as requested by password. Any information or a non-classified nature which is funded by taxpayers and relates to published articles should be stored in such a way; in a read only format.
Stonyground thanks!!
From the article: (please have smelling salts in hand)
/puke.
It must be known that the Rockefellers were supporters of eugenics in the early 20th century.
Those arguing big oil simply do not understand the basic economics of speculative trading for commodities such as oil. Silly fools tip their hand every time.
Mark
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
A somewhat discouraged comment, I fear.
Up until now, I had regarded Sir Paul Nurse as probably sufficiently open minded to recognize contradiction between his reliance on the settled science of the consensus on the one hand and approval of the process of Popperian falsification on the other.
I had also thought it likely that his adherence to CAGW was merely a result of tittle-tattle on the old boy network.
I had therefore fondly hoped that he could fairly easily be brought around to see how fragile a basis this was for his public position, and that it might be more fitting for him to hear and understand the substance of the skeptic case. He might then think it right to use his charm and status to bring the government to realize that its predecessors had sold it a pup.
But it now seems more likely that his position is based on a deep faith in the green religion with its Apocalyptic CAGW and Original Sin of over-consumption. Conversion of the faithful is generally thought to involve the substitution of one faith for another and does not appear to offer a way forward in this case, not least because the skeptic case surely rests on the absence of an alternative faith . Is this not the reason why all the efforts made here to free ZDB from the clutches of hers have failed?
I suppose this leaves the possibility of a Kathleen Armstrong type abrogation of faith, which seems to have been brought about by the realization that her faith lacked a knowable basis. There may be some possibilities here. After all the reason the Muckergee (Name?) gave up her job as BBC environmental correspondent may have been a growing realization that her green faith had the same deficiency.
In time, will the realization come to Sir Paul?
Ecclesiastical uncle:
I’m afraid Sir Paul wouldn’t know Popperian falsifiability if it jumped out of his test tube and bit him. He does science the way others do crosswords. He finds stuff out. He may be good at it. But, as anyone who’s watched his “Horizon” programme can see, he doesn’t do reasoned argument. Nobody does these days. It’s so 19th century.
Maybe one day the BBC will do a series on the life of John Stuart Mill or Bertrand Russell, and for a few months logic will be fashionable again.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Geoffchambers,
In an interview featured on this blog some time ago that must have been made at about the same time as the one that triggered the present discussion, Sir Paul said that skepticism (that I called Popperian falsifyability) was one of the cardinal features of science, so I think he recognises it as a virtue.
So the trouble is rather that his profound faith in matters green has so shifted the goal posts that arguments on environmental matters that appear reasoned to us appear deeply prejudiced to him.
I doubt I agree that logic is completely out of fashion, but it never had much pull in the world of religion. And is it not on the basis of a faith of some sort, in greenery, science or a personal god, that the axioms that serve as starting points for logic arise by scarcely understood processes? It seems to me that logic of some sort is routinely applied, but on the basis of these axioms. In the case of the green religion, it's a case of GIGO.