Wednesday
Mar032010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Orlowski on the hearings
Mar 3, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Parliament Andrew Orlowski takes a long hard look at the hearings on Monday:
Parliament isn’t the place where climate sceptics go to make friends. Just over a year ago, just three MPs voted against the Climate Act, with 463 supporting it. But events took a surprising turn at Parliament’s first Climategate hearing yesterday.
MPs who began by roasting sceptics in a bath of warm sarcasm for half an hour were, a mere two hours later, asking why the University of East Anglia’s enquiry into the climate scandal wasn’t broader, and wasn’t questioning “the science” of climate change. That’s further than any sceptic witness had gone.
Readers should also note the contribution from Josh. New friends eh? ;-)
Reader Comments (23)
Yes, it is good to know Andrew reads Bishop Hill, isnt it! He contacted me about using a couple of the cartoons and of course I am very happy to see them out there.
Andrew invariably writes good pieces:
The three were slightly too chummy and jovial, and seemed unaware of the connection MPs had made: that rotten scientists perhaps mean rotten science.
That smug grin seems to go hand and hand with most senior AGW "scientists". That one simple thing should raise alarm bells to anyone with a slight understanding of history. It says so much, but not in ways there always appreciate...
Jiminy
I agree. When everybody is saying the same thing, agreeing with each other, praising each other and patting each other on the back, you should be very suspicious.
Phillip Bratby,
Agreed. Is that somewhat related to - 'If everybody is thinking the same thing then sombody's not thinking'?
The change in mood during the hearing was noticeable. Whether it matters or not will depend on the new intake of MPs. The Climate Act now exists. Will there be a will to amend the Act? At the moment I cannot see it. The presence of so many parliamentary sketch writers did surprise me. They will have much more influence on public opinion than the "forced" qualification from the Institute of Physics referred to earlier.
The other influence will be public opinion, which is on the move. That, in itself, may amount to very little - just consider the case of the Lisbon Treaty ratification without the promised referendum. I view these hearings as an early skirmish in a long campaign.
For me, a layman, two things stood out:
(1) acceptance that the processes used did not meet the standards expected and demanded, and that this must and will change in the future. Everone agreed with that, including the final trio.
(2) Professor Slingo`s remark that weather forecasts (and by implication climate forecasts) were not always accurate because they were dealing with a fundamentally chaotic system. I seem to recall that the Butterfly Effect was a weather related analogy. Whatever emerges from a reworking of the science, I would not be surprised to hear Professor Slingo continue to invoke the unpredictability of chaos argument together with the need to apply the precautionary principle.
So far as the public are concerned the questions will be: have the scientists got their sums right? what will it cost to do anything about it? what is the risk/reward? For me the answers are: no they have not got their sums right; the cost is too high; the risk/reward equation is too obscure to form a view. But that is just me. In the meantime I am working on my MP (five letters so far).
Jiminy Cricket,
Yes, it has been noted elsewhere that the smug self satisfied grins are a dead giveaway, and give rise to a strong desire to manually remove said grin amongst most normal citizens.
I wouldn't include PJ in that optically challenging group, so perhaps we should believe Phils Mums protestations that he has merely fallen amongst thieves, or the sort of people with whom his mum would rather he didn't play?
Prof Jones is clearly a weak man, and in normal circumstances would have beavered away for the rest of his career pretending to put the global average temperatures together and jetting round the world in relative obscurity. His downfall was the hockeystick, then MM2003 and the robust defence of the indefensible put up by Mann. It's Mann's apparent strength that they all started with, his self assurance. Poor PJ and Briffa et al have probably never mixed with anyone like Mann and picking up on his moral compass began to defend the indefensible. That got away with it only strengthened efforts. What they will have course not have thought of in their war with McIntyre et al was that time will show who was right and who was wrong, and if they prove to be wrong then they'll enter the history books as scientists who distorted the scientific process to push their own agenda. I think they're wrong (not on the issue of AGW, I'm sceptical but could be convinced) because they are clearly distorting the scientific evidence and they will be found out. It's called a "folie a plusieurs" and I offer it to His Grace as the title to the next tome on the unravelling of ethical science in the climate science community.
BTW, I'm not a chuffed as everyone seems to be about the, agreed, poor performance of Prof Jones, it appears to me, now that I've seen the notes of the first meeting that he was able to get one of his excuses in that it wasn't usual in the climate science community to provide the methods data and code for a paper. Isn't it the policy of the publishers that these should be available for others when they publish the paper?
Geronimo:
You make a good point as to how these scientists will be remembered - reputation and legacy means a lot in the groves of academe. Will they be Darwins or Lysenkos?
I would take issue with the portrayal of Jones and Briffa has somehow being cowed by Mann. That may be the case to some extent, but the reality is that both have gained mightily from the flow of research funds into this area.
One final point, I would be interested in understanding what Jones has actually done that has merited his current status as a scientist. The compilation and gridding of the temperature record seems more an exercise in arithmetic than in science. IMHO this plus the Internet is what allowed skilled numbers guys like McIntyre to quickly expose the limitations of Jones et al.
Bernie:
I don't think that anyone with a solid background in engineering or science will think that Jones, Mann, and Briffa have done much of anything to merit their status.
Peter B:
It seems to me that the development of a reliable temperature proxy for the pre-instrument period is a worthwhile scientific endeavor requiring considerable scientific knowledge in a variety of fields and creativity. So I am willing to grant Mann and Briffa a somewhat different standing wrt to their science than I do Jones. That does not mean that I see Mann and Briffa as being particularly successful. Obviously their behavior bespeaks of other things.
I've been saying for a long time that they are not proper scientists. Jones is an environmental scientist and I don't know what branch of science that is. If they had been good at science they would have gone into one of the hard sciences, not a soft science. I would expect that soft sciences attract mediocrity. If Jones were doing proper science he would have recruited some graduates with statistical and software skills to provide the necessary input. That he thought he could do it with his lack of skill in those fields was only possible because all his work was done in the shadows. He got away with it until the spotlight was shone on his work by Steve McIntyre et al. But even then, the team influence was able to provide the cover until Climategate blew it wide open.
Philip Bratby
Being a chemist I probably wouldn't go as far as - I think - Rutherford's statement that "There are two kinds of science - physics and stamp collecting!". But I can fully subscribe to the view that "Any purported discipline that feels it needs to include the word "science" in its title (environmental science; climate science; social science; political science) is unlikely to be science".
@Brian
I was discussing this very topic with my wife the other day: environmental science; climate science; social science; political science. I have now started writing climate science, as climate 'science' in all my comments.
I would like to encourage others to do the same. Maybe it will take off?
Climate 'Science' anyone?
Jiminy: I usually call it 'climate science', but climate 'science' is fine.
Why not call it Climate Art? Though that is probably an insult to all good artists. We must also remember that UEA is home to a major Creative Writing course - perhaps somebody finished up in the wrong office.
'Climate Studies' perhaps?
Very good comments and thought provoking.... thanks guys.
How does one deal however, with the almost evangelical zeal that I encounter from those who embrace the idea of AGW totally. I do not mean to be disparaging, they may well be right, but I find it difficult, if not impossible to talk to these people...
(Your Grace...I observed your Palace from the sky on Monday, and very fine it looked in the crisp sunshine, blue sky and with the snow still there from last week ....no sign of GW in Scotland!)
I wonder what Prof. Phil did with all the money? There are only three of them (according to Acton) and maybe a temporary secretary. We know they haven't had anything approaching a professional IT department...maybe a couple of old battered PCs...and no backup storage devices.
They don't appear to do any actual observing, so their out of office expenses should be near zero. I imagine their building, heating and other ongoing costs are paid for by the University.
So how did three of them get through 12 million spondulicks in grants? What did they spend all this luvverly money on? Did they all go on long holidays courtesy of the IPCC? Experimental observation of the temperature in the fleshpots of Norwich?
I think we should be told. Perhaps Phil's Mum could help us here?
@ Chuckles
I very much like the idea of always referring to "Climate Studies" rather than "Climate Science". If challenged on this by proponents of AGW there is the wonderful opportunity for the rejoinder - "well whatever else it is, it's certainly not science - ask the Institute of Physics!"
If the MSM could eventually pick up on this, its another chink in the wall.
Bernie:
It seems to me that the development of a reliable temperature proxy for the pre-instrument period is a worthwhile scientific endeavor requiring considerable scientific knowledge in a variety of fields and creativity.
I agree it's a worthwhile endeavor (as well as a chemical engineer, I am a history buff, so I find the connection between past climate change and historical events fascinating). I applaud the kind of work done by Craig Loehle and the many authors listed in the CO2 Project website. But I don't think that there is anything remarkable about what Mann or Briffa have done - essentially use raw data (collected by others) and squeeze correlations out of them by any means necessary. The "divergence problem" alone should be the main focus - openly - of those doing and analyzing that kind of work - not something you only mention "when you have to" as if it was a minor inconvenience. I see them as mediocre scientists who, if not for the present hysteria, would have lived out their professional lives in utter mediocrity and obscurity, and deseverdly so.
@Brian E,
Agreed, if necessary we could even stretch to 'Weather Studies'?
I chose Climate 'Science' because what has the climate done to deserve this? it has been looking after itself for 4 billion years and all of sudden 'scientists' decide that it doesn't know what it is doing and they know better...
Hence Climate 'Science'...
As somebody once said: "If a subject has the word 'science' in its title, that is a pretty good indication that it is probably not science".