Do CRU have the raw data or not?

AJ Strata has an important post examining the various CRU claims that they have deleted or not deleted the raw data for their temperature index.

Bookselling

With America at Thanksgiving this weekend the Climategate pace has slowed slightly, allowing me to take stock of where I am. Blog traffic has been unbelievable, and it's been fascinating to see the relative power of old-new-media (like Instapundit; my first Instalanche!) and the new-old-media sites like the newspaper blogs. Thanks to everyone for the links.

I've also had some interest from big media. BBC radio is coming to see me next week (gulp) and there is the possibility of some independent radio too. I have precisely zero interest in becoming famous, so this is going to be bit of a trial to me, but I guess it's a cross I will have to bear.

All that traffic did good things for the book, which at one point last weekend was inside the top 1000 on Amazon UK, which I think must be pretty good seeing you can't actually buy it yet. I've finished writing a new chapter on Climategate, which adds a lot of corroborating evidence to the case I build in the rest of the book. It's amazing how little contradiction there was between what I'd written before and what was revealed last week. The new material all went off to the publisher on Friday, so with a bit of luck we can get it finalised and off to the printer next week.

Another upshot of the attention is that I have managed to get a foot in the door at an Australian publisher. It's early doors yet, but it's encouraging just to make contact, as anyone who has ever tried to get a book published knows. I still need to find someone in the US, which is obviously likely to be a big market for me. So if anyone out there knows someone in a US publisher who would like to buy up the rights to a very readable and very topical title on global warming scandals, do please put me in touch. Likewise I'm happy to speak to people about all the other rights - translation rights, TV and so on. Don't be shy.

Still not straight with us

Steve McIntyre notes that in their online confession to what they did in the "Nature" trick, CRU still snipped off a bit of the curve so it didn't look as bad as it might have done.

How do these people sleep at night?

McKitrick on Saiers

To summarise: in 2004, James Saiers was replaced as the GRL editor in charge of the McIntyre/McKitrick paper by Jay Famiglietti. Saiers says that his departure from GRL was nothing to do with any plot to oust him. Famiglietti won't talk about it on the record.

As I mentioned in my previous post, this doesn't quite stack up, so I emailed Ross McKitrick on the subject. Here's his reply.

Famiglietti said that GRL had received 4 comments on our paper, an unusually high number. He decided to take over handling of the file, and his first plan was to publish all the comments. I didn't check if Saiers was no longer an editor at that point. We were focused on making him follow the GRL procedures with respect to the Ritson and WA comments, which had already been rejected under Saiers' editing. The thing to check would be when Saiers stepped down as editor. By his description it was long after the excitement about our paper had passed, which suggests that he was still an editor when Famiglietti took over the file. If that is the case then he was not "ousted" as GRL editor, but he was obviously ousted from handling our file, which is just as bad. And the fact that he was allowed to serve out his editorship under quarantine does not diminish the seriousness of Wigley's proposed witch hunt.

Will there be FOI prosecutions at CRU?

This certainly seems to be a possibility based on the story in the Telegraph.

James Saiers on journal knobbling

Pielke Jnr has emailed James Saiers one of the journal editors who was the target of a Hockey Team plot to oust him from his position. This is what Saiers had to say

I haven’t looked for, and don’t intend to look for, my name in the CRU emails, but one of my colleagues did alert me to an email written by Wigley in which he suggested that, if I were a climate skeptic, then steps should be taken to get me “ousted.” Wigley’s suggestion stems, I believe, from the publication of a GRL paper (by McIntyre and McKitrick) that criticized certain elements of Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick paper. This paper caused a bit of a stir and because I oversaw the peer review of this paper, I assume that Wigley inferred (incorrectly) that I was a climate-change skeptic. I stepped down as GRL editor at the end of my three-year term, long after the excitement over the McIntyre and McKitrick paper had passed. My departure had nothing to do with attempts by Wigley or anyone else to have me sacked.

Now this is very odd. Saiers' position as editor in charge of the McIntyre and McKitrick paper in Geophysical Review Letters was taken over by the journal's editor in chief, Jay Famiglietti, who then refused to discuss the circumstances surrounding his taking over unless it was off the record.

Why would he do that if it was merely because Saiers was stepping down at the end of his term? And wouldn't Saiers be expected to finish off his existing papers before leaving? And why would the editor-in-chief take over himself?

It doesn't quite stack up in my book.

Mann to be investigated by Penn State

The conduct of Hockey Stick maestro, Michael Mann, is to be investigated by his university, Penn State. Anthony Watts has the story.

Gerry North on McIntyre

Gerry North, who chaired the NAS panel on paleoclimate that famously declared that the Hockey Stick's data and methods were wrong but its conclusions were right is interviewed in the Houston Chronicle.

McIntyre to me, I think he is probably a well meaning guy. He's not dumb, he's very smart. But he can be very irritating. This guy can just wear you out. He has started it with me but I just don't bite. But there are some guys, Ben Santer comes to mind, who if they are questioned will take a lot of time to answer. He's sincere and he just can't leave these things along. If you get yourself in a back-and-forth with these guys it can be never ending, and basically they shut you down with requests. They want everything, all your computer programs. Then they send you back a comment saying, "I don't understand this, can you explain it to me." It's never ending. And the first thing you know you're spending all your time dealing with these guys."

Controversial.

Mike Hulme at Dot Earth

Mike Hulme has sent some comments on Climategate to the Andy Revkin's Dot Earth column at the New York Times.

The key lesson to be learned is that not only must scientific knowledge about climate change be publicly owned — the IPCC does a fairly good job of this according to its own terms — but the very practices of scientific enquiry must also be publicly owned, in the sense of being open and trusted. From outside, and even to the neutral, the attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good. To those with bigger axes to grind it is just what they wanted to find.

This is a surprising statement from Hulme, who is heavily implicated in the CRU emails.

1. He was part of a group that organised a letter to the Times, ostensibly written by climatologists but actually drafted by Greenpeace (0872202064).

2. He appears to have changed confidence intervals in a presentation at the behest of WWF.(0933254004)

3. He appears to have been instrumental in the plot to oust von Storch from Climate Research (1051190249)

See this email from Michael Mann on the affair (1057941657):

I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested ...  terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels -- reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute,

A trainee climatologist speaks

This was posted at the uber-warmist site, Climate Progress, by Judith Curry of Georgia Tech. It's a letter from a young climatologist:

Hi Dr. Curry,

I am a young climate researcher (just received my master’s degree from xxx University) and have been very troubled by the emails that were released from CRU. I just want to applaud and support your response on climateaudit.org [95% of it ]. Your statement represents exactly how I have felt as I slowly enter this community. The content of some of the emails literally made me stop and wonder if I should continue with my PhD applications for fall 2010, in this science. I was so troubled by how our fellow scientists within the climate community have been dealing with opposing voices (on both sides). I hope we can all learn from this and truly feel that we are going to need voices like yours to fix these problems in the coming months and years.

Judith Curry then continues

At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics. I have served my time in the “trenches of the climate war” in the context of the debate on hurricanes and global warming. There is no question that there is a political noise machine in existence that feeds on research and statements from climate change skeptics. In grappling with this issue, I would argue that there are three strategies for dealing with skeptics:

1. Retreat into the ivory tower
2. Circle the wagons/point guns outward: ad hominem/appeal to motive attacks; appeal to authority; isolate the enemy through lack of access to data; peer review process
3. Take the “high ground:” engage the skeptics on our own terms (conferences, blogosphere); make data/methods available/transparent; clarify the uncertainties; openly declare our values

Most scientists retreat into the ivory tower. The CRU emails reflect elements of the circling of wagons strategy. For the past 3 years, I have been trying to figure out how to engage skeptics effectively in the context of #3, which I think is a method that can be effective in countering the arguments of skeptics, while at the same time being consistent with our core research values. Some of the things that I’ve tried in my quest to understand skeptics and more effectively counter misinformation include posting at skeptical blogs, such as climateaudit, and inviting prominent skeptics to give seminars at Georgia Tech. I have received significant heat from some colleagues for doing this (I’ve been told that I am legitimizing the skeptics and misleading my students), but I think we need to try things like this if we are to develop effective strategies for dealing with skeptics and if we are to teach students to think critically.

If climate science is to uphold core research values and be credible to public, we need to respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists. Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate; Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office. I’m not implying that climate researchers need to keep defending against the same arguments over and over again. Scientists claim that they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to skeptics. The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available. Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it! If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem. Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc.

And you can't say fairer than that. 

(I've updated this slightly as I inadvertently ascribed the whole piece to the student. In fact the second part of the quote was due to Judith Curry.)

Zorita wants Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf banned

Another climatologist has called for prominent colleagues to be banned from the IPCC process. Eduardo Zorita, who appears to have been another victim of the Hockey Team's machinations, has made a statement on his website. Why does he want them banned?

..because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore

Nullius in verba

In view of the Royal Society angle on the last two posts, I was very amused by the comments of reader MikeE, who opined that the society's motto of "Nullius in verba" must mean "nothing in writing". :-)

++++Whitewash starting++++

This from a correspondent - no verification as yet:

1) Lord Rees (Royal Society) to be asked by UEA to investigate CRU leak.

2) Foreign Office and government leaning heavily on UEA to keep a lid on everything lest it destabilises Copenhagen.

3) CRU asked to prepare data for a pre-emptive release in past couple of days but trouble reconciling issues between data bases has stopped this.

Update on Nov 27, 2009 by Bishop Hill

TonyN in the comments notes this article by Roger Harrabin where the official position on the inquiry is put.

One senior climate scientist told me that the chair would have to be a person accepted by both mainstream climate scientists and sceptics as a highly respected figure without strong connections to either group.BBC News understands that senior individuals at UEA have acknowledged the potential damage to the university's reputation from the CRU affair and are anxious to clear the institution's name.

It's not going to be Lord Rees then, is it?

The Royal Society and global warming

One of the themes in the comments on RealClimate's first thread on the CRU hack was that, yes, there may be problems with the Hockey Team, but that we should listen to the learned academies like the NAS and the Royal Society.

A while back I started to make some enquiries into the Royal Society's position paper on global warming. This is a rather outspoken document entitled Facts and Fictions About Climate Change which does a splendid job of (a) creating straw men and (b) failing to knock them down very convincingly.

It was written, according to the RS by "a group led by Sir David Wallace FRS, Treasurer of the Royal Society, and Sir John Houghton FRS, former chair of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

This explained a lot. Having met Houghton briefly, I could recognise his personality in the writing. He has a way of speaking about people he disagrees with that is unforgettable, if hard to define.

And then the thought struck me. Why was Houghton's style written all over it? Why not any of the others in the group? Who had written what?

So I wrote a letter to the Royal Society officer with responsibility for climate change. After a bit of to and fro-ing I elicited a reply, which was quite forthcoming.

The climate change controversies document was compiled in late 2006/early 2007 with the help of our climate change advisory network and other climate change scientists. The climate change advisory network is an informal group that we use to provide us with advice on climate science related issues on an as-needs basis.

Those involved in the compilation and review of the controversies document included:

Prof John Pyle FRS,  Prof Peter Cox, Sir Prof Brian Hoskins FRS, Prof Tim Palmer FRS, Prof John Mitchell FRS, Prof Chris Freeman, Dr Simon Lewis,  Dr Y Malhi, Dr J A Lake, Dr Nicole Augustin, Prof John Houghton FRS, Prof John Shepherd FRS, Prof Harry Bryden FRS, Prof Rick Battarbee FRS, Prof Carl Wunsch ForMem, Dr Philip Reid, Dr Richard Kirby, Prof Alastair Fitter FRS, Prof Nicholas White FRS, Prof Joanna Haigh, Prof Nick McCave, Prof Martin Parry, Prof John Reynolds, Prof John Harries, Prof Keith Shine FRS, Prof Peter Liss FRS, Prof Chris Rapley, Dr Carol Turley, Prof Michael Lockwood FRS, Prof Nigel Weiss FRS, Prof Phil Jones, Prof Chris Folland, Dr Giles Harrison and Dr Ed Hill.

Recognise some of those names? A veritable who's who of global warming promoters, Hockey players and the like.

But wait a moment, the question was, who wrote the thing? Clearly not all of these people, there are far too many. So I wrote back asking who wrote and who reviewed (as well as asking for permission to publish the list of names above).

And back came the answer that permission was granted. But no mention of who wrote it.

And so I wrote back and asked again, who wrote the paper?

And answer, was there none.

In 2007, when the Royal Society's position paper was written, the official statement of climate science was still the Third Assessment Report. Should we now conclude that the position paper was written by Sir John Houghton, the scientist responsible for that same third assessment report, working alone?

Smoking gun?

On the code thread, James Smith has just posted this comment:

From the file pl_decline.pro: check what the code is doing! It's reducing the temperatures in the 1930s, and introducing a parabolic trend into the data to make the temperatures in the 1990s look more dramatic.

Could someone else do a double check on this file? Could be dynamite if correct.

Update on Nov 26, 2009 by Bishop Hill

This is what all the fuss is about, but the reader who sent it thinks perhaps it may be a storm in a teacup. Still, it is strange that one would want to put an adjustment like this through a temperature series.

Update on Nov 27, 2009 by Bishop Hill

In the comments, Steve McIntyre reckons this is probably Briffa's infamous Tornetrask bodge.  This was an adjustment to deal with the divergence between tree ring widths and densities. So it's MXD versus RW, not MXD vs temperature.