Bishop Hill The Russell review
Jul 7, 2010 Climate: Russell I'm back in the saddle briefly. I've taken a look at the report and it looks pretty much as expected. The section on Ross McKitrick's allegation of fabrication makes for fairly jaw-dropping reading. I'm also intrigued by a section which deals with implied allegations rather than actual ones.
Nothing on the replacement of James Saiers at GRL either.
I'll add more comments as things occur to me. Feel free to add comments.
Update: Here's the bit on the fabrication allegation. Remember - the allegation is that Jones inserted a groundless statement that McKitrick's findings were "statistically insignificant". Here's what Jones said in his evidence to Russell:
The basis for this statement is that if the CRUTEM3 trend is reduced by the factor claimed by MM2004, the land-based record then becomes incompatible with the ocean and the satellite record. MM2004 make no mention of this in their paper. In writing Chapter 3 of AR4 the author team were mindful of this. MM2004‘s analysis of the land surface temperature record is completely at odds with the rest of the surface and lower tropospheric temperature records. MM2004 also fails to take into account the effects of changes in the atmospheric circulation.
And the panel said:
Having read most of the relevant papers... we observe a consistence of view amongst those who disagree with MM2004 that has been sustained over the last 6 years, that the large scale organisation of atmospheric circulation produces a spatially integrated response to forcing. Although we do not comment on the relative merits of the two views, we see no justification of the view that that this response was ―invented, or even that its various expressions in the response to reviewer Gray or the final text are fundamentally different.
So Jones seems to have changed his argument from "McKitrick's findings are statistically insignificant" to "McKitrick's findings conflict with other evidence". Whether this is true or not is irrelevant of course. The fact remains that Jones has been unable to provide any support for the claim that was inserted in the IPCC text. This means that the allegation of fabrication stands. What is even more interesting, there seems to be an attempt to hide behind joint authorship - the finger of blame can't be pointed at Jones because everyone wrote the chapter.
The consequences are ugly: joint authorship implies joint and several responsibility for the text and allegation of fabrication that still hangs over it. I don't think this was what Sir Muir intended.
Who else is now implicated?
Reader Comments (38)
Manns comment after the review:
"I was pleased to see the committee confirm that there is nothing in the stolen emails that in any way calls into question the validity of their science. It is my hope that we can now put this bogus, manufactured scandal behind us, and move on to a more constructive conversation about climate change.
"It seems particularly ironic that climate change deniers continue to harp over their now discredited claims regarding decade-old emails while we're experiencing almost daily reminders of the reality of global warming and climate change. We're currently witnessing the warmest temperatures ever globally, and are in the midst of a record-setting heat wave in the US associated with the warmest early summer temperatures ever."
So a heat wave is climate change, and the coldest winter in decades was just weather.
No pleasing some folk...
While I have not yet read the "report" there is an interesting summary in the Reg
here
By our old friend Andrew Orlowski. There is one point that really, really bothers me -- they didn't look at the software AT ALL. If true, it is like trying a murder case without testing the gun for ballistics, or comparing the finger prints, or matching the the DNA.
A total whitewash from that prospective. And I bet it wasn't by accident. Perhaps it is what is in the "missing" 340 pages.
From the "Cheers Phil" email catalogue
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
...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) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
Cheers
Phil
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Wed Mar 31 09:09:04 2004
Mike,
... Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
Mike,
... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
Ben,
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA [ClimateAudit] was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I've got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian - who deals with appeals...
Cheers
Phil
Phil Jones wrote to Mike Mann in 2008:
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise... Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise...
Cheers
Phil
"their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt". Cheers Phil
"Professor Phil Jones, the former CRU director at the centre of many of the allegations, has taken up the new post of director of research within the unit." Cheers Phil
It would seem our Phil is now a very cheery person after this whitewash.
Steveta_uk
Yesterday was the hottest day in Baltimore since 1983 or 1985. I forget which but I saw that on the weather report. And it was the hottest day in NYC and Boston since 2002.
What does that tell you? Same old, same old.
Here in California, it was been very cool for this time of year, and we are still getting rain. Just like we had in 1997. Oh, I wonder how that happened? Perhaps it is cyclic?
Have to get back to my day job.
Cheers
Phil
See, Bishop bloody Hill, see. My Phil's a good boy he is. Serves you right you poxy prelate.
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: HIGHLY UNCONFIDENTIAL
Date: Wed Jul 7 16:30:16 2010
A new job and a wage rise - YA BEAUTY
Cheers
Phil
"nothing about the replacement of James Saiers"...
possibly because Saiers served his full 3 year term?
[BH adds: No, the allegation is that Saiers had responsibility for the M&M paper and the reponses to it taken away, possibly following pressure from the Hockey team. He did indded stay at GRL until the end of his term, but this is not relevant to the actual concern.]
This is an amusing piece of po-faced positioning….
“On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a 'trick' and to
"hide the decline" in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of
intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic
significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third
Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was
misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at
some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures
should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly
described in either the caption or the text.”
So the allegation (let’s not call it a ‘fact’ – though, of course, it is a fact) that the truth was hidden was misleading, but only because of the subsequent use of the figure in question, and in general it is not misleading to splice data from different sources with an intent to deceive.
The 1999 WMO report splicing was not abstruse ‘science’ – it was pure dishonesty that everyone can understand. The fact that the inquiry seeks to ‘position’ this dishonesty speaks volumes about the inquiry.
One hopes that Muir et al will be similarly broad minded when their stockbrokers decide to employ such techniques in communicating the performance of their investment portfolios.
Would be good if this were picked up by the Sun - the only influential paper left in the UK.
Didn't realise yer Honour was back!
Some investigation, full of of contradiction and bowing down to those being investigated.
On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way
consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there
was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails
might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a
subsequent request be made for them.
And then
There is a clear statement that e-mails had been deleted – for example, an e-mail
from Jones to Santer sent on 3rd December 2008 (1228330629.txt ): ―About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all.
So the written evidence is there that emails were deleted and is cited in the report but because Uncle Phil refused to say that he deleted emails, obviously not under oath, we have to take him at his word and ignore the written evidence because Uncle Phil is a Climatologist and a true Scientist.
Once you get into the depths of the inadequacies of this report it does blow apart any theory about battered and bruized scientists under pressure from sceptics being misunderstood for their motives.
This report is led and controlled by the UEA, or in the terms of the Royals, independent, independent my arse.
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: HIGHLY UNCONFIDENTIAL
Date: Wed Jul 7 17:00:16 2010
Please undelete all emails. Carry on tricking.
Cheers
Phil
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: HIGHLY UNCONFIDENTIAL
Date: Wed Jul 7 17:10 2010
Tell the team the beers are on me.
Cheers
Phil
10. In addressing the allegations about CRU‘s impact on climate science, we sought
evidence to place these into perspective:
On influencing the IPCC process, we sought advice from the Review editors
on the role individual contributors can play.
e.g.
Phil, if you wanted too could you influence the IPCC process?
No way Jose!
Ok cheers, I wuz just checking.
Has he gone? hehehehehhe, well between you and me and the blogosphere maybe I could input a few words if I wanted, but we call that handling the non traditional scientific dialogue.
I see our Ecclesiastical host is about to mount a charge, wielding his crozier:
http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/1204-investigation-into-climategate-inquiries-announced.html
Go for it Bish!
Climategate is sure to go down in annals of the History of Science as a prime example of groupthink on the part of establishment science and an abuse of responsibility. Last night I watched the trial of Ann Boleyn, from the Six Wives of Henry VIII, with Thomas Cromwell presenting the false, extorted and unchallengeable evidence ("We do not hear evidence in this court." Duke of Norfolk). God help us if this crew ever get the chance to call for a "swordsman from France."
Lord Beaverbrook:
"There is a clear statement that e-mails had been deleted – for example, an e-mail
from Jones to Santer sent on 3rd December 2008 (1228330629.txt ): ―About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all."
Appendix 6 makes that a little more puzzling. Another Jones email said he deleted every month, but obviously not throroughly given they leaked. That Appendix has a few contradictions to me, but not sure we should speculate too much about those. Bigger problem is establishing the context if only 0.3% have been examined.
Any more official vindications and their reputation will be entirely shot. One could be put down to good fortune - two looks like carefulness.
So Mr Jones, did you or did you not, destroy any e-mails.?
"I sent some terrible e-mails in the heat of the moment
Yes ok but, did you delete any e-mails. "er no"
But you told your colleagues that you had and that so should they.
"I sent some terrible e-mails"
So are you saying that you lied to your colleagues?
I sent some terrible e-mails.
Time and again I read that the raw station data was always available from other sources than the CRU (if not the list of which ones). Of course it begs the simple question why Jones never replied “you can find it at www…” when he was asked for it.
However, it’s not enough that stark unadorned station temperatures are available. The histories of the stations and the justifications for any changes made (or not made) are as much a part of the raw data. If they’re not there, you can’t claim to have supplied the data needed to create an accurate global temperature composite.
Muir Russell tries to make out that anyone can download the station data and create a realistic temperature record. Really? It’s that simple? Why then is a senior climatologist in charge of it? Why was he so stressed by requests for data? Why do the historical figures change periodically? Why use one particular series of stations and not another? If there are many stations that are of equal value, why not use them all? Why not use only rural stations to remove the influence of man made structures?
I'm not expecting answers to all these questions but I do wonder why people like Russell aren't more curious about the provenance of the data they swear by.
Yes, it’s really easy to download figures and plot wiggly lines. I’m fairly sure that it’s possible to pick and choose the stations and prove we are slipping into an ice age but it wouldn’t be a true record of global temperature.
A big part of me feels that the CRU temperature record is probably ok, but ok for what? When we are talking about a total climate rises of a fraction of a degree C from an assumed normal, it’s got to be much better than ok.
bis - reading the spinning Richard Black will do much to encourage you with your investigation of the "inquiries":
6 July: BBC Richard Black: Climate data: what’s hidden?
It might be thought notable, however, that criticism from the most prominent “sceptical” commentators and bloggers has so far concentrated on issues such as openness and dealing with FoI (Global Warming Policy Foundation), whether IPCC rules on data submission were broken (Climate Audit) or the job of an IPCC author (Bishop Hill), rather than hidden data or the lack of an impact on the overall picture of global climate change….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/07/i_started_mondays_post_with.html
Atomic Hairdryer
One of the disturbing comments is that they started the process of looking at the rest of the emails on the backup server but were obstructed from doing so.
'The presumption is that e-mails were selected to support a particular viewpoint.
Recognising that they were a tiny fraction of those archived, the Review Team
sought to learn more about the full contents of the back-up server. This attempt,
summarised in Appendix 6, was largely unsuccessful due to the sheer scale of the
task and ongoing police investigation.'
'in the opinion of UEA‘s legal advisers, unconstrained access to the contents of
e-mails on the server by the Review would raise potential privacy and data
protection issues.'
...and might even reveal something of the nature and context of the emails under investigation. So the very establishment under investigation for dishonesty sets it's lawyers onto the investigating team and that is deemed to be acceptable by said team so as not to rock the boat.
This is going to be on the cv's of the team members which I suppose ties them into the cult.
As others have said - a whitewash but in many ways its worse than the other two because russell had more time and the opportunity to do it better(ie. have the inquiry in public , talk to both sides etc.) Also I think the result is not what some of the pro AGW crowd expected
( they did NOT expect a whitewash) as evidenced by Pearce's comments and comments in recent weeks by Mike Hulme ( " The release of the-mails was a turning point ....) and Bob Ward from the Grantham Research Institute ( " ..researchers had to accept that the affair would not only result in their science being judged but also their motives, professionalism, integrity ......")
"Have another biscuit, Bernard?"
In professional football, a ringing vote of confidence in the manager's abilities from the Board of Directors is usually a strong signal that the hapless individual is to be fired within a week..........
A summary of where we are:
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee investigated the steps taken by UEA to investigate claims of wrong doing and the quality of the science. The report accepted UEA claims and exonerated CRU scientists.
The Oxburgh Review to investigate the quality of CRU science by examining controversial papers. The papers were pre-selected by UEA, and Oxburgh decided to examine only the integrity of the scientists by interview, and not to analyse the quality of the science. The report exonerated the scientists, but kept no details of evidence gathered.
The Russell Review to investigate specifically the Climategate emails and other data. The review panel decided not use the emails as evidence, nor investigate claims that directly rose from the emails, nor investigate the other data, nor the quality of the actual science. It took written evidence but gave emphasis to evidence obtained from directly interviewing the CRU scientists. The report exonerated the scientists.
So there we have it folks 3 reviews, 3 reports and no one, repeat no one, has actually investigated the content or veracity of the emails or the quality of the science. All we have are statements about the integrity of the individual scientists involved.
Did Prof Phil Jones actually delete a whole tranche of his email communications with other members of the team to prevent disclosure of relevant information to the science being conducted?
We are very unlikely to know because no one, neither the select committee, nor Oxburgh, nor Russell actually asked that question of Jones.
"we do not comment on the relative merits of the two views"
Naturally!
Lots more oral/written evidence and interview NOTES added to the ICCER site.
http://www.cce-review.org/Evidence.php?page=14&order=e_title
I made a late submission to the review (http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/Andrews.pdf). In it I pointed out, inter alia, that
1 the CRUTEM3 station count was unclear and should be clarified;
2 changes in instrumentation over time will affect results (based on EM Smith`s analysis, it is estimated the station count dropped from about 6000 in the baseline period to about 1200 post 1990);
3 No evidence was provided that the validity of this significant change was ever tested by a parallel run of data;
4 It should be tested.
On the issue of station counts the Report commented:
page49 para 24
"24. It should be noted that in making these findings, the Review Team is making no
statement regarding the correctness of any of these analyses in representing global
temperature trends. We do not address any alleged deficiencies such as allowance
for non climatic effects or the significant drop in station number post 1991. We do
not address any possible deficiencies of the method. These are entirely matters for
proper scientific study and debate and lie outside the scope of this Review."
On the absence of clarity about station counts the Report commented:
p51 para 32
"32. Finding: The Review finds that as a matter of good scientific practice, (and having
established the precedent with CRUTEM1986) CRU should have made available
an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the versions of CRUTEM at
the time of publication. In the absence of this, CRU was unhelpful and defensive
and should have responded throughout to requests for this information in a more
timely way."
In its conclusions on temperature data the Report said:
p53 para 39
"6.7 Conclusions and Recommendations
39. In summary, with regard to the allegations concerning the temperature data, the
conclusions of the Review Team are as follows:
* Regarding data availability, there is no basis for the allegations that CRU
prevented access to raw data. It was impossible for them to have done so.
* Regarding data adjustments, there is no basis for the allegation that CRU made
adjustments to the data which had any significant effect upon global averages
and through this fabricated evidence for recent warming.
* We find that CRU was unhelpful in dealing with requests for information to
enable detailed replication of the CRUTEM analysis.
* Crucially, we find nothing in the behaviour on the part of CRU scientists that
is the subject of the allegations dealt with in this Chapter to undermine the
validity of their work."
Based on these responses, it seems to me that the Report is more an exercise in smoke and mirrors than a whitewash. It is clear that the terms of reference of this review and of the Oxburgh review have been changed from consideration of the "quality of the science" - or "rigour of science" to quote Phil Willis in his interview with the BBC - to the "integrity" of the behaviour of CRU scientists - to quote Lord Oxburgh in that same interview. The interview can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8795000/8795643.stm
It is only possible for the Report to clear the CRU scientists by the adoption of these narrow terms of reference, namely that they did not deliberately twist their results. The reports say nothing whatsoever about the integrity of the results themselves. In footballing parlance, they have played the man not the ball. In the radio interview, referenced above, Phil Willis, describes the change in the terms of reference as a "sleight of hand". In a business environment, failure to conduct a parallel run to validate a significant change in process (such as the sharp reduction in the station count) would likely result in instant dismissal.
DRG Andrews.
The House of Commons Science and Technology committee gave the Russell Review the largese to change the terms of reference of this review; and I quote, "We invite Sir Muir Russell to respond formally to our Report to the extent that he sets out whether, on the basis of its contents, he finds the Terms of Reference of his inquiry need to be changed."
In doing this MPs gave Sir Muir Russell the scope to concoct a whitewash.
Since the climate scientists were so incompetent at explaining themselves, it fell to these "investigations" to help them. The 'investigators' interviewed them to find out what it was they were trying to say and then put it all together in a pretty package so that it could be marketed to the world more effectively.
See the nice wrapping paper and the pretty bows? There is still a large heaping pile of nastiness in there, but if you ignore the stench, the package looks much nicer.
Mac
I note that the HoC Report said (page 40 para 107):
"1.2. 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.
My point about the absence of a parallel run to validate the revised basis of post 1990 land temperature data certainly applies in the commercial/business world and, I would have thought, applies equally in the world of science. Was this process change peer reviewed? It seems not. Reading the chapter on the state of IT at CRU the chances are that they probably did not even think about it; and if they did they no longer have the means to do so.
Much attention has been given, rightly, to the mismatches between the various records so well described in the Hockey Stick Illusion. Not enough has been given to the post 1990 change in land temperature stations and the effect this has on post 1990 calculations of temperature anomalies. It seems to me that they are not worth the paper they are written on.
Having passed the half-way mark in reading this report, I'm left with an impression that reminds me of the response of over-protective, over-bearing parents summoned to the Principal's office because the behaviour of their bullying little brat is causing disturbance in the schoolyard: "Oh, but all children act this way, and you shouldn’t pick on our little Johnnie because whatever else he might have done could not possibly have been his fault."
But there is a silver lining to the cloud that hangs over this report: Appendix 5: Peer Review by Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet Definitely worth a read.
It's also worth noting that, unlike Rusell and his "team", Horton appears to have read The Hockey Stick Illusion, the masterpiece authored by our host.
A catalyst for reappraisal
Dr Tim Ball's comments on the reviews
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25124
For those who want to add to a poll ( USA) on the Reviews
http://msnbc.newsvine.com/_question/2010/07/07/4630892-are-you-satisfied-with-the-british-panels-conclusion-that-while-climategate-scientists-were-not-always-forthcoming-their-science-was-sound
will enjoy reading this report. So far it is a laugh a minute.
Given the allegations about the software, it is amusing that they didn't bother to look at it, on the grounds that anyone could analyse the data themselves. It might just be possible to reverse engineer the software used, but simply not looking at it increases the suspicion that there was systematic software driven cherrypicking.
Has anyone found any mention of ethics regarding the peer-reviewing debate? In the executive summary, the argument is: happens all the time: stop moaning!
Is there a website collating analysis of the report? It is certainly a unique opportunity to analyse how science works.
As a Guardian reader of some 50 years, it is disappointing to see how they are cheerleading the "CRU is vindicated" chorus. The Scott inheritance has been grabbed by campaigning fanatics who have lost their moral compass.
Posted on unthreaded, but suitable here I think:
=====
The only scientist in the bunch pipes up:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/09/stringer_on_russell/
Heartening.
Roger Pielke Jr. has found that the Russell team failed to comprehend the apparent purpose of the IPCC:
Russell report:
'Its purpose is to produce a "best estimate" of what is currently understood, through the work of a group of scientists chosen for their expertise and experience to make reasoned assessments on the balance of evidence. It is not to produce a review of the scientific literature.'
Pielke:
The idea that the IPCC presents a "best estimate" understanding based on the views of a selected group of scientists is completely contrary to how the IPCC characterizes its own work. To suggest that the IPCC is "not to produce a review of the scientific literature" is just plain wrong.
Here is how the IPCC WG I (the relevant working group for the MR inquiry) characterizes the scope of its own assessment process (emphasis added):
'All chapters undergo a rigorous writing and open review process to ensure consideration of all relevant scientific information from established journals with robust peer review processes or from other sources which have undergone robust and independent peer review.'
Note that it says "all relevant scientific information" -- it says nothing about a "best estimate."
The IPCC states very clearly in its principles for report preparation (PDF) that its reports are supposed to
'present a comprehensive, objective, and balanced view of the areas they cover'
And it explains that authors of IPCC reports,
'should clearly identify disparate views for which there is significant scientific or technical support, together with the relevant arguments'
IPCC reports are further supposed to
'represent the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic findings and are as comprehensive as possible . . . [and] provide a balanced and complete assessment of current information'
The notion that IPCC reports are supposed to present a selective view of climate science, representing the judgments of a select group of experts is in fact contrary to the mission of the IPCC.
See: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/07/muir-russel-review.html
Now might be a good time to contact Dr Graham Stringer again with a view to him meeting Steve Mac whilst he is in the uk. Especially as he says he is going to take the science of climategate back to parliament because he thinks parliament was mislead.