Oxburgh's learning curve

Steve McIntyre's post this morning looks very bad for Lord Oxburgh. Having been tricked once over what Oxburgh and his team were going to investigate, I don't suppose the Science and Technology Select Committee are going to be too impressed about being tricked again about the duration of the panel's deliberations.

You would have thought that, after all this time, the realisation would have dawned that you cannot get away with this kind of thing under the level of scrutiny that is directed at pronouncements on global warming.

Oxburgh reactions

I'm not sure which members of the press corps were watching the Oxburgh hearing, either in person or over the web. The only reaction I've found so far is this from the Guardian Eco twitter page:

Interesting that Lord Oxburgh said he was not looking at the #climategate science. Looks like that fell through the cracks between him + MR

Update:

The Guardian's full reaction is now up and picks up many of the major points - Keenan, Kelly and the misleading of Parliament.

Oxburgh: UEA vice-chancellor was wrong to tell MPs he would investigate climate research

Josh 38

Oxburgh live blog

I'll try to live blog Lord Oxburgh's performance, which should be starting shortly.

11:28 Oxburgh talks about FoI act and its interface with scientific research. Says anyone can cause scientist to spend great deal of time answering responses.

11:27 Waffle. I notice the press gallery is virtually empty.

11:24 What damage could sceptics do to climate change? Oxburgh says commercial lobbies have had an influence. Says academics have been patronising. Some interesting doubts over computer models.

11:20 Why were sceptics criticised. What evidence was used? Says some sceptics are extremely able. Doesn't read blogs. Discusses links to commercial interests. Link to tobacco lobbying.

11:17 Metcalfe asks about raw data. Oxburgh says raw data was useful. Discussing availability of data. Says data normally available for journal peer review!!

11:14 Miller asks about the Nature trick. Did the panel look at this question. Oxburgh says they did not look at the emails, since this was for Russell's inquiry. Oxburgh says he was aware. Refers to dictionary definition of "trick" as "way of doing something". Oxburgh says it was not an attempt to deceive. Says presentation of data is difficult - how much should you simplify? Says users of CRU data have not shown uncertainty.

11:11 Asked if primary focus was on integrity. Oxburgh says yes. Asked about levels of statistical skills. Are they out of their depth statistically? Oxburgh talking about use of inappropriate statistical methods per Hand. Says more appropriate methods would not have made a difference. How does he know?

11:08 Asks if Jones said that it was impossible to recreate temperatures over the last 1000 years. Oxburgh says he thinks he didn't. Oxburgh says concept of global temp is a subtle one. Lots of waffle about how temp records are created. Mentions massive uncertainties.

11:06 Could CRU staff recreate studies from raw data? Oxburgh says "not always". Stringer expresses surprise. Oxburgh says culture different in industry to academia. Industry always documents and records everything. Says not so in academia.

11:03 Oxburgh says the 11 papers were not chosen by his panel. Says came via the university and "I believe" the Royal Society. They were just a start.  Stringer asks about Jones choosing the paper. Oxburgh says Peter Liss was involved but notes he was an oceanographer. Oxburgh dries when pressed on who provided the list.

11:02 Asking about Keenan's accusations. Oxburgh doesn't recall looking at them.

10:59 Stringer talking about Kelly's notes and failure to publish working documents. Oxburgh says nothing would have been added. Oxburgh says he hasn't seen the notes recently. Stringer quoting from the notes. Oxburgh repeats that it would not have added anything.

10:57 Stringer asks about independence. Asked about being based in the UEA registrars office (missed the point here!). Oxburgh says no. Oxburgh says university did not want a cover-up.

10:56 Oxburgh says no coordination with the Russell panel.

10:54 Asked about standards of honesty and whether the panel chose their work programme. Talking about getting key staff to relax.

10:53 Oxburgh still being pressed on amount of time. Says they didn't need more time given limited remit.

10:52 Oxburgh asked how much time each committee member spent on the report. He said they put in a lot of work beforehand. Mentions the 15 person days figure.

10:51 Oxburgh asked about superficiality of the report. Oxburgh says they worked hard and efficiently.

10:50 Oxburgh asked who sets terms of reference. Oxburgh says the terms emerged from discussions at his house with the university. Says they are set out in the first paragraph of the report.

10:48 Another member asks about the discrepancy between UEA press release and what Oxburgh did. Oxburgh says assessment of the science would not have been possible. Oxburgh says he was very clear.

10:46 Stringer asks about Acton's statement that the panel was reassessing the science. Oxburgh says that "was innaccurate". Said the UEA press release was clear. Said Acton only in post for a month at the time.

10:45 Miller says no sceptics. Oxburgh says it is not for him to discuss private views of panellists but there was one person who had been active as a sceptic. Says panel selected to have no point of view.

10:42 Oxburgh says asked to conduct brief inquiry into honesty. Reluctant to take it on. Put together panel in consultation with various people. Panel were people outside the field. Wanted people with no formal position on the field but understood the methods. Choice of panel members was Oxburgh's but in consultation. Three people with no connection to climate. Others were closer.

10:40 Miller says Oxburgh has been poorly. Asks how the panel was chosen. Oxburgh  explains background - Russell panel appointment and the subsequent split into two panels.

10:38 Miller just announcing a 30second intermission

Oxburgh today

I've just been browsing the BBC and Parliament websites. As far as I can see, the questioning of Lord Oxburgh is going to be shown only on the Parliament website and not on the BBC. The link is here.

It looks as if Oxburgh has been tacked onto the end of a meeting about the UK's space capabilities. This starts at 9:30, so I'm guessing Oxburgh will not be on for at least an hour thereafter.

Call for new UK research integrity org

Nature's Great Beyond blog notes calls for a new body to be set up to oversee UK research integrity. According to a report from the Research Integrity Futures Working Group there's a problem at the moment:

Current UK arrangements are sometimes portrayed as less than transparent, with examples of bad practice ‘swept under the carpet’,” warns the group’s newly released report. “And there is limited evidence to contradict that view.”

You don't say.

UEA response to the inquiries

UEA has issued a response to the various inquiries. The timing is odd, to say the least. Perhaps they've all been on holiday.

See it here.

Climategate report

I am now in a position to reveal that my report for GWPF on the Climategate inquiries will be released on 14th September.

+++Climategate hearings reconvened+++

The House of Commons Science and Technology COmmittee has announced that it is to hear evidence from Lord Oxburgh next week:

The Science and Technology Committee will hold an oral evidence session following-up to the previous committee’s report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

The session will be on:

Wednesday 8 September 2010 at 10.30 am

Thatcher Room, House of Commons

The Committee will take evidence from Lord Oxburgh, who headed the International Panel that was set up by the University to assess the integrity of the research published by the Climatic Research Unit.

An oral evidence session with Sir Muir Russell, who headed the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, will be announced in October.

The sessions will focus on how the two reviews responded to the former committee’s recommendations about the reviews and how they carried out their work. 

They get paid for this stuff...

[Update: I've just noticed that Gardner's article goes back to May, so it predates some of the findings about how the Oxburgh report was put together. I'll leave the post here anyway, because it's still instructive to see what Dan Gardner said in the light of what we know now.]

There's an interesting piece on global warming sceptics in the Ottawa Citizen, by Dan Gardner. I've never heard of Mr Gardner before but the Telegraph's Tom Chivers called him "the wonderful Dan Gardner" so I thought I would take a look at the article, which is called "Weighing the evidence".

It's well worth it because it turned out to be silly enough to get me laughing out loud.

Click to read more ...

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?

Thoughtful comment in the Atlantic

From the comments on Clive Crook's Atlantic piece:

Clive Crook.

You deserve to die and your children need to be taken out of the gene pool...

http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/04/atlantic-...)

You are so incredibly fucking retarded you rival even McMegan. It's ridiculous how a child-raping mongrel like yourself can be hired by the same magazine that employs Andrew Sullivan. I should flay you and your wife and have you trade skins, you absolute waste of all human components.

"Had Crook actually read the link he provides, he would know that since it clearly states that after thoroughly reviewing all of the relevant material, “The Inquiry Committee determined there was no substance to this allegation and further investigation of this allegation was not warranted,” for each of the first three allegations.

I have no idea where Crook came up with the phrase he puts in quotes “lack of credible evidence” — if anyone can find the source for that exact word-for-word quote, please let me know. Note: The original report (which Crook seems unaware of) uses the phrase “there exists no credible evidence” a number of times, but that is not the same as what Crook wrote.

To assert that Penn State “will not even investigate” three of the four charges and imply that they dismiss them out of hand without thorough examination is, I think, libel."

You can't even read, you useless little academic. Tell me again, why do you think you deserve to live when you continue to embarrass everything connected with yourself?

Nice.

Crook feels the hairdryer

Clive Crook is on the receiving end of a typically mild and philosophical discourse from Joe Romm, entitled "Atlantic Shocker". Crook isn't impressed.

[T]he evident fondness of climate-change activists for delegitimizing dissent and spinning the facts to make them more "understandable" is simply not working. Cap and trade just died for lack of public support. I think climate-change activists are partly to blame, as I argue in this recent FT column. They are harming their own cause.

Romm exemplifies the tendency to the point of caricature. He delights in splenetic hyperventilation. This is his brand, so to speak. It goes down well with the faithful -- but persuading the faithful is not the challenge. He needs to convince the unconvinced. Operatic ranting is not, I would submit, likely to succeed.

Incidentally, Romm says that a proper journalist would have noted that the emails do not contain the phrase "trick to hide the decline". Oh dear, well, yes, I suppose it doesn't. Here is the exact quote:

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.

But so what?

UEA on the New Scientist editorial

A few days back I linked to a New Scientist editorial on the Russell review, noting that it was surprisingly critical of CRU. (It's behind a paywall now, so you will have to take my word for it.) I noticed the other day that UEA have issued a rebuttal of sorts, which is, frankly, weird.

The editorial pointed out, quite correctly, that neither Oxburgh or Russell had looked at the science:

After publishing his five-page epistle, Oxburgh declared "the science was not the subject of our study". Finally, last week came former civil servant Muir Russell's 150-page report. Like the others, he lambasted the CRU for its secrecy but upheld its integrity - despite declaring his study "was not about... the content or quality of [CRU's] scientific work"

So this doesn't appear to be something that can reasonably be debated, I'm sure you would agree. Not so the University of East Anglia, whose response begins thus:

It is depressing that the New Scientist follows parts of the blogosphere, and some other sections of the press, in asserting that of the three independent investigations into Climategate "none looked into the quality of the science itself".... Our hope was that New Scientist would have a more informed understanding of the method of science research.

There follows a bizarre argument that a search for blatant dishonesty is the same thing as an assessment of quality. It then gets even stranger, with UEA first noting Oxburgh's statement that 'he Panel was not concerned with the questions of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct', and then, with a rhetorical flourish, asking 'New Scientist, when do science conclusions become “correct”? as if they were quoting from the editorial rather than the report they had commissioned. The editorial didn't discuss the question of the science being correct at all.

Quite the strangest document.

von Storch on the inquiries

P Gosselin has a must-read post - a translation of an interview Hans von Storch gave to Handelsblatt. The take-home quote is this one, IMHO

We have to take a critical view of what happened. Nothing ought to be swept under the rug. Some of the inquests – like in Great Britain - failed at this. They blew an opportunity to re-establish trust.

Yup. Read the rest too.