A Superstorm for Global Warming Research

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697,00.html

04/01/2010

Climate Catastrophe

A Superstorm for Global Warming Research

By Marco Evers, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter

Plagued by reports of sloppy work, falsifications and exaggerations, climate research is facing a crisis of confidence. How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences? And would it really be the end of the world if temperatures rose by more than the much-quoted limit of two degrees Celsius?

Life has become "awful" for Phil Jones. Just a few months ago, he was a man with an enviable reputation: the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, an expert in his field and the father of an alarming global temperature curve that apparently showed how the Earth was heating up as a result of anthropogenic global warming.

Those days are now gone.

Nowadays, Jones, who is at the center of the "Climategate" affair involving hacked CRU emails, needs medication to fall sleep. He feels a constant tightness in his chest. He takes beta-blockers to help him get through the day. He is gaunt and his skin is pallid. He is 57, but he looks much older. He was at the center of a research scandal that hit him as unexpectedly as a rear-end collision on the highway.

His days are now shaped by investigative commissions at the university and in the British Parliament. He sits on his chair at the hearings, looking miserable, sometimes even trembling. The Internet is full of derisive remarks about him, as well as insults and death threats. "We know where you live," his detractors taunt.

Jones is finished: emotionally, physically and professionally. He has contemplated suicide several times recently, and he says that one of the only things that have kept him from doing it is the desire to watch his five-year-old granddaughter grow up.

...

[Birthmark]

1. Ill-timed crock of shit...

...considering that Jones was just exonerated on every bit of the science.

Hope the "reporters" got a nice kick-back from the fossil fuel industry. They've earned it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Please be careful not to overstate the case.

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_pn32_100331.cfm

...

The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—"trick" and "hiding the decline"—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.

The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that "global warming is happening (and) that it is induced by human activity". But this was not an inquiry into the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built.

...

[Birthmark]

7. Oh, excuse me.

"On every bit of the science looked at by the Committee."

But I would have thought that that was obvious.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. The Committee explicitly does not address the validity of the scientific conclusions

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

...

Summary

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in November 2009 had the potential to damage the reputation of the climate science and the scientists involved.

We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced. Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. However, climate science is a matter of great importance and the quality of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work (including raw data) and full methodological workings (including the computer codes). Had both been available, many of the problems at UEA could have been avoided.

We are content that the phrases such as “trick” or “hiding the decline” were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.

In the context of Freedom of Information (FOIA), much of the responsibility should lie with UEA. The disclosed e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted, to avoid disclosure. We found prima facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics. The failure of UEA to grasp fully the potential damage to CRU and UEA by the non-disclosure of FOIA requests was regrettable. UEA needs to review its policy towards FOIA and re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in this area is limited.

The Deputy Information Commissioner has given a clear indication that a breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 may have occurred but that a prosecution was time-barred; however no investigation has been carried out. In our view it is unsatisfactory to leave the matter unresolved. We conclude that the matter needs to be resolved conclusively—either by the Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the Information Commissioner.

We accept the independence of the Climate Change E-mail Review and recommend that the Review be open and transparent, taking oral evidence and conducting interviews in public wherever possible.

On 22 March UEA announced the Scientific Appraisal Panel to be chaired by Lord Oxburgh. This Panel should determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built and it would be premature for us to pre-judge its work.

...

Our Report

17. In the time left before the end of this Parliament we will not be able to cover all the issues raised by the events at UEA, nor cover all the ground that would be covered by the Independent Climate Change Email Review and the Scientific Appraisal Panel. We have therefore concentrated on what we believe to be key issues. Of central concern is the accuracy and availability of CRU’s data, datasets and computer programming, which we address in Chapter 2 of this Report; and related to the data and methodology is the question of access, or the withholding of access, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which we cover in Chapter 3. Finally, in Chapter 4 we comment on the independent reviews that UEA has announced.

...

I'm on your side here. It's just that this report has been represented as something it is not.

[Birthmark]

11. Which part of this are you missing?

"We are content that the phrases such as “trick” or “hiding the decline” were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers."

Looks pretty conclusive to me. No, they weren't reviewing climate science. But they were reviewing Jones' for possible scientific misconduct. They found none.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Exactly, "they were reviewing Jones' for possible scientific misconduct. They found none."

Compare that however to this statement, "Jones was just exonerated on every bit of the science" (which is a common presentation.)

The key conclusion is that no one (including Jones) was playing fast and loose with the data. That's a really important conclusion, however, it is not an endorsement of the science itself.

[Birthmark]

13. They wouldn't know science...

...if you fused into a bat and beat them about the knees with it. They're politicians. That means they're excellent at spotting fraud.

Besides, who needs their opinion on the science. That's what peer-review is for. And there are thousands of reputable, relevant, peer-reviewed papers that show beyond the shadow of all but a perverse doubt (to borrow from Sagan) that the Earth is warming and that human activity is responsible for the bulk. No political committee is going to change that.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. That may be true

However, if (we) represent this particular report as some sort of blanket endorsement of all the science behind "climate change" then we risk our own credibility.

[Birthmark]

15. Well, what I said was...

..."Ill-timed crock of shit considering that Jones was just exonerated on every bit of the science."

Clearly I was referring to Jones and the charges that he buggered the data, as was the article. And the fact is that Jones was exonerated on every one of those charges concerning the science. How you can read what I said any other way is a mystery.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. If you say so

Find some disinterested 3rd party, and ask them.

[kestrel91316]

2. IIRC, Jones has been found to have done nothing wrong.

[Birthmark]

3. That's absolutely right on the science

There is a Freedom of Information Act issue, but there is no danger to him there since the time limit to prosecute has run out...even assuming he was guilty.

Looks like a fairly typical hit piece.

[kestrel91316]

5. Well, in the US we don't assume guilt. And when it's the RW making the accusations.

one can safely assume that the accused is NOT guilty.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. "Presumed innocent until proven guilty."

What I found remarkable about the article was the extent of the emotional effects on Jones. He did nothing to deserve this.

FWIW: http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/InnocentGuilty.htm">Here's an interesting paper on the maxim "presumed innocent until proven guilty."

[Birthmark]

8. Having looked at the law...

...and the Committee Report, I think that Jones probably did break the FOIA. I don't blame him under the circumstances. When there are only three people in your office and your being FOIA'd for crap that's available on the net, and for crap that no reasonable scientist in the field asks for, and that request is coming from a denialist buffoon who isn't even going to use it...well, the law can take a running jump at the friggin' Moon. Jones had better things to do.

[pscot]

9. The article argues that while the climate data are inconclusive

Germany is likely to join Europe's sunbelt and you better sell the condo on Ibiza because the Baltic may be the new Mediterranean. Der Spiegel must pay by the word. They specialize in long, eliptical articles that resemble the dance of the seven veils. At the end, the point disappears behind a curtain and you're left wondering what the hell you just saw.