News Science vs. Politics: Tipping Points in Climate Change Communication

[sylas]

No one is attempting to levy taxes based upon theories related to aerodynamics, gravity or the big bang.
Folks can chose whether they trust aerodynamics enough to get on an aeroplane.
That is why this particular branch of science is being held to a higher standard of accountability than others might be.

... and, I suggest, this is precisely why so much of the demand for accountability turns out to be frivolous and politically motivated. People feel really really strongly about anything in the way of a tax, or with additional costs, or with significant budget line items for the government. This itself is not surprising or improper.

What has happened, however, is that the opposition to the policies is so strong and so deep seated that the search for any excuse to dismiss the science has lead many folks into a distinctly unscientific course.

It's not just that people would like to throw CRU to the dogs. They want to undermine all the other scientists working on this as well. It's claimed that all the IPCC, all the climate science, everything is discredited by this. That is not a demand for accountability -- that is far out paranoid conspiracy theory!

Accountability is good, and it is of particular importance here. I do not confuse the legitimate calls for accountability with the extreme conspiracy theories.

But accountability is also being misrepresented. Some people confuse that with the idea that the CRU should immediately hand over all their raw data, right now. No matter how often it is explained that this is simply not legally possible, the calls go on. No matter that the vast majority of data IS available, and would be more than enough to pick up any fraud, the calls go on. No matter that there is a total lack of any evidence of anything improper about the data, the calls go on.

And most revealing of all...

... there's no interest being expressed by anyone in seizing upon the cases where you DO have all the data, and checking that.

One of the leading climate science groups is with the Goddard Institute for Space Sciences at NASA. This group also has a global temperature product. They have some of the most widely used climate models in the world. All the data is freely available. All the code is open source. All the results replicate and confirm -- in the normal scientific sense of the word -- the results from the CRU.

There's isn't any smell of any scientific distortion from the CRU emails. The claims for this are based on people reading private emails between working scientists and not understanding it but assuming the worst. "Hide the decline" (now available on t-shirts) is the battle cry of those on a witch hunt who don't pause to actually figure out what is being discussed.

The more freely available data can be, the better. Even though the scientists are entirely correct that some people simply pick through the results with gross incompetence and sow confusion with fallacious claims of fundamental flaws, it doesn't matter; it is still much better to let the data be freely available.

There's more: the upcoming inquiry should not be limited to the scientists who had their personal conversations and files stolen. It should also consider the theft itself, and even more importantly at the underlying disruptions to the work of scientists and the hate mail and incompetent baiting that is behind all the anger and frustration you can see these scientists expressing. That too, is a cause for concern, for all of us who want to keep science quality and standards high. Look to the hackers, and their allies, as well as to the scientists.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Pattonias]

Most don't doubt that the Earth is warming. The problems are in realtion to the severity, results, and cause of global warming. This is the political argument. I can't tell whether you are arguing for free data or for people to stop arguing with these scientists.

 

[sylas]

Most don't doubt that the Earth is warming. The problems are in realtion to the severity, results, and cause of global warming. This is the political argument. I can't tell whether you are arguing for free data or for people to stop arguing with these scientists.

I'm with you there, all the way, except only that severity, results and causes are also scientific; independent of political considerations. Politics is about deciding how WE respond.

I am in favour of free data, as much as possible, without qualification.

I am also in favour of free speech, and allowing people to make all the argument they want.

----

I am against scientists being obliged to take up time arguing with any nitwit who wants to argue with them. There's a lot of really blistering stupid argument out there on all manner of topics -- we all know that. Scientists are not under any obligation to actually answer anyone who wants to argue. If they never bother to respond to a credible argument then they'll lose credibility; so this is not a problem.

A scientist is also a free individual, and may apply their own professional judgment as to what is worth responding to and what is a waste of time.

My usual practice on physicsforums is to stick with the guideline. If argument over some science topic has one side without any representation or support in the scientific literature; then someone merely determined to argue is best ignored; and someone who is genuinely asking may be able to be helped.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Al68]

I am against scientists being obliged to take up time arguing with any nitwit who wants to argue with them. There's a lot of really blistering stupid argument out there on all manner of topics -- we all know that. Scientists are not under any obligation to actually answer anyone who want to argue. If they never bother to respond to a credible argument then they'll lose credibility; so this is not a problem.

A scientist is also a free individual, and may apply their own professional judgment as to what is worth responding to and what is a waste of time.

This is a good point. However, a scientist who chooses to not engage in the political argument simply has zero standing in the political debate. And they have no obligation to do otherwise, like you say.

But this is a politics forum, so those scientists and their opinions are irrelevant here.

Are you interested in my opinion based on my own privately obtained data on global warming that I refuse to discuss or disclose because I'm not obligated to?

If, however the issue is whether to use force against other people, those advocating such force are the ones obligated to justify it completely, and adequately respond to objections.

If argument over some science topic has one side without any representation or support in the scientific literature; then someone merely determined to argue is best ignored; and someone who is genuinely asking may be able to be helped.

This is the politics forum, not a science forum. Which means it's the place for arguing politics, not just asking about science.

 

[mheslep]

...
I am against scientists being obliged to take up time arguing with any nitwit who wants to argue with them. There's a lot of really blistering stupid argument out there on all manner of topics -- we all know that. Scientists are not under any obligation to actually answer anyone who wants to argue. If they never bother to respond to a credible argument then they'll lose credibility; so this is not a problem...

Isn't this a red herring? Scientists in this context are not required to argue, they're not required to even answer the phone from crackpots. The FOI requests don't require argument, they require transparency.

 

[Pattonias]

I am against scientists being obliged to take up time arguing with any nitwit who wants to argue with them. There's a lot of really blistering stupid argument out there on all manner of topics -- we all know that. Scientists are not under any obligation to actually answer anyone who wants to argue. If they never bother to respond to a credible argument then they'll lose credibility; so this is not a problem.

Isn't that the inherent problem with politics. You can't do anything unless you convince the nitwits, because the nitwits outnumber the "wits" 4 to 1. The only way to convince a nitwit is to make him feel like he won the argument. You make him feel like he won the argument by making him think that he proved you wrong whether he did or not. That is politics.


Are you Brutus or Anthony? Who is going to get in the last word on the behalf of the nitwits?

 

[Andre]

The last word is always for the truth, although it make take a couple of decennia before it emerges gradually.

Unfortunately, until that time:

The truth? The truth... there is no truth. These men just make it up as they go along.
Tunguska

 

[sylas]

Isn't this a red herring? Scientists in this context are not required to argue, they're not required to even answer the phone from crackpots. The FOI requests don't require argument, they require transparency.

I was answering a general question about my own personal views on freedom of information and freedom of argument; and not anything about FOI requests. So no, it wasn't a red herring; unless the question was also a red herring. But I think it was a fair question, and a fair answer.

Since you now mention FOI requests; I am happy to clarify my view on that also. I have not seen any sign that any FOI requests were not properly dealt with. I have seen that the UAE received around a hundred or so closely related requests -- in the worst case 58 came on a single week[strike]end[/strike]. The vast majority of these were frivolous, and wanted stuff that they were not entitled to.

Having all the raw data would be great and I enthusiastically support the ongoing effort to make them freely available, without reservation.

As matters stand, they are not freely available, and blaming that on the CRU or continuing to churn up the time of the university and the FOI officers with repeated demands for what cannot be given is merely harassment -- whether clueless or malicious I really don't know.

Excessive demands for all correspondence on a point of interest are usually merely intrusive, and will not be granted under the legislation. Also, the legislation is a freedom of information, not a freedom to audit all the original documents. Usually the cheapest and easiest way to grant an FOI request is to simply pass on a copy of existing documents that contain it. It is quite in order to construct new documents from scratch that set out the information requested. FOI is not there to let help people conduct a private audit of some organization. From http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/foi-procedural-information.htm : "You should be aware that the Freedom of Information Act entitles individuals to have access to information and not to documents."

The anger and frustration of the scientists is perfectly natural; most of us can get angry given enough provocation. They had it in spades.

I agree with everyone who has pointed out this is the politics forums. Where actual scientific issues have come up, I have indicated my willingness to take them up in the appropriate science subforum.

The CRU hacked files affair is pretty much all about politics. It's about access to information, ethics, how to interact with nitwits, how to interact with politicians, and whether there is any difference.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Pattonias]

I must ask - how any information can be held from the general population, when this information is being used to effect the way our governments will force/drive us to live our lives from now on?

 

[turbo]

I must ask - how any information can be held from the general population, when this information is being used to effect the way our governments will force/drive us to live our lives from now on?

If the "information" is gigabyte-sized or terabyte-sized data-sets that have absolutely no value to the general population, what is the motivation for transmitting it? As it is, much of the raw data, processed data, and code is available to the public if they are motivated to pursue it, but what would they do with it?

What would you do with the raw data from the LHC? How many people are trained and equipped to make some sense of it? Probably few enough that you could assemble them all in a lecture hall or large meeting room. If some activists started demanding raw data from Fermilab or CERN and they didn't get it, would that cause the public to doubt the quality of their work? Countless tons of newsprint and barrels of ink have been wasted discussing the "possibility" that the LHC will produce black holes that will destroy the Earth. How many otherwise-productive hours have professionals spent refuting that crap and explaining that the Universe showers us with particles of higher energy than LHC can produce, and has been doing so forever?

 

[sylas]

I must ask - how any information can be held from the general population, when this information is being used to effect the way our governments will force/drive us to live our lives from now on?

Easy. When it is information owned by some other national body in another country, and released for limited use under a non-disclosure agreement.

One might equally well ask: if information is being developed that our governments rely upon to help them make rational policy decisions, which should we choose:

1. Use all the data we can possibly apply to help derive the best information possible?
2. Use exclusively data that everyone can access to help derive the most trusted information possible?

I don't know how anyone prefers to answer that; I expect there may be disagreements.

• Those who prefer to use information that is based on data that can be freely audited by anyone who cares to check should use the GISS dataset.
• Those who prefer to use information that is based on as much data you can possibly get should use the CRUTEM dataset.
• Non-conformists can use NCDC. (I don't know as much about its provenance.)

There are other considerations as well, beside the amount and the availability of the underlying raw data. Not that any of this makes any difference. They give the same result to within declared accuracy values. They represent not an audit, but independent replication in the scientific sense; and this helps give scientists confidence that they have a good measurement of a real empirical aspect of the world.

Amusingly, governments don't use the raw data directly, or the end product either. They want conclusions and likelihoods, relating to impacts, severity, causes, and so on. Scientists use the data, and the processed information extracted from the data, to get on with all kinds of further studies and research about how the world works.

I personally think all the stuff about audits is a total waste of time. I don't mind in the least if can be done without disrupting the real work, if it makes someone more confident in what is going on. It is, nevertheless, an intrusion into the work of scientists by worried politicians who want to somehow control or manage the scientific enterprise so as to trust the result better; and sometimes also by worried nincompoops don't like or believe what the scientists are finding and are determined to expose them on the basis of some bizarre conspiracy theory. Personally, I think science gets on best when managed by scientists, and they are pretty dashed good at picking up scientific fraud. Not perfect of course; but much better than governments or earnest amateur auditors.

I don't think release of raw data is going to make the slightest difference for checking CRUTEM. The only impacts will be

1. More data for scientists to access for independent investigations of all kinds. (This is the primary reason for wanting a release.)
2. The extreme fringe of skeptics will find some new equally silly reason for not trusting the CRUTEM result.
3. A few people with good data analysis skills will pore through the data and maybe even find a processing error in a couple of stations. (This is a useful secondary reason for wanting a release, but the impact on global temperature information, the end product, will be far below existing confidence limits.)
4. A few people, some of whom will be cranks and others just naïve, will use the data to support all kinds of invalid conclusions, and try to distract people from what the real science is actually doing. The mistakes in their analysis will be found and pointed out, and they won't accept it.

As an aside, the curious emphasis in which any government decision is seen as forcing or driving us all on how to live is a trifle odd. It seems to be rather USAmerican thing. But yes, government decisions do make a significant difference to our lives and so speaking up about what we think matters and getting involved in political and community life is a laudable thing. It's not just governments, however. All of us, individuals, families, businesses, communities, governments, whatever, may be making decisions where we take into account things that are known about the world and are uncovered by science.

We've all got a vested interest in letting science work as well as it may, without being distorted by anyone with a vested non-scientific interest in having some particular scientific proposition widely believed, or disbelieved.

 

[DrClapeyron]

The global warming debate is good for the economy because it creates jobs. Are yall in favor of an even greater depression?

On a serious note, the white bourgeois of the USA have gone off the deep end on this issue and are completely out of touch with the rest of the country. Even when the globe begins to heat up, there is no way to know what will happen other than the global temperature will increase by like 3 degrees F. No indication to know if the Greenland ice sheets melt or if the lower boundary of the oceans heats up and expand, just a bunch of narrow, unlightened Nostradamus'.

 

[skypunter]

Are we certain that it was a hack and not a concerned scientist on the inside?

 

[Al68]

As an aside, the curious emphasis in which any government decision is seen as forcing or driving us all on how to live is a trifle odd. It seems to be rather USAmerican thing.

Why is it odd to emphasize force used by government in a political debate about whether force should be used by government? In a forum specifically created to discuss force used by government (politics)?

You finding that odd is very curious.

 

[skypunter]

... frivolous and politically motivated.
Cheers -- sylas

The same might be said of "the science" as it is referred to by practitioners.

 

[skypunter]

Doesn't GISS use the massaged CRU data?

 

[sylas]

Two in one...

Are we certain that it was a hack and not a concerned scientist on the inside?

Nothing is ever completely certain, but there's plenty that makes little sense if it was an inside job. I don't think anyone is seriously considering the idea of a "concerned scientist" in the inside. It's very unlikely to be a scientist at all, in my opinion, but hey.

Doesn't GISS use the massaged CRU data?

No. There's a substantial overlap in the raw data they use, of course; but each obtains it themselves. GISS uses nothing from CRU. CRU is not a source of raw data.

 

[mheslep]

As an aside, the curious emphasis in which any government decision is seen as forcing or driving us all on how to live is a trifle odd. It seems to be rather USAmerican thing. ...

I don't know how you observe this about 'any' government decision in the US. The topic at hand is a not just any decision, it is a major, game changing, policy change, with some goals attempting to drive CO2 emissions per head back to levels not seen for 100 years.

As to general purpose happy talk about government, see my signature.

 

[skypunter]

"It's very unlikely to be a scientist at all, in my opinion, but hey."
In my opinion it is a concerned scientist.

 

[Count Iblis]

"It's very unlikely to be a scientist at all, in my opinion, but hey."
In my opinion it is a concerned scientist.

More likely a concerned sceptic who took a temporary job as a cleaner at the university to gain access to some passwords.

 

[skypunter]

More likely a concerned sceptic who took a temporary job as a cleaner at the university to gain access to some passwords.

Can we compromise with a concerned scientist working at the cleaner because he/she couldn't get published?

 

[russ_watters]

Fast moving thread so I'm sorry if this was posted earlier and I missed it:

George Monbiot, a well-known environmentalist who writes for the United Kingdom's newspaper The Guardian, called for re-examination of all the data discussed in the stolen notes and said Jones "should now resign" because of a message saying he would keep climate skeptics' papers out of the benchmark 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Jones vows in the e-mail to "keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-11-30-warming30_ST_N.htm

This is really bad because the unity of the consensus position is often touted as de facto evidence of how strong it is. I believe someone even mentioned it earlier in the thread how of several hundred mainstream peer reviewed articles over the past few years, not one forwarded a thesis counter to the AGW position. But if "skeptics" research is being actively suppressed, that creates a self-reinforcing appeal to authority type argument.

We've had some pretty lively debates among the moderators about what kind of evidence/papers/blogs/etc should be acceptible for use on PF and the starting point of such debates is the sanctity of the peer review process. If the peer review process has been compromised when it comes to climate research, then it all but necessitates opening the door for a free-for-all of unverified research. It's a really, really bad situation.

If someone told a story like what we're getting here without these emails, they'd probably have been banned as a conspiracy theorist/crackpot. But what we're seeing is equal in concept (scale still unknown) to the worst of what guys like Rush Limbaugh claim (that AGW is a conspiracy by some scientific establishment). No, he doesn't get a win for making something up that happened to turn out to be true, but it is a very bad situation when a crackpot turns out to be right. It's instant credibility.

 

[sylas]

Fast moving thread so I'm sorry if this was posted earlier and I missed it: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-11-30-warming30_ST_N.htm

This is really bad because the unity of the consensus position is often touted as de facto evidence of how strong it is. I believe someone even mentioned it earlier in the thread how of several hundred mainstream peer reviewed articles over the past few years, not one forwarded a thesis counter to the AGW position. But if "skeptics" research is being actively suppressed, that creates a self-reinforcing appeal to authority type argument.

We've had some pretty lively debates among the moderators about what kind of evidence/papers/blogs/etc should be acceptible for use on PF and the starting point of such debates is the sanctity of the peer review process. If the peer review process has been compromised when it comes to climate research, then it all but necessitates opening the door for a free-for-all of unverified research. It's a really, really bad situation.

If someone told a story like what we're getting here without these emails, they'd probably have been banned as a conspiracy theorist/crackpot. But what we're seeing is equal in concept (scale still unknown) to the worst of what guys like Rush Limbaugh claim (that AGW is a conspiracy by some scientific establishment). No, he doesn't get a win for making something up that happened to turn out to be true, but it is a very bad situation when a crackpot turns out to be right. It's instant credibility.

I wouldn't panic on that score. Part of the fun of science is that trying to get a large community of active scientists to collude on something is about as likely as a feline synchronized swimming team.

Part of the free and open disagreement that goes on is not just on the science, but also on decisions relating to what is and is not part of something like an IPCC report. It is hardly a scandal that scientists might disagree with each other on such a thing. We knew that already! Neither is it a serious ethical concern that some scientists have a strong feeling about keeping out what is -- in their judgment -- bad papers. It's a point of view to which they are entitled. I don't know why you think this it would be particularly surprising, or dismissed as conspiracy, that there are active scientists who feel this way.

What WOULD be surprising, and remains a rather far fetched conspiracy theory without any evidence, is the notion that Professor Jones would actually be able to manage the whole IPCC to his own taste. The sentence is obvious hyperbole, even without the amusing notion of redefining peer-reviewed literature. None of these guys are actually idiots, and they all know that they can't just redefine peer-reviewed literature. At most it means he will be arguing strongly to keep those papers out of the report -- and it is entirely within his rights, not at all unethical, for him to make a case for that position.

As it turns out, of course, the IPCC process does not follow what Professor Jones is advocating; but something more like what you would prefer. See, for instance this response from IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri: (Guardian, UK, Nov 29)

Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.

"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.

"Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening."[/color]​

And indeed, the papers under discussion were in the report. Consensus in science is not enforced; it is descriptive, not prescriptive. The tiny number of papers that go against the fundamentals of AGW are not because they are being banned, but because (almost) no one is writing them (not counting people who don't have a background in climate science and couldn't get a paper on climate science published no matter what its spin).

Is there actually a problem here? Not of ethics, or corruption, surely. It's just that some of these guys have a different idea from you on what might be best for the IPCC. Is it so bad that we find them saying so in a personal email? Should they be punished for that, or actually excluded from any further participation in the IPCC? That has actually been suggested! I don't take that seriously, they've got no more hope of excluding Professor Jones that Professor Jones was able to determine himself what could belong in the IPCC report. I just toss out another ruined irony meter with amusement.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[mheslep]

On the subject of ethics and corruption Pachauri apparently feels the IPCC is beyond reproach, but he also feels the need to point out the lifestyle corruption endemic http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen" :

Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer [...] "I think the section of society that will make it happen is essentially young people. I think they will be far more sensitive than adults, who have been corrupted by the ways we have been following for years now."

while at the same time Pachauri personally attaches a http://www.indianexpress.com/news/heat-on-cricket-pitch-warms-this-climate-change-laureate/231802/0" importance level to flying:

So strong is his love for cricket that his colleagues recall the time the Nobel winner took a break during a seminar in New York and flew into Delhi over the weekend to attend a practice session for a match before flying back. Again, he flew in for a day, just to play that match.

That anecdote aside, we also have the http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session29/doc7-add1.pdf" per this anti-flying website.

 

[Proton Soup]

On the subject of ethics and corruption Pachauri apparently feels the IPCC is beyond reproach, but he also feels the need to point out the lifestyle corruption endemic http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen" :

while at the same time Pachauri personally attaches a http://www.indianexpress.com/news/heat-on-cricket-pitch-warms-this-climate-change-laureate/231802/0" importance level to flying:

That anecdote aside, we also have the http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session29/doc7-add1.pdf" per this anti-flying website.

so India's got their own Al Gore, huh? when's this guy getting his Nobel?

 

[sylas]

so India's got their own Al Gore, huh? when's this guy getting his Nobel?

He DID get it, at the same time as Al Gore. He's the chairman of the IPCC, and the prize was awarded jointly. Here's a photo of the two of them, at the presentation. Photo from the Nobel website.

Rajendra Pachauri was not actually awarded this as an individual, but accepted as the representative of the IPCC. Al Gore received the other half of the award individually. I share your concern about the inconsistency of the personal lifestyles and the outward declarations of public figures like this, who speak specifically about the need for lifestyle changes.

As usual, none of this makes any difference to the science; only to the human failings and personal inconsistencies of two people.

Cheers -- sylas

PS. I do think he could do more about curtailing his own flying; but to be fair, the cricket story is almost certainly from a long time ago; before he or others had recognized a particular importance for curtailing of carbon emissions.

 

[D H]

We've had some pretty lively debates among the moderators about what kind of evidence/papers/blogs/etc should be acceptible for use on PF and the starting point of such debates is the sanctity of the peer review process. If the peer review process has been compromised when it comes to climate research, then it all but necessitates opening the door for a free-for-all of unverified research. It's a really, really bad situation.

I would argue that that is precisely the case. Some researchers with views contrary to this apparently engineered consensus have been forced to publish in journals such as Energy and Environment, for example. Not a crackpot journal, but not well-regarded either.

I think it is time to re-evaluate the rules for this subforum.

Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.

"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.

Surely you jest.

Is there actually a problem here? Not of ethics, or corruption, surely.

You do not jest??!

Is it so bad that we find them saying so in a personal email?

It is probably worse. Sane people avoid making truly damning statements in email messages; the really bad stuff is in private phone conversations and face-to-face conversations. That said, those email messages are very, very bad.

Should they be punished for that, or actually excluded from any further participation in the IPCC?

That would be a start. Not near enough, but a start.

 

[Coldcall]

excellent article in the FT today explaining why the CRU scandal is so bad (at last some mainstream media taking this seriously)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8aefbf52-d9e1-11de-b2d5-00144feabdc0.html

 

[DanP]

I studied the 'runaway' tipping point issue based on paleo climate but if I explain it, my threads get locked -even if I use peer reviewed studies- because it is against that so called CRU type 'mainstream' and hence it is so called deniers 'crackpot'. So the rules have to change first.

Many threads appear to be locked completely arbitrary on this board. Whenever a mod "feels" that they can't bring anything useful anymore. Way too subjective, if you ask me.

 

[russ_watters]

I wouldn't panic on that score. Part of the fun of science is that trying to get a large community of active scientists to collude on something is about as likely as a feline synchronized swimming team.

Part of the free and open disagreement that goes on is not just on the science, but also on decisions relating to what is and is not part of something like an IPCC report. It is hardly a scandal that scientists might disagree with each other on such a thing. We knew that already! Neither is it a serious ethical concern that some scientists have a strong feeling about keeping out what is -- in their judgment -- bad papers. It's a point of view to which they are entitled. I don't know why you think this it would be particularly surprising, or dismissed as conspiracy, that there are active scientists who feel this way. [emphasis added]

Did you misread the quote? He's not saying that papers should be excluded based on their lack of merit, he's saying that the rules of the game should be changed to keep out papers that at face value do seem to have merit. That's clearly inethical!

What WOULD be surprising, and remains a rather far fetched conspiracy theory without any evidence, is the notion that Professor Jones would actually be able to manage the whole IPCC to his own taste. The sentence is obvious hyperbole, even without the amusing notion of redefining peer-reviewed literature.

Certainly, the scope of this is something I don't yet have full grasp of. I doubt anyone does. But because of his prominence, this will raise suspicions that his attitude may be more pervasive than the evidence available can actually tell us.

 

[Proton Soup]

As usual, none of this makes any difference to the science; only to the human failings and personal inconsistencies of two people.

yes, as usual, politics influences science not one iota. it beats to its own drum, completely oblivious to the world around it. what a wondrous thing it must be to be above all this foolishness. oh, how i envy you scientists.

 

[russ_watters]

Okay I have a question i was wondering if anyone can enlighten me on this discrepancy.

I asked Gavin Schmidt on RC whether he thought the climate was a chaotic system. He said he did not know (seriously)...

Please note: this is a thread for discussion of the political implications of the CRU hack only. Please use our Earth sciences forum for discussion of the technical merits of AGW.

 

[Coldcall]

Please note: this is a thread for discussion of the political implications of the CRU hack only. Please use our Earth sciences forum for discussion of the technical merits of AGW.

Okay cheers, i moved the question to Earth sciences.

 

[Evo]

As it turns out, of course, the IPCC process does not follow what Professor Jones is advocating; but something more like what you would prefer. See, for instance this response from IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri: (Guardian, UK, Nov 29)

Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.

"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.

"Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening."[/color]​

And indeed, the papers under discussion were in the report. Consensus in science is not enforced; it is descriptive, not prescriptive. The tiny number of papers that go against the fundamentals of AGW are not because they are being banned, but because (almost) no one is writing them (not counting people who don't have a background in climate science and couldn't get a paper on climate science published no matter what its spin).

Is there actually a problem here? Not of ethics, or corruption, surely. It's just that some of these guys have a different idea from you on what might be best for the IPCC. Is it so bad that we find them saying so in a personal email? Should they be punished for that, or actually excluded from any further participation in the IPCC? That has actually been suggested! I don't take that seriously, they've got no more hope of excluding Professor Jones that Professor Jones was able to determine himself what could belong in the IPCC report. I just toss out another ruined irony meter with amusement.

Cheers -- sylas

Last year the IPCC "review" process was exposed as being highly biased. They had refused to release the WG1 review to the public. It was only after a FOI suit that they decided to release it.

The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little more than 600 in total. The other 1900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration”. And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?

Wrong.

For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by “hockey-stick” co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the US and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released.

An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the “Second Order Revision” or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality.

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented on more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.

Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments. Reviewers had to justify their requested changes but the responding editors appear to have been under no such obligation. Reviewers were sometimes flatly told they were wrong but no reasons or reliable references were provided.

In other cases reviewers tried to dilute the certainty being expressed and they often provided supporting evidence, but their comments were often flatly rejected. Some comments were rejected on the basis of a lack of space - an incredible assertion in such an important document.

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20081007-17643.html

You can read the WG1 review here.

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7794905?n=2&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25

 

[Coldcall]

Hepth,

Okay first of all i think i understand the disconnect we have in communication on this subject.

I and you both know this concept of absolute certainty is alien to scientific reason. This is exactly my point and I am not expecting them to know everything for sure. However that CERTAINTY is exactly what is being projected as the "consensus" opinion to the ordinary public who get their news spoonfed to them.

Now as those CRU emails show, these scientists have very cosy realtionships with journalists from "on-side" media organisations such as NY Times, BBC etc..(large promoters of the CERTAINTY proppganda). Those scientists have a duty to either explain why the hell they are so CERTAIN, and explain it in the context of the chaotic physics they are dealing with, OR, correct the idea that there is any consensus on the CERTAINTY.

Thats all. If i am asking hard questions which you deem unfair from a scientific perspective it is only because the agw HUBRIS is demanding it!

 

[skypunter]

I wouldn't panic on that score.

Cheers -- sylas

Stranger than fiction...now skeptics are being asked not to panic.

 

[Andre]

This is really bad because the unity of the consensus position is often touted as de facto evidence of how strong it is. I believe someone even mentioned it earlier in the thread how of several hundred mainstream peer reviewed articles over the past few years, not one forwarded a thesis counter to the AGW position. But if "skeptics" research is being actively suppressed, that creates a self-reinforcing appeal to authority type argument.

We've had some pretty lively debates among the moderators about what kind of evidence/papers/blogs/etc should be acceptible for use on PF and the starting point of such debates is the sanctity of the peer review process. If the peer review process has been compromised when it comes to climate research, then it all but necessitates opening the door for a free-for-all of unverified research. It's a really, really bad situation.

If someone told a story like what we're getting here without these emails, they'd probably have been banned as a conspiracy theorist/crackpot. But what we're seeing is equal in concept (scale still unknown) to the worst of what guys like Rush Limbaugh claim (that AGW is a conspiracy by some scientific establishment). No, he doesn't get a win for making something up that happened to turn out to be true, but it is a very bad situation when a crackpot turns out to be right. It's instant credibility.

Here is another one about "peer review management":

...This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
"peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal...

 

[sylas]

As usual, none of this makes any difference to the science; only to the human failings and personal inconsistencies of two people.

yes, as usual, politics influences science not one iota. it beats to its own drum, completely oblivious to the world around it. what a wondrous thing it must be to be above all this foolishness. oh, how i envy you scientists.

Can we try to keep the context clear?

My remarks you have quoted are specifically addressed to the point of the amount of flying time clocked up by Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri. And I maintain, none of that makes any difference to the science. You have removed the remark from it's context here, and some people might thing it is now a remark about all the policitical brouhaha surround climate science generally. It is not.

We probably both agree that ideally the work of science in discovering answers to scientific questions should proceed without politically driven influence.

We agree, I suspect, that there IS in fact an influence of politics on this work; and that this is a bad thing. We might disagree on the nature and scope of that impact.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[mheslep]

PS. I do think he could do more about curtailing his own flying; but to be fair, the cricket story is almost certainly from a long time ago; before he or others had recognized a particular importance for curtailing of carbon emissions.

Why certainly a long time ago? Because this http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm" is beyond reproach? He didn't become chairman of the IPCC until 2002.

 

[Choronzon]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578486,00.html"

Looks like the story's not going to be going away anytime soon.

 

[turbo]

The loss of the data prevents other scientists from checking it to determine whether, in fact, there has been a long-term rise in global temperatures during the past century and a half.

In that article, FOX is distorting and sensationalizing the story. The data is not lost. It is publicly-available at a host of servers all over the world, subject only to the approval of the organizations that compiled the data, and in the case of NASA, NOAA, and other publicly-funded organizations no approval is necessary - just go get it. CRU is using this raw data to model climate - they did not compile the data. This hack is being used as a political football by the right, who are preaching to a crowd that knows little or nothing about how climate science is conducted.

 

[Andre]

Data is one thing, possible monopolizing and managing peer review is another.

 

[Evo]

In that article, FOX is distorting and sensationalizing the story. The data is not lost. It is publicly-available at a host of servers all over the world, subject only to the approval of the organizations that compiled the data, and in the case of NASA, NOAA, and other publicly-funded organizations no approval is necessary - just go get it. CRU is using this raw data to model climate - they did not compile the data. This hack is being used as a political football by the right, who are preaching to a crowd that knows little or nothing about how climate science is conducted.

Turbo, you need to keep up on what's happening, it's been mentioned repeatedly that the data is NOT available.

Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

Got to love this

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577746,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g12:r2:c0.560839:b29147990:z10

 

[mheslep]

Turbo, you need to keep up on what's happening, it's been mentioned repeatedly that the data is NOT available.

For clarity, some of the original raw station data has apparently been lost or destroyed as Evo's link states. The information supposedly derivative of that raw data is what has been made available.

 

[Sorry!]

Turbo, you need to keep up on what's happening, it's been mentioned repeatedly that the data is NOT available.

Got to love this

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577746,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g12:r2:c0.560839:b29147990:z10

Evo are you trying to say that CRU has dumped all raw data and that the data they have dumped (back in 1980... this is a key point) is not available at the observation stations or from other organizations? The problem here IMO isn't that people want data and CRU dumped it, the problem is that certain people will go out of their way to try and find things wrong with the CRU and its research. Which side is being more political now?

Let's imagine for a second that the CRU did have the data and agreed to release it. What then? It's not like anything new would arise from the skeptic position no new papers showing why the CRU method is wrong that haven't already been written. Instead the CRU would probably, most likely, be facing yet another political method to make them out to seem like a bunch of frauds and that they are involved in a huge scandal. Pretty much the same thing that skeptics had to do when NASA released its data.

This whole dumping of data thing back in the 80s to save space; on a scientific topic that was of really very little political, or public use at the time reminds me of the conspiracy theories surrounding the FBI and the Kennedy assassination.

 

[mheslep]

In that article, FOX is distorting and sensationalizing the story. ...

It was necessary to push Turbo1's well known FOX News-aggravation-button because many of the other major news networks are blacking out this story. With a trillion dollar climate bill passed by the House, a lead author of perhaps the primary section of the UN IPCC report has just stepped down. Penn State has announced an investigation of Dr Michael Mann. What do we see on CNN's front page by way of 'Breaking News'? Tiger Woods on SUV rampages, and 'promo' pieces on Obama's pending Afghanistan announcement.

 

[turbo]

Turbo, you need to keep up on what's happening, it's been mentioned repeatedly that the data is NOT available.

I posted a link to an archive of other links showing that the raw data IS still available, and you deleted my link because you said the link was to a biased site.

I can't re-post the link per forum rules, and prove that the raw data is still available, but it IS still available. There is no pro-AGW propaganda on that page of links, just links to raw data, processed data, and codes.

If you will allow it, I will gladly go to that page, copy the whole page of links, and copy them into a subsequent post with NO link to the hosting site.

 

[D H]

Data is one thing, possible monopolizing and managing peer review is another.

I concur. Fudging data? That happens all the time. Heck, even Nobel laureates (*cough* David Baltimore *cough*) have gotten away with it.

The apparent engineering of a false consensus, strong arming of the journals, and manipulation of the scientific community and the public are a different matter. Those rank right up there with Lysenko's machinations.

 

[turbo]

How can you prove that the totality of data is available ?

CRU did not generate the data-sets. They used the data-sets generated by others. The collection of links that I posted is very comprehensive and most of the links lead to very large data repositories. I sincerely doubt that the organizations hosting that original raw data have destroyed it, as is alleged of the CRU. There is a great deal of politicization of the CRU hack based on their alleged "destruction" of raw data. That is absolutely wrong. There are copies of the raw data all over the place. Can I prove that every piece of data that they used is available in its totality? Of course not. Somehow, nobody from the anti-AGW side is ever asked to prove that the original data has been destroyed, despite the fact that CRU did NOT compile its own data sets, and used the data collected by others.

 

[Evo]

I posted a link to an archive of other links showing that the raw data IS still available, and you deleted my link because you said the link was to a biased site.

I can't re-post the link per forum rules, and prove that the raw data is still available, but it IS still available. There is no pro-AGW propaganda on that page of links, just links to raw data, processed data, and codes.

If you will allow it, I will gladly go to that page, copy the whole page of links, and copy them into a subsequent post with NO link to the hosting site.

Turbo, CRU has admitted the data that was requested is "no longer available", did you read it? Are you saying that CRU is lying about that too? I agree that it's pretty much impossible to believe that they wouldn't keep the original data.