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".

Has Nature overstepped the mark?

I just had this comment on the previous thread about Nature's disgusting editorial on the Climategate emails:

As an active palaeoclimate scientist and also someone who has published in Nature I am deeply disturbed by this editorial. I have written to the editor and cancelled my subscription. There is no room in science for such closed minds. I fear that the editorial is now running behind the pack. By all accounts there is every chance the UEA investigation will be thorough and watching the Vice-Chancellor on television this evening he certainly was very careful to not defend CRU.

Update on Dec 3, 2009 by Bishop Hill

Pielke Jnr also thinks they may have overstepped the mark. His commenters are pretty appalled too.

This made me sad

What a book a Devil's Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horribly cruel works of Nature.

Charles Darwin

Nature has said its piece on the Climategate story, in an editorial that would not have looked out of place in the in-house magazine of Greenpeace. My overwhelming emotion was of sadness at what environmentalism has done to a once-great publication.

See here.

Mann on BBC radio

A commenter alerts me to the fact that Michael Mann will be interviewed on the World Tonight on BBC Radio 4 tonight. There is no confirmation of this on the show's webpage, but it airs at 10pm.

Update on Dec 3, 2009 by Bishop Hill

The programme link is here, starting at about 18 minutes.

McKitrick on Channel 4 news

Ross McKitrick was just on Channel 4 News here in the UK, up against Bob Watson of UEA. It came over to me as a substantial victory for McKitrick.

Back when I was an auditor, I used to come across bureaucrats whose books didn't balance. They had many of the same mannerisms that Watson displayed.

I'll add an link to video if I can find it.

Media relations - it's all in the timing

The University of East Anglia today announces "The world's first MBA course aimed at preparing the next generation of business leaders and managers for a low-carbon economy".

The Report

So my encounter with the BBC is over and they're off to St Andrews for their next interview. There was only one hiccup: I got a nasty shock when the interviewer, Simon Cox, said they wanted to interview me in front of my PC - the office looks like a bomb hit it. I would try to convince you that this is not normal, but that would be a gratuitous lie. Simon and Wesley, the researcher, were very nice though and didn't bat an eyelid.

L-R: Wesley (researcher), Simon, Bishop

The whole thing was very relaxed and I surprised myself by not being particularly nervous. Simon has a rather laconic manner, which suddenly disappears when he slips into super-interested-interviewer mode, and I was slightly taken aback the first time it happened, but after that I found myself waffling away quite happily. Simon clearly knew his stuff, having spent the whole weekend reading the emails - all of them he said - and he also covered the NAS hearings in 2006, so he had spoken to many of the key players before. He seems convinced that there is a story to tell. Interestingly he had also taken in my less-than-complimentary views on the BBC, but seemed completely unconcerned by them.

They're going to talk to McIntyre and Mann as well, so I think there's a fair range of views in there. They were quite interested in my visitor numbers and where people were coming from, so I think there may be a media angle to the story as well.

All in all, I enjoyed it. I just wish I could have tidied (and preferably redecorated) the office first.

Cosa nostra

In email number 1092418712, we see Phil Jones invited to review a paper by sceptics McKitrick and Michaels. The email is from the editor of the International Journal of Climatology, Andrew Comrie.

===== Original Message From "Andrew Comrie" <comrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
=====
Dear Prof. Jones,

IJOC040512 "A Socioeconomic Fingerprint on the Spatial Distribution of
Surface Air Temperature Trends"
Authors: RR McKitrick & PJ Michaels
Target review date: July 5, 2004

I know you are very busy, but do you have the time to review the above manuscript for the International Journal of Climatology? If yes, can you complete the review within about five to six weeks, say by the target review date listed above? I will send the manuscript electronically...

Jones replies that he will do it. Some time passes and we gather that with the review complete, Jones is now sending the paper to Mann. Mann replies as follows:

At 08:11 13/08/2004 -0400, you wrote:

Thanks a bunch Phil,

Along lines as my other email, would it be (?) for me to forward this to the chair of our  commitee confidentially, and for his internal purposes only, to help bolster the case against MM??

let me know...

thanks,

mike

So if I'm understanding this correctly, there is a formally convened committee of some kind for making the case against sceptics. This sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory, but I'm struggling to put another interpretation on these words. (As an aside, that question mark in the first line is strange too.)

Jones replies:

Mike,
I'd rather you didn't. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew Conrie's email that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR. Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.

Cheers

Phil

This is all very odd. What has Pielke got to do with it? Was he one of the other reviewers? It's anyone's guess.

But above all who are "our committee".

Update on Dec 1, 2009 by Bishop Hill

Remember this?

MANN: "Let's let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader case against MM."

A pattern emerging here, I would say.