Bishop Hill Acton on the SAP
Jul 8, 2010 Lord Oxburgh recently told Steve McIntyre that the Science Appraisal Panel was not actually appraising the science of CRU at all but instead was looking for evidence of misconduct. Martyn in the comments notes the way Professor Acton described the panel to the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee.
Ah. Muir Russell's independent review is not looking at the science it is looking at allegations about malpractice. As for the science itself, I have not actually seen any evidence of any flaw in the science but I am hoping, later this week, to announce the chair of a panel to reassess the science and make sure there is nothing wrong.
It does look as if Professor Acton has made fools of our elected representatives. I wonder if they will take this lying down?
(H/T Martyn in the comments)
Reader Comments (44)
... and all the time the world, it was a'coolin'...
So Professor Acton "(has) not actually seen any evidence of any flaw in the science"-- does he mean, flaws in AGW's circular-logic models; flaws in Mann's ludicrous "hockey stick" propaganda exercise; flaws in Briffa's manipulating selective tree-ring data; flaws in Hansen's GISS/NASA fabrications, UEA's "hide the decline," Railroad Bill Pachauri's idiotic bumpf addressing Amazon deforestation, Himalayan glacial melt, and so on and on?
"Climate studies" by definition is not an empirical, experimental discipline that poses falsifiable hypotheses, conducts objective, rational tests, verifies results by replication (not mere self-assertion) on public record via peer review. Professor Acton apparently thinks that any fool can do as much, and in regard to climate hysterics' Green Gang PR since 1988 he is absolutely right.
Can one assumes that you are following this up?
Listen to Harrabin's interview with Willis. WIllis said that it was "sleight of hand" by the university,
Could it be that Acton will have to announce a review actually appraising the science of the CRU - to avoid being guilty of misleading the parliamentary inquiry - which is presumably an act of perjury?
I would imagine Professor Acton will be asked by our elected representatives in very specific and direct language to announce the chair of another panel to reassess the science and make sure there is nothing wrong or alternatively step aside.
Given what has happened so far would it not be better to take it as far away from Acton's hands as possible. Yes have a review of the science but keep the UEA well away from organising it. I would suggest that it be organised (ie. appointments etc ) by a non science body ( eg. the Law Society or whatever it is called in the UK )
The House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee didnt seem too smitten with UEA in the first place. In an atmosphere of swingeing budgetry retrenchment, playing hanky panky isn't smart.
'I would imagine Professor Acton will be asked by our elected representatives in very specific and direct language to announce the chair of another panel to reassess the science and make sure there is nothing wrong or alternatively step aside.' : Martyn
An interesting thought - perhaps somewhat more likely than my typing of this post being interrupted by a mountain sized comet with my name running through the rock. Much more likely, as with the various Iraq war 'independent' enquiries, is that our elected representatives (or rather our elected MPs who sometimes claim to represent us) will indicate with shocked condescension that there have now been so many enquiries that anyone not yet convinced is obviously an ill-educated, ill-informed enemy of humanity.
I'm rooting for your idea though!
Your Grace
You seemed to have established a good rapport with Graham Stringer MP at an earlier meeting. He does not seem to be a man it is wise to try to hoodwink - nor easy to do so.
In case you haven't already, could you draw his attention to this point..I imagine that he will use his oratorical and political and arm-twisting abilities (ex-Whip) to ensure that his displeasure on behalf of his colleagues is well known to the UEA.
And if they are selling tickets (a la Guardian bash next week), can I have one please? I am not normally a fan of Blood Sports, but in this case.............
The Select Committee report predicted this far from satisfactory outcome
Page 50 of the HoC report:-
The two inquiries
21. The two reviews or inquiries need to map their activities to ensure that there are no unmanaged overlaps or gaps. If there are, the whole process could be undermined.(paragraph 134)
Acton (and Russell) seem to miss a rather obvious point: 'Science' has at its core a requirement for disclosure, openness, sharing of data, and replication. The value of scientific knowledge is not determined by some panel, but by whether, through time, science conducted according to such principles withstands scrutiny and its hypotheses withstand repeated attempts at falsification. Climate science relies too much on nonsense such as speculative extrapolation (use of the word 'could'), and bringing evidence to the theory (the use of 'consistent with'), rather than the generation of falsifiable hypotheses. Where it has produced falsifiable predictions (water vapour will rise with temperature, there will be a hotspot at a particular place in the atmosphere, etc) its hypotheses are not well supported by evidence.
As the US Supreme Court ruled in Daubert v Merril Dow, science is a process. It is oxymoronic to suggest that the process can be flawed, but the science sound. End of story.
Besides, those of us who follow 'Yes, Minister' recognise only too well the Sir Humphrey Appleby kind of enquiry: pick someone who is 'sound' and limit the terms of reference. Such an enquiries are little more than an exercise of power, and in that regard I prefer the more venerable Acton. As His Lordship put it, 'All power corrupts....' Exercising power to defend poor scientific practice simply corrupts science
Bishop
You need to get your scissors out for nfljerseyonline,
Back to the thread. As I have been harping for weeks, this is an exercise in rhetoric. I think Latimer Alder has a most EXCELLENT suggestion. Nothing like an MP to argue your case.
Acron is living proof that brains and hard work are not a route to the top in academia. Personally I don't believe he has the werewithall to plot not having the science looked into, I think Oxburgh, egged on by Beddington, decided that invesigating the science might come up with some doubts about the whole basis of the supposed AGW and the results. For one thing, the MWP would have been re-instated, Jones has already admitted there was a MWP during his contrition stage. That would have begged the question of why all these hockey stick graphs didn't show it which, with a real chairman of the enquiry would have led to investigating why the scientists published the hockeystick graphs when the knew full well they didn't represent the real historical temperature record. This would have led straight back to the IPCC and the whole leaky bucket that is the science of CAGW.
Scouse Oxburgh didn't want to go there, so focussed on the grammar in the emails and was able to tell the world that although it wasn't always the best there was no malfeasance in it, and head off to the HoL for a large one with Beddington paying, having "played a blinder". Sorted.
Unfortunately for them none of these people seem to have been following the blogs and have made tha assumption that anyone who questions "science" is a troofer, or a creationist and can safely be ignored. They are in for a surprise.
Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair of the Science and Technology committee, stated prior to the Oxburgha and Russell reviews, "Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The 'quality' of the science therefore has to be irreproachable.
The Allegations (according to Professor Acton in a letter to commons committee)
"The CRU emails have been the subject of considerable comment both in the mainstream press, and on the internet . The contents of a small sub-set of the emails have been alleged to evidence a series of inappropriate actions attributable to Professor Phil Jones, the Director of CRU .
The main allegations are as follows :
1 . the manipulation of climate data (potentially to overstate increases in global temperatures) ;
2. an intention (or attempt) to manipulate the peer review system to prevent the publication of research ;
3. withholding or attempting to withhold information in breach of the Freedom of Information Act ("the FOIA") or the Environmental Information Regulations ("the EIR") ; including the 'deletion of emails' between scientists contributing to the International Panel on Climate Change ;
4. the lack of availability and transparency of data held by the CRU .
5 . an unreasonable or unusual reluctance to have the research questioned or tested by others, who may have a different view, albeit always subjected to peer review."
Commenting on the publication of the Russell review, MP Graham Stringer, who is a member of the UK House of Commons Science & Technology committee said, "To make sense of whether there was a conspiracy, whether they (CRU scientists) really tried to subvert the peer review process, you would have had to look at these emails. It’s an inadequate report that doesn’t do the job. It’s not going to allay anybody’s fears. I certainly believe the matter should return to the House of Commons to be debated because this is the basis of spending billions of dollars worldwide."
So what has happened and how did we get here?
Did these reviews investigate the 'quality of the science" or the the allegations arising from the leaked emails, including the deletion of emails?
What we know what happened was;
1. It was UEA official who hand-picked the papers for the Oxburgh review, not the Royal Society.
2. Oxburgh admitted his review was not about the quality of the science but about the integrity of CRU scientists.
3. Russell admitted his review was not about exploring the allegations arising from the widely quoted contentious emails, either in substance or intent, but about the integrity of the scientists.
The commons committee, Oxburgh and Russell all exonerated the scientists, but no one has ever attempted to validated the quality of the science at CRU nor investigated the substance and intent of the contentious emails. Russell admitted he had not even asked the CRU scientists if they had actually deleted emails, which was a serious allegation.
One thing that has become clear is that the commons committee were clearly misled by Professor Acton , by Sir Muir Russell and by Lord Oxburgh on the nature of these reviews.
Our MPs have been made to like fools in this entire process, they were simply fobbed with worthless promises.
It must be a miserable existence, if you think it is your job to tell lies to the public every day.
Just a minor quibble. The Oxburgh Panel was called the "Science Assessment Panel" or the "Scientific Assessment Panel". I'm not sure what the difference is between an appraisal and an assesment, but as the panel neither appraised nor assessed the science, I don't suppose it matters.
See http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/
Oh what a tangled web we weave
When we practice to deceive
But how vastly we improve our style
When we've practised for a while
:-(
HoC Science and Technology – Memoranda
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0002.pdf
Memorandum submitted by the University of East Anglia (CRU 00)
5. Concluding Comments from the Vice-Chancellor
The University looks forward to the results of the two reviews of the CRU. Given
that the stakes for humanity are so high in correctly interpreting the evidence of global
warming, we would meanwhile urge scientists, academics, journalists and public
servants to resist the distortions of hearsay evidence or orchestrated campaigns of
misinformation, and instead to encourage open, intelligent debate.
Yes indeed, the stakes for humanity are so high in correctly interpreting the evidence of global warming. Probably best not to investigate anything too deeply, eh Professor.
Honestly, the way that UEA, Oxburgh and Russell have behaved makes Phil Willis look like a complete plank.
The only MP to come out with any credibility in this whole affair is Graham Stringer, who actually was a practicing professional scientist.
I found this comment at George Monbiot's blog, in which the Moonbat forgives Jones, et all, for all their transgressions.
I quote, "Allow me to put it another way, instead of scientists, these people were hedge managers, and they were found by an inquiry, run by fund managers and bankers, of not being involved in insider trading, but being part of a fan club. Moreover, though the figures they published for investors were misleading, the investors could have obtained the raw data and worked out that they were being sold a lemon on their own. Would you be so forgiving?"
It sums up neatly the way the Russell Whitewash was conducted.
Here is a fine piece of writing in ye Olde Englishe, and one with no little relevance to the flimsy reviews we have had of climategate:
'And so… these Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion.'
More, much more, here: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/08/wonderful-news-on-climate-change/
So now that the three reports are in it must be time to invite the three chairs to come before a public cross party commons select comitee to present their findings and answer a few simple questions.
@July 9, 2010 | Manfred
"It must be a miserable existence, if you think it is your job to tell lies to the public every day."
Dunno. Looks quite well paid and with foreign travel and no doubt a nice index linked pension:-
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/About%20us/vacancies/J0000317.pdf
Would suit Troll.
Personally, I'd rather mop the floor in a peep show.
We should run the justice system the same way as these inquiries. Let the defence choose the evidence and witnessess for the prosecution. Should help reduce prison overcrowding.
Are any EXIM/MTA gurus going to be at the RIBA debate? I've been going through the IT info from the inquiry and found some odd things. Another oddity is why, if Climategate was such a serious crime, Gavin Schmidt didn't report the RC hack to the police. Shame he didn't because that probably would have helped the investigation.
@Philip
"as the panel neither appraised nor assessed the science"
It's odd that, isn't it? One could be forgiven for thinking that they daren't appraise the science too closely in case it turned out not to be science at all. After all, if they were as confident about it as they claimed elsewhere, that would surely have been the cornerstone of all their reports.
I hate to sound Naive (even though I am) but I cant figure what goes on in the minds of Cameron and Huhne.
I am happy to call the following people liars (sorry Steve): Mann, Oxburgh, Gorden Brown, Al Gore and James Hansen. What they have done and said is in print and recorded on camera.
However as far as I know Cameron and Huhne have not gone on record on the science behind AGW.
It is also impossible to engage these people in conversation or debate.
FOI requests to DECC reveal that they simply follow IPPC advice, they dont have an opinion of their own.
Cameron has stated that no more powers will be transferred to the EU and is currently huffing and puffing over the EU attempt to control our budget. He says he will fight that but what about the IPCC?
Without even questioning it he is allowing the IPCC to change our whole energy creation industry and thus our economy and our way of life.
Either he is an irresponsible idiot or he sees some benefits that he is not talking about.
As I started this post: I dont know what goes on in his mind at all.
After the Oxburgh Whitewash and the Russell Whitewash, how do we go about about verifying the quality of the research conducted at CRU and how do we investigate the allegations that arose from the Climategate emails?
1. We can put pressure on the House of Commons Science & Technology select committee to re-investigate Climategate.
2. Using the power of the blogosphere and the FOIA we can build up evidence of what was done right and was not at CRU.
3. Using publicly available science, more likely now, we strengthen the case that the AGW hypothesis is false thereby putting more public pressure on CRU, UEA, Oxburgh, Russell and the politicians to restate their positions.
I believe the paraphrase is 'I'm not happy.....'
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/09/stringer_on_russell/
Chuckles beat me to the post, but it really worth while to take a look at The Reg article by Andrew Orlowski he posted above. For those of you too lazy to cut an paste the URL try
THIS
It would appear that we have a sympathetic ear in the Commons in the form of Graham Stringer.
Dung
You pose an interesting question. Our politicians, for the most part, display complete ignorance of science but with only a few exceptions seem determined to believe in all this catastrophic global warming hysteria. I think it appeals to their inherent desire to command and control - politicians love a 'good cause' that gives them the opportunity to look grave and be seen to be doing something; the bigger the alleged stakes, the better, and what bigger than 'saving the planet'? Which is why I subscribe to the view that the desire to become an MP should automatically disqualify anyone from standing as one...
That Register piece is heartwarming.
It shows that there's someone with a brain, with access to the press, and perhaps just enough of the political toolset necessary to scrape off a little of the whitewash.
Once again, policy needs reliable data and honest analysis behind it, and we don't have either of those yet.
Dave S
You are generous towards the body politic. Do not underestimate their capacity for mischief. They are no fools, and know climate change is, lets be generous, highly 'post-normal'. They know that they have tuned interpretive 'torqueing' of AGW through the research project grant system. It is considered by MP's to be 'highly convenient' for a plethora of reasons related to putting the brakes on excessive consumption, to provide a transition from finite traditional fuel resources and to enacting the necessary framework for its governance. It is wrong, it is pure michief, it is extremely frustrating, that they can not treat us as responsible citizens. But that is what they, in their pumped up and pompous arrogant ethos, sadly believe that they can carry off, and anyway if they can't, is, they imagine, justified.
Dung
You certainly are much to generous to Buff Huhne. He is a 100% true believer. He was largely responsible for the Dim's manifesto pledge to reduce emissions by 30% by 2020 and 100% by 2050. Without nuclear.
Just look at http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Generating_the_future_report.pdf
produced not by nasty deniers but by alarmist Engineers who have understanding of how the Energy markets actually works and who have troubled to do the math.
Just check out the implication of the 2008 Climate Chane Act's 80% emissions reduction (with nuclear - lots of it) and try to imagine what 100% reduction without nuclear would look like.
Buff Huhne is the guy with his hand on the tiller. This is the guy who has already been campaigning in Europe to reduce emissions by 30% by 2020. No doubt he was influential in the decision to not underwrite the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters, the main importance of which wasn't financial but as an indication of some measure of Government support. This and the scrapping of the Infrastructure Planning Commission will ensure that there is no nuclear plant build in the UK for the next decade. Don't forget that natural gas is also a fossil fuel and that Carbon Capture (even if it can eventually, at vast expense, be made to work - very doubtful). So look forward to relying on windmills. Our existing 3000 turbines managed to produce 0.8% of total electricity in the first 6 months of this year. And, obviously, zero percent of non-electric transport, domestic heating and industrial energy. Buff Huhne's solution? More windmills. Lots of them.
And blow me down, Dave Boy's father in law and Cap'n Clegg's wife are both directly financially involved in Big Wind.
All on the basis of junk science fraud by Acton's merry men.
I was extremely pleased to see that Graham Stringer mentioned the poor people. Last year, I told my friend Peter Bocking, of Manchester, that I hoped this whole thing would end in ridicule and not in anger. He replied that it had to end in anger, that too many had died already. As time goes by, I find myself coming closer and closer to agreement with him.
==============================================
Only semi-facetiously I wonder if warming would cause our heating bills to drop in the winter?
I've just had my annual summary and the increase in gas and electricity consumption to cover the cold UK winter is noticeable.
For those on low incomes (such as Mr. Stringer's constituents), increased charges or taxes with the aim of reducing consumption are very bad news...regardless of the correctness or otherwise of the 'scientific' argument. And his primary loyalty must be to those who are here now...not to unborn generations.
But Mr Stringer seems also prepared to take on the intellectual as well as the political battle. With a hard science (Chemistry) degree, and real experience outside the little worlds of academe and politics he has the courage and clout to fight the case.
And if, as I suspect, the 'powers that be' have hoodwinked Stringer and other members of the Parliamentary committee, they may well find it to be a Pyrrhic victory. Prof. Acton should not think that the game is over and the Fat Lady has Sung...she is still just limbering up those vocal chords.
Acton, by dint of the most extreme stupidity, or more charitably a misplace desire to protect the people who work for him, has put himself front and centre as a conspirator. Now, if the truth comes out, there will be more than Prof Jones' scalp called for by the embarrassed duped.
“Sleight of hand” is a really weak description of something as important as deceiving and making a mockery of a parliamentary committee. The Nation does not expect a description of the three shell trick Acton’s action displays total disrespect for the committee and the “sleight of hand” phrase is no example of authority. Beef it up guys you have broadcast to the Nation a committee that is a namby pamby laughing-stock.
"relying on windmills"
I was doing some back-of envelope calculations, following a radio programme on electric cars, and it became apparent that in the UK, where we have roughly one car per household (25m), if these were all electric (the greenies' aim, presumably), electricity consumption would increase by some 50%. Recharging a Nissan Leaf requires slightly more than our own daily household consumption, so I'd love to know where all this extra power is coming from, especially as we are likely to be unable to meet our present requirements quite soon. Perhaps I should ask Mr Huhne.
James P
That radio programme mentioned a Brighton to London run for electric cars. It's a pity I don't live in Croydon anymore. I could have gone down to Purley Cross and yelled "Milko!" as they passed.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Noddy-Toyland-Milkos-Milk-Van/dp/B001FC3THS
There is one aspect regarding the “inquiries” that has been niggling at me for awhile.
Why have the people at CRU not cried foul? Why have they not complained that inquiries were not addressing the real issues?
Why did they not demand that the inquiries provided them with the ability to face down their accusers?
Because if I were in their position and I KNEW I was right I would damn well make sure that the inquiries addressed the correct issues that would clear my name and if they did not I would be crying foul along with Lord Willis and Graham Stringer.
Why are scientists at CRU not crying foul?
Thanks, DN. You have to wonder how Enid Blyton got away with it really, although oddly enough, milk was always referred to as milko in our house when I was small. Innocent days...
Clearly BBC Newsnight, broadcast Wed, 07 Jul informs the public that the Oxburgh enquiry was about the science.
Susan Watts, BBC Newsnight Science Editor
Susan Watts: “Three enquiries focussed on the team at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, CRU. One by MPs, one on the science and today’s on how the scientists handled data and presented their results”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00t0rzg/Newsnight_07_07_2010/
At least one carbon-offset company thinks that the Climategate is all over:
http://www.carbonneutral.com/knowledge-centre/company-blog/are-we-there-yet/
I want to post a reply, but I need some time to recover after reading such Grade A bollocks...