Bishop Hill UEA on the New Scientist editorial
Aug 4, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Oxburgh Climate: Russell Journals A few days back I linked to a New Scientist editorial on the Russell review, noting that it was surprisingly critical of CRU. (It's behind a paywall now, so you will have to take my word for it.) I noticed the other day that UEA have issued a rebuttal of sorts, which is, frankly, weird.
The editorial pointed out, quite correctly, that neither Oxburgh or Russell had looked at the science:
After publishing his five-page epistle, Oxburgh declared "the science was not the subject of our study". Finally, last week came former civil servant Muir Russell's 150-page report. Like the others, he lambasted the CRU for its secrecy but upheld its integrity - despite declaring his study "was not about... the content or quality of [CRU's] scientific work"
So this doesn't appear to be something that can reasonably be debated, I'm sure you would agree. Not so the University of East Anglia, whose response begins thus:
It is depressing that the New Scientist follows parts of the blogosphere, and some other sections of the press, in asserting that of the three independent investigations into Climategate "none looked into the quality of the science itself".... Our hope was that New Scientist would have a more informed understanding of the method of science research.
There follows a bizarre argument that a search for blatant dishonesty is the same thing as an assessment of quality. It then gets even stranger, with UEA first noting Oxburgh's statement that 'he Panel was not concerned with the questions of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct', and then, with a rhetorical flourish, asking 'New Scientist, when do science conclusions become “correct”? as if they were quoting from the editorial rather than the report they had commissioned. The editorial didn't discuss the question of the science being correct at all.
Quite the strangest document.
Reader Comments (34)
'Not all was contrived. We agree that open-ness in sharing data, “even with… critics”, is a legal requirement. Largely, we have met that requirement although we have accepted that, in some instances, we should have been more helpful, pro-actively and absolutely. '
"even with... critics" the pause is there to indicate the time to raise one's nostrils towards the heavens before proceeding to refer to the peasants, probably with a heartfelt sigh.
What is happening here is a conflation of two issues - were the scientists honestly going about their work as opposed to seeking a predetermined conclusion on the one hand and, on the other hand, the quality of the result they came up with. It seemed to me that Lord Rees was doing the same thing when giving evidence to the HoC Science and Technology Committee a couple of weeks ago.
Those of a suspicious turn of mind will conclude that the terms of reference of the CRU enquiries and the reports thereon have been carefully written to enable such a conflation of issues to be made. This is ideal for the purposes of public consumption and BBC reporting. Yet those who follow these matters more closely and challenge the conflation will be told by Lord Oxburgh that yes indeed he did not look at the quality of the science. It is a situation worthy of an episode of "Yes Minister".
Meantime I draw attention to this study produced by Ross McKitrick:
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/surfacetempreview.pdf
It describes the basis, and inadequacies, of the land and sea temperature records used to measure global temperatures.
Pre-CRU though, UEA was best known for it's creative writing courses. So this style of rebuttal shouldn't be too suprising.
Bish:
We await your report of the inquiries with great interest. More ammo here.
Here is an important essay on the policy distortions encouraged by lavish EU funding of climate alarmism, including a lot of money given variously to the UEA/CRU/Tyndall and the UK Met Office. Thanks to EU Referendum (http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/08/water-on-stone.html) for the link to this piece of research, which begins:
'The leaking of the East Anglia “Climategate” e-mails and data last November shattered the appearance of a scientific consensus on supposed “man-made global warming” and provided a disturbing insight into the corruption of the scientific process as it relates to the “man-made global warming” hypothesis. The spectacle of scientists stonewalling freedom of information requests, destroying records, hiding unwelcome results, colluding to keep dissenting viewpoints out of scholarly journals, and even suppressing their own acknowledged doubts — all of this made it perfectly clear that other interests were at stake than the pure pursuit of knowledge. The centrality of the quest for funding in the e-mail exchanges made it equally clear that for the scientists in question, money, unsurprisingly, was first and foremost among those interests.'
Source: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43291
Protecting their very existence is a strong motivation for reacting so hastily and with so little thought to the hint of criticism in an 'onside' entity such as the New Scientist.
My understanding is that when Oxburgh and others said that they had not looked at the science, they meant that they were not evaluating the competence of the scientists; only whether or not they were (supposedly) honest (in terms of not being deliberately dishonest) and whether or not the methods they chose could be at least defended as a reasonable scientific choice - even if an incompetent one. That is how I understood Oxburgh's reply to Steve McIntyre -- as if he was saying, I don't want to discuss their competence with you, that wasn't my job.
Whoever wrote that "rebuttal" either doesn't understand that at all and is unable to differentiate between the competence and honesty sides of it, or he/she understands it very well but doesn't want to say it clearly.
I note the rebuttal did not mention anything about the selection of the 11 scientific papers for the Oxburgh Panel to review, or the fact that neither panel contained a "skeptical" scientist, or that not a single "skeptic" was interviewed by either panel.
And once again, UEA pronounces that "peer review" trumps any of the critics regarding the quality of the science. They just refuse to acknowledge that "peer review" for the Hockey Team has been "friend and family review"; i.e., a joke.
Quite a dishonest lot in my opinion. They continue to practice basic Goebbels propaganda technique:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
I agree with DrCrinum -- standard "Big Lie" tactic.
Lord Oxburgh writes, in the first paragraph of his report, that his panel was asked to address criticism “that climate data had been dishonestly selected, manipulated and/or presented to arrive at pre-determined conclusions that were not compatible with a fair interpretation of the original data”.
When he refers to “the original data” is this the data the dog ate?
Oxburgh told Steve that the remit of his inquiry was never written down. However he is able in his first paragraph of the final report to state that his panel was asked to address criticism “that climate data had been dishonestly selected, manipulated and/or presented to arrive at pre-determined conclusions that were not compatible with a fair interpretation of the original data”! Credit to the guy, he has a ****ing good memory.
The UAE text states "The compilation of a hemispheric or global land surface data time series from irregularly distributed (in time and space) historical thermometer observations can never be “correct” in an absolute sense. There will always be uncertainty,"
Strange then that Bob Watson at the Guardian debate was able to tell us that the various organisations that produce global temperature figures used diferent methods but all produced the "exact same result" ??? ^.^
Martyn! You stole my quote -.-
Not strange at all. This is what we would expect from UEA and the slippery Acton. 'Normal' scientists would expect a look at the science to be a look at the 'correctness' of it - in other words, if it was hopelessly incorrect, it would be poor quality. But as the proponent of post-normal science, Jerry Ravetz, has it:
"For us, quality is a replacement for truth in our methodology. We argue that this is quite enough for doing science, and that truth is a category with symbolic importance, which itself is historically and culturally conditioned"
and his acolyte Mike Hulme:
"Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs…where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken...It has been labelled “post-normal” science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus…on the process of science – who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy…The IPCC is a classic example of a post-normal scientific activity."
'A more informed understanding' as UEA puts it, would have understood that truth seeking has nothing these days to do with climate science.
For a fuller understanding of this, see my post
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/
Don,
There is an excellent variation of the "Big Lie" expressed by Terry Goodkind in his Sword of Truth Series called "Wizard's First Rule":
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."
—Chapter 36, p.397, U.S. hardcover edition of Wizard’s First Rule
Sorry Dung didn't realise I had stolen your thunder. Perhaps it should have been the data that was placed on the roof of the car while the owner rummaged for the keys to unlock the door and drove away leaving the paperwork trailing behind in the wind finally ending up in the River Yare and eventually lost out at sea but saying “the dog ate it” was much easier:-)
Well, let's see: We're pretty sure that Newton's new-fangled "gravity" is "correct", although we're not to clear on exactly why...
Apology accepted hehe
We know these investigations were whitewashes. Oxburgh and Russell knew they were whitewashes. UEA knew they were whitewashes. The New Scientist knew they were whitewashes.
UEA know that the damaging public admissions from Oxburgh and Russell cannot be retracted, so some bright spark at UEA must have thought that the next best thing is for UEA to re-write history; but the need for doing so highlights concerns from within UEA how much these 'independent' reviews have damaged the instutution's credibilty and reputation.
UEA would have better advised to have kept stumm.
Mac UEA would have better advised to have kept stumm.
One of the basic principles of propaganda is not to repeat the opposition's propaganda by saying "the following propaganda by xxx is totally untrue". This gives credibility to the opposition and brings their propaganda to the attention of those who would otherwise have been oblivious of it.
Are there any bounds to the UEA's incompetence?
Having seen Trevor Davies in action at the Climategate debate in London, and the loathsome smarmy Acton on TV from Parliament, nothing that comes from their little Empire would ever surprise me again.
Unless, by one of those probabilistic coincidences that happen now and then, they were to suddenly came up with a dollop of sense rather than nonsense.
They are complete idiots. If they were in banking the collective noun to describe them would be 'a wunch'.
According to the local paper tonight, the UEA has been ranked the 3rd most cited UK institution for environment and ecology. Thomson Reuters Essential Science Indicators data shows UEA research was mentioned 13,388 times across 640 papers in the last 10 years. A spokesperson said "We are delighted to see this objective recognition of world class research"
I wonder how many of those mentions relate to the last 9 months?
Not only does the UEA know they are lying, they think so little of British taxpyers that they do not care if you know they are lying.
The UEA and the CRU simply do not care. They believe you British taxpayers and your members of Parliament are so stupid that that you will believe anything they say, now matter how counter-factual it may be.
Martin A
Are there any bounds to the UEA's incompetence?
I think hunter has it right with:
The UEA and the CRU simply do not care. Why should they? What is their downside? Just tough it out and continue to collect the money thrown at them.
The Bish: (It's behind a paywall now, so you will have to take my word for it.)
I googled some of the phrases and got the following which seems to be the said editorial available in Google's cache:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b3HhSiyWwqIJ:www.newscientist.com/article/dn19143-climategate-inquiry-no-deceit-too-little-cooperation.html+%22iS+CLIMATEGATE+finally+over%3F+It+ought+to+be%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk
oops - that's obviously not the editorial - sorry
OK - here is a page with text that may have been the text of the NS editorial...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/125509-wow-the-new-scientist-says-climategate-investigations-are-crap.html
Usual Ethics Averted
Gavin (Real Climate) has an interview at Collde a scape, following Juith Curry's interview there..
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/04/gavins-perspective/
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/03/the-curry-agonistes/
hunter
Unfortunately, many of our members of Parliament are that stupid, starting from the top of government down. But the same, I think, is true in many western countries.
DaveS
I've ebbed and flowed on that, regarding them as too gullible, naively credulous, or wickedly machiavellian. I still dont know, but have it first hand from a scientist councillor, when challenging an MP that there is no solid evidence for AGW, replied 'I know, but its most convenient'.
Possibly O/T, so apologies Bish (Sometimes you feel the need to return home and get validation :))
Has anyone experience of posting on 'Deltoids' blog?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/judith_curry_and_the_hockey_st.php
A captcha? When did that start?
Pharos
In a calmer state of mind, I agree that dismissing the attitude of MPs on this issue as simply being down to stupidity is probably wide of the mark (although it may well be true in some cases). It's worse than that. The MP's comment that you report is consistent with the absolute determination on the government's part to press the case for catastrophic AGW; doing so empowers them to act tough and be seen to be doing something for that noblest of causes, saving the planet. Which, as previously said, is worse than simple stupidity.
DrCrinum,
Goebbels quote mentions "big enough." If the topic drift can be forgiven, an effective sale of a lie requires that it be a whopper, not any everyday thing.
This is likely true because in order to became an appeal to faith, "believe us because we say it," there cannot be any readily accessible (easily accessed?) rational basis - emphasize "readily available."
The bigger the lie, the less the connection with observable reality.
This might explain why so many of the doubters, but not all, Peter W. and me for example, have higher educations which give them access to rational bases. They do have access to observations of reality.
One would think that the promoters of CAGW would worry about this. But maybe they aren't aware of it.
[snip - this is for comments, not essays.]