Another journalist threatened

In the comments to an earlier thread, this:

I am a journalist and have been "warned", in a manner similar to the one posted, by a social economics professor.

The "offence" was a summary of Lord Monckton's opinion that AGW is diverting resources, causing food price hikes and adds to human misery.

The threat was that the mere reporting of information would be taken as a direct adoption of Monckton's views and the writer and the magazine would be seen as oil industry shills. The prof threatened by phone but refused the invite to write his own two page response in the form of an article, not just in the letters page.

My temper is very elastic, but not infinite. Having recycled (certifiably) my last car in March 2000 and being a 100 per cent bike commuter ever since, I got pissed at being called an oil industry shill.

The lesson- you will be surprised how quickly these people slink back into the darkness when told unequivocally to bugger off. They are also very vulnerable to humor, probably because they are humorless themselves.

I've made a minor change in the punctuation to the first sentence to clarify the meaning.

The antidote to RealClimate

Climatologists Hans von Storch and Eduardo Zorita have started a new blog. Welcome to the blogosphere, gentlemen.

Old habits die hard

Another climatologist threatening dire consequences, this time for a journalist - Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. Revkin's crime? Mentioning the views of two other academics whose views the Hockey Team see as not sufficiently orthodox.

Pielke Jnr (who is one of the heretics in question) explains.

I wonder how many other journalists have been threatened like this? Answers in the comments please.

Climate of fear

I've had some correspondence over the last few days with a well-known writer. We've been discussing people who might want to review my book, but it has not been an easy task.  I thought his comments on this problem were illuminating and I'm reproducing them here (with permission). As you will see, as well as not being able to name my correspondent, I have had to redact a name from the quote as well to protect the identity of the person named. Here's what my contact said when asked for suggestions for reviewers:

Asked for names of potential writers, I feel like an early Lutheran asked to identify his fellow readers of English bibles and knowing that Sir Thomas Gore, sorry More, is reading my letters and tightening his thumbscrews in Chelsea. In other words, like you, I know lots of people who are on side privately but daren't say so publicly. The other day I bumped into ************** at an event and said something about his global warming views (sceptical) and he froze and said `I don't do that stuff now - people would not touch me if I did'.

What can one say to that? I now live in a country where people are afraid to state their opinions on a scientific question. They will have their livelihoods taken away from them if they do.

I sometimes have to pinch myself to ensure that this really is happening and I'm not just living in a bad dream.

Good code analysis

John Graham Cumming is doing some excellent analysis of the CRU code, his conclusions being readily accessible to the layman because he writes well too.

He has found four bugs so far and seems less than impressed with the quality of the coding.

(H/T Tom Fuller)

Unthreaded

Some of the comments threads are going way off topic, so I'm setting up an unthreaded post for people who want to point to interesting stories or put forward their own theories.

More cracks in the facade

In my posting on the lack of any statement from the Royal Society on Climategate, I wondered if a refusal to address the wrongdoing might eventually lead the fellows to take a stand against the leadership. Something very like this seems to be happening at the American Physical Society. This email to a selection of the fellows of that august body was reposted to the comments at Climate Audit.

Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society:

This is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the Society. It is being sent to a random fraction of the membership, so we hope you will pass it on.

Click to read more ...

Met Office to review its temperature series

The news that the Met Office is going to review its global temperature series is welcome, although certain aspects to the Times' story are questionable.

For example, I would take issue with the Met Office's claim that they need to go to the national met offices to get permission to use the raw data. When CRU was questioned on their claims that the data was not distributable, it was subsequently found that there were only two (IIRC) of the raw series that had any sort of restrictions on reuse and that neither of these were significant in scope.

Click to read more ...

The Royal Society on Climategate

In September 2006, the Royal Society was apparently concerned about ExxonMobil's involvement in funding political lobby groups. This is what they said at that time.

The Society welcomes open debate, underpinned by sound science, on the subject of climate change.

This is an admirable position for the Royal Society to take. A national academy should demand open debate on scientific issues and must require the science that informs that debate to be sound.

This is important, because we have seen in the CRU emails that prominent climate scientists, among them one of the Society's own advisers, have attempted to prevent free debate on the subject of climate change. On an issue of such importance it is inconceivable that the Royal Society would not take an unequivocal stand.

In that same statement, the society also said this:

In September 2006, the Royal Society wrote to ExxonMobil to express concern that some of its corporate publications were presenting a misleading view of the scientific evidence about climate change and were over-emphasising uncertainties about what we do and don't know....

As the UK's national academy of science, the Royal Society has a responsibility to speak out when scientific evidence is misrepresented. We will continue to do this on climate change and on other issues.

It is essential that the scientific evidence on climate change is accurately represented so that policymakers, industry, the public and other stakeholders can make informed decisions about what actions to take.

I think all sides can agree that misrepresentation of the science to policymakers must be prevented. Informed decision-making by politicians is vital. Again, the need for a statement from the Royal Society is overwhelming. It is clear at least from "Mike's Nature trick" that scientific evidence has been misrepresented. (The argument that the word "trick" means "technique" when used in the context of "hiding the decline" is foolish in the extreme. The ready acceptance of this wordplay by journalists has brought them nothing but ridicule.) Removing evidence that tree ring proxies are failing to capture temperature changes is simple misrepresentation.

This is an important moment for the Royal Society.  The evidence is clear - scientists at the CRU have misrepresented our understanding of the Earth's temperature history to policymakers. The Society must speak out now. If it does not, then the fellows must take a stand against the Society's leadership. Failing that the premier scientific body of the UK will forever be brushed aside as another mouthpiece for the environmental movement.

The Hockey Team: still no dissent permitted

Judith Curry in the National Journal

Somebody who was named in those e-mails e-mailed me and was rather upset about my lack of support and my speaking about this.

Canada's for turning

More Hockey Team misbehaviour

The following is a very rough, google-assisted translation of Marcel Crok's article about a dutch scientist being put under pressure by the Hockey Team. If there are any Dutch speakers reading this, I'm grateful for any corrections you can give me. I'm not convinced I have captured all the subtleties of what Crok is saying. [Update: here is Marcel's own translation]

Many researchers and journalists will have been curious to see if their own name was among the thousands of hacked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit.  

Click to read more ...

Is Sir Muir the right man for the job?

When the possibility of an inquiry into CRU was announced, it was said that it was important that the chairman had the confidence of sceptics as well as those who believe in the AGW hypothesis.

I don't recall being asked for my opinion on Sir Muir Russell's candidacy, but I thought it would be interesting to see what readers here think about him now that they've had a chance to cast their eyes over his Wiki page.

I'm not sure the question is displaying quite right below, so just in case, the question is: Are you confident that Sir Muir Russell will lead a fair inquiry into CRU?

Quizzes by Quibblo.com

On a lighter note..

Via a reader, who found it here.

UEA inquiry head announced

A civil service insider, Sir Muir Russell, will head the inquiry into CRU.

His Wiki page is here. Nature report here.

Terms of reference are here.

1. Examine the leaked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.

2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.

3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.

4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds.

I think it's probably significant that this inquiry will not look at what are the two most important aspects of the scandal for the AGW hypothesis - namely that CRU staff and their associates appear to have conspired to exclude sceptical views from the scientific literature and also that they appear to have conspired to exclude them from the IPCC reports.

Update on Dec 3, 2009 by Bishop Hill

Reader "Splice" in the comments wonders if journal bullying and IPCC rigging are not covered by the terms of the first item. I think that a half-decent civil servant could exclude these issues under a not-unreasonably strict reading of the terms. This is probably worth clarifying, especially since the inquiry can apparently modify its terms if necessary.

I also wonder about the fact that "code" doesn't seem to be included under the heading of "manipulation".