Monday
Jun252012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Maddox prize
Jun 25, 2012 Climate: other Roger Pielke Jr notes the advent of the Maddox Prize, named after the great editor of Nature magazine.
The John Maddox Prize will reward an individual who has promoted sound science and evidence on a matter of public interest. Its emphasis is on those who have faced difficulty or hostility in doing so.
Nominations of people at an early stage in their careers are particularly welcomed.
The prize is open to nominations for any kind of public activity, including all forms of writing, speaking and public engagement, in any of the following areas:The prize: £2000. An announcement of the winner will be published in Nature.
- Addressing misleading information about scientific or medical issues in any forum.
- Bringing sound evidence to bear in a public or policy debate.
- Helping people to make sense of a complex scientific issue.
Sir John Maddox, whose name this prize commemorates, was a passionate and tireless champion and defender of science, engaging with difficult debates and inspiring others to do the same. As a writer and editor, he changed attitudes and perceptions, and strove for better understanding and appreciation of science throughout his long working life.
I'm sure we can all think of at least one suitable candidate.
Reader Comments (100)
I think Tasmin Edwards is an excellent choice.
Sorry but I'd be loath to nominate anyone who had signed Julia Slingo's petition, which in a speedy response to Climategate stated that
"We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that Warming of the climate system is unequivocal and that Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
Perhaps Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts, as signators to that petition, could confirm whether they had actually read the Climategate mails before signing and in anyway now regret appending their signature to it.
Tamsin
No, that wasn't me. Place is full of Mikes, didn't you know? Worse than the inside of a recording studio.
Personally I think you fit the bill rather well though I have a suspicion that this bright idea — like so much Nature stuff — comes dragging a massive agenda behind it.
Worth noting that although Nature is a participant, the prize is actually being offered by Sense about science. http://www.senseaboutscience.org/
I don't know much about them beyond what is on their website, but they don't appear to be the 'usual suspects'. I would also have thought that the prize value is not insignificant, particularly since it's not necessarily a well funded group. There is a value to recognition beyond lucre.
Anthony Watts
Thanks timg56 :)
Ah, more Googling of me... I had read at least some of the emails, yes. I think I do still agree with the statements you quote. It's not as if they address aspects of, for example, FOI or data in it. But I don't know for sure if I would sign a petition again. I'm not sure they are useful - I recently declined to answer a survey sent to climate scientists, for example.
Interested to hear Richard's thoughts - he usually thinks quite clearly about such things...
Thanks Marion! The signatories of Julia Slingo's petition were apparently not interested in discussing the content of the leaked emails. For shame!
For a few seconds I though things were really going down hill................
As one ages the mind slows a little and I got the names Maddox and Madoff in the same sentance.....
Maybe there should be a Madoff prize also...... the list of contenders would be quite long...........
Hi Marion
I don't for one minute regret signing that petition, as the science still supports the statements in it, ie: that waming is happening, and most of the recent warming is probably human-caused.
When I signed it I had not read all the Climategate emails, but had read the ones which have now become the most infamous. I have since read more of them.
Although they clearly revealed bad attitudes, none of the emails affected my view of the scientific validity statements in the petition, and neither has a more in-depth and extensive reading since then. The evidence goes far beyond what was discussed in the emails. I can (and do) read the wider scientific literature for myself, and discuss things with colleagues at seminars, conferences and in normal day-to-day work.
Moreoever, as discussed here on Bishop Hill a month ago, the main issues in Climategate concerned the MBH hockey-stick which was already nearly 10 years old by then and not in the slightest bit needed to support the first statement that global temperatures had warmed in the 20th Century (that question is answered by instrumental data, not proxies).
In its time, the hockey stick was of course of relevance to the issue covered in the second statement, ie: the causes of the observed warming, but even so, by 2009 it had been superceded by more recent (and better) palaeoclimate reconstructions. Moreover, whether the recent warming is "unusual" compared to the last millennium or not is merely one piece in the jigsaw.
So while the IPCC did flash the hockey stick around in the TAR in 2001 and make a big deal of it, more than was probably justified, by 2009 it had become largely irrelevant to the question of human influence on climate. The statement that "most of the warming is very likely human-caused" is supported by a much wider body of science.
However, the point of the petition was this: although the content of the Climategate emails did not bring into question the reality of a warming world and the probability of a human influence, the emails were being presented as calling those things into question. Despite the science being available for anyone to read if they wanted, the world doesn't work like that - there was a need for a clear statement that the community stood by those two key conclusions, on the basis of the wider science.
Please note that the statement says nothing about "catastrophic warming" or any need to "act now" or anything like that - it simply focusses on the issues of the existence and probable cause of the warming, not it's future magnitude, impacts or wider implications.
Cheers
Richard
Thanks to both Tamsin and Richard for responding, kudos to both for doing so.
However I am more than a little concerned that you both feel able to vouch for the 'professional integrity' of 'thousands of scientists across the world' and 'That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method' and still have no regrets for doing so, particularly in the light of what the Climategate mails exposed.
After all wasn't this what Climategate was really all about.
Hi Marion
I can see why you are concerned if your only source of information is the Climategate emails.
All I can offer in response is my personal experience. Having worked in climate science for nearly 20 years, I have worked with a very large number of other climate scientists both in the UK and abroad, have published about 70 peer-reviewed papers and reviewed many others myself, and from what I have seen in all this I remain confident of the professional integrity of myself and my colleagues, and of the peer-review and traceability of the science.
Some of the things written in the Climategate emails were stupid, arrogant and wrong. However, on the basis of my own experience, I do not believe they are representative of the climate science community as a whole. You can choose to believe me on this or not, but this is why I stand by the Met Office statement.
Cheers
Richard
The addendum at the end referencing early-in-career nominees tends to disqualify my own preference, Dr. Richard Lindzen, as well as the eminently deserving Steve McIntyre. I really don't know of anyone very early in their careers who could also have faced a whole lot of hostility. Squeaky wheels don't get greased in this line of work -- they get the shaft!
Thanks to Richard Betts for the clearest statement yet of the climate science community’s political position on Climategate.
As with all such defences, it claims to want to separate the question of the content of the emails from the interpretation, while in fact eliding the two. The defence of the science was naturally interpreted as a defence of the scientists. The word “splicing” comes to mind.He makes it clear that the Slingo petition was a response to a perceived misinterpretation of the content of the emails
In fact, there were few claims that the science had been disproved. No-one said: “this shows that the science was wrong”. The question raised was rather “Can you trust people who talk and act like this?” Remember Mann getting Jones into an American scientific association by deliberatedly and fraudulently counting in papers written by another Jones, in exchange for Jones getting him into a British Association? Where was the petition signed by scientists saying that this, and hundreds of similar examples of bad behaviour, was wrong? Where, apart from on the sceptical blogs, has the question even been discussed?
Betts responds at 1AM saying that the content of the emails was “stupid, arrogant and wrong”. This is brave of him. In a normal world, such a statement would make headlines on every newspaper’s environment page. It won’t, and the fact that it won’t is a sign of how far we have to go before serious discussion of the state of climate science can begin.
A petition, a simple letter to a newspaper, making this point, and signed by Betts’ colleagues, would silence some of the cynicism surrounding climate studies. The fact that it didn’t happen did more damage to the reputation of science among informed members of the public than any number of inaccurate weather forecasts.
Re: Jun 27, 2012 at 1:00 AM | Richard Betts
"All I can offer in response is my personal experience. Having worked in climate science for nearly 20 years, I have worked with a very large number of other climate scientists both in the UK and abroad, have published about 70 peer-reviewed papers and reviewed many others myself, and from what I have seen in all this I remain confident of the professional integrity of myself and my colleagues, and of the peer-review and traceability of the science."
Sorry, Richard, but 'appeal to authority' really doesn't cut it for me, especially when we are bombarded with evidence to the contrary on almost a daily basis. One only has to read the many excellent posts on WUWT or Climate Audit (tell me, is that what led you to pose the question to Steve McIntyre of whether or not he was a 'gratuitous troublemaker'?)
'Traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method' Richard, really!, Forest2006 and Gergis2012 spring to mind particularly this latter when did you not vouch for the 'professional integrity' of David Karoly, perhaps you will forgive me for reproducing my response to this from an earlier thread -
.....................................................
"As for Richard Betts claim
""I know David Karoly and am confident he'll help ensure that a good job is done. "
it does rather depend on what he considers to be a 'good job' !
As I've said David Karoly's critique of Bob Carter's book "Climate: The Counter Consensus" was nothing short of disgraceful. To my mind his misrepresentation of his colleague's book should come under academic misconduct.
This for example -
"Lets fall through a rabbit hole and enter a different world: the “Carter reality”. In that world, it is OK to select any evidence that supports your ideas and ignore all other evidence....
In the Carter reality, “there has been no net warming between 1958 and 2005.“ Of course, in the real world, there is no basis for this statement from scientific analysis of observational data. The decade of the 2000s was warmer than the 1990s, which was warmer than the 1980s, which was warmer than the 1970s, which was warmer than the 1960s.
So where does Carter’s statement come from? In the Carter reality, he finds a hot year early in the period and a cold year much later, and says there’s been no warming. This would be like saying that winter is not colder than summer because a very hot day in winter might happen to have much the same temperature as a very cold day in summer, ignoring all the other days."
http://theconversation.edu.au/bob-carters-climate-counter-consensus-is-an-alternate-reality-1553
This sort of thing is lapped up by the non-critical AGW supporters, who pay undeserved homage to 'voices from authority' but it takes us sceptics to pursue the actual reality -
The term "no net warming between 1958 and 2005" comes from a Weather Balloon graph on p.61 of Carter's book entitled "Lower atmosphere mean global temperature radiosonde record HadAT2 (from Thorne et al., 2005)
.
The caption reads -
"Fig. 11a Estimated lower atmosphere global temperature recors since 1958, based on measurements from weather balloon. Note the presence of (i) cooling from 1958 to 1977; (ii) warming, mostly as a step in 1977, frin 1977-2005; and (iii) no net warming between 1958 and 2005. Over the same time period there has been an 18% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Black dots denote times at which the temperature falls upon the zero anomaly line, ie. no net change has occurred between them."
And Carter makes it quite clear in the text that the temperature records from weather balloons "whilst highly accurate, are available only since 1958 (nearly two climate data points"
P. 59 Climate the Counter Consensus by Bob Carter.
Yet Karoly tries to pass this off as
"So where does Carter’s statement come from? In the Carter reality, he finds a hot year early in the period and a cold year much later, and says there’s been no warming. This would be like saying that winter is not colder than summer because a very hot day in winter might happen to have much the same temperature as a very cold day in summer, ignoring all the other days"
It's quite apparent to me which author provides the greater accuracy so it's interesting that Richard Betts is confident that Karoly will "help ensure that a good job is done" !!! "
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/12/science-by-lucia-cartoon-by-josh-173.html#comments
...................................
Where was Karoly's 'professional integrity' in this absurd portrayal of Bob Carter's book.
Or for that matter Peter Gleick's review of Donna Laframboise's book, or indeed on his behaviour in the Heartland incident.
And that others 'personal experience' of the 'professional integrity' of their climate science colleagues differ very much from your own, one only has to read the resignation letter from the IPCC process of Chris Landsea to realise that this is so.
There are numerous other such examples but perhaps, Richard, you would prefer to provide a link to the empirical evidence to support the statement that
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"
from those scientists who are 'more representative of the climate science community as a whole' .
It is a pity that, for example, Nature or the(/"their") "scientific community" seems not to be really interested at all in trying to clarify what is discussed by many interested persons (i.e. by "other" scientists here and elsewhere or by parts of the public in general) (see for instance some of my points on May 26, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Commenter September 2011) with regard to "(climate) science".
It would be a good sign for sciences if someone wins this prize who recommends not to believe/trust in customarily "peer review" and/but who is reinforcing traceability of science and scientific diversity in the end.
Geoff is absolutely right, Richard.
Your defence of the Slingo letter sounds desperate and disingenuous.
The people, who you admit "revealed bad attitudes" in the Climategate emails, weren't a few junior bit players on the fringes of climate science - they were the core "team" who control the presentation and direction of it.
As so often in climate science, you're trying to dilute specific evidence of malpractice with vague generalities to the effect of ... "you may have proved that this evidence is wrong/exaggerated/dishonest...... but we have vast amounts of other evidence from countless numbers of other scientists which renders your finding irrelevant".
The sad fact is that, when the limited resources available to the sceptic community are brought to bear on any specific piece of climate science evidence, something is usually found wanting - as in the curious case of the missing Forest data this week.
I know Julia Slingo is your boss and you probably had little choice but to sign her letter, but your credibility would be better served by keeping quiet about it - rather than resorting to bluster.
Richard Betts wrote:
quote
So while the IPCC did flash the hockey stick around in the TAR in 2001 and make a big deal of it, more than was probably justified, by 2009 it had become largely irrelevant to the question of human influence on climate.
unquote
Dr Betts, here you splice two familiar memes: 'the science has moved on' and 'it doesn't matter anyway'. We've seen it before, this refusal to stand by previously 'robust' results.
Oddly enough we probably agree about much of the 20th century warming being anthropogenic. However, my guess is that only a small part was caused by rising CO2 levels. The fingerprint of warming does not seem to match the theory. Has anyone looked at raising sea temps (there's sure to be a knob) and then watching the warming signature from that? Lower albedo by reducing oceanic stratocu and see if you better match the patterns of observed warmings. Palle/ gives some parameters worth exploring. But I digress.
Good science would not need defending in the way that e.g. Real Climate goes about it. Good science would not be pursued by the methods revealed in the ClimateGate emails -- remember the redefining of peer review? And good science does not need the manipulations we are about to see performed on Gergis et al in order to get it into AR5.
JF
I expect Richard is away at his totally unbiased open-minded discussion on climate communication. Don't let's pile on. Until he gets back.
Re: Jun 27, 2012 at 7:34 AM | geoffchambers
"The question raised was rather “Can you trust people who talk and act like this?”
Quite so, to me Climategate was far more about the integrity of the 'scientists' concerned as was the Slingo petition in response.
After all if one didn't believe in their 'professional integrity' one might suppose that they might cherrypick data, use inappropriate data, use inappropriate statistical methods to exaggerate results, splice different sets of data together whilst denying they were doing so, delete adverse data, and fail to provide adequate data and methodology to ensure the traceability of their results and adherence to the scientific method!
Which would never do in real science now would it!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/16/the-behind-the-scenes-bumbling-of-the-hockey-stick/
http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/
Re Maddox and Sheldrake: I wonder whart Maddox would have made of 'teleconnections'?
JF
The Sligo petition did nothing to change my opinion of climate science. I'd already figured out that if the existence of "consensus" of scientists was needed as evidence of CAGW, the scientific evidence must be unconvincing. I then started looking into it for myself and quite soon concluded that the evidence really was unconvincing. A petition of research students, lecturers and others involved in climate research was certainly not going to change my view.
However, it did induce me to form an opinion of the Met Office, which until then I had regarded as simply a generator of weather forecasts.
The message came through loud and clear that the Met Office stood solidly behind Jones, Mann, and the other rascals in the emails and endorsed their behaviour - or at very least, saw no reason to censure it. If the Met Office at topmost level had this attitude to wrongdoing by leading climate scientists, so far as I was concerned, it had marked itself, indelibly and with great clarity, as an organisation that cannot be trusted.
Lots of comments on the petition, and oddly, on this thread Foxgoose is advising me to keep quiet while on the Gergis thread he is telling me off for not responding!
Thanks for your explanations of your position, which is useful to see. It seems that folks here do not think the emails were particularly relevant to the actual scientific issues of the existence and causes of warming, so you think the petition was wrongly focussed. However, out in the media the emails did seem to be thought of as critical to those aspects of the science (e.g.: here and here just to show two examples that I very quickly found by googling "Climategate"). It was this kind of thing that prompted the view that a statement on those aspects of the science.
Martin A, please note (again!) that the statement said nothing about "catastrophic", so it was only about AGW not CAGW.
I take your points that the statement said nothing about the behaviour of the individuals involved in the emails, which is why several of you do not find it very satisfactory on the issue of integrity. I guess the key point here is that serious allegations were being made and it was simply not appropriate for one organisation to comment on the behaviour of employees of another organisation, especially if formal investigations were then going to take place. So, you should not be surprised that no comment was made.
I still feel entitled to rely on my own reading of the literature and other personal experience in making my personal decisions to sign the petition and subsequently stand by it (which I still do). This is not argument from authority, it is simply personal experience. If you don't accept my reasons, well, fine, that's up to you, but the original question from Marion was "do I regret signing it" and my answer is still "no".
But thanks for putting your points across, I think I understand your views better now. Hopefully you also understand mine, even if you don't agree.
Cheers
Richard
Hi Richard,
Richard - I did not say that the petition said anything about CAGW. But I can see that, since I said a petition would not change my mind about CAGW, you might think that I implied it did mention CAGW.
But whether or not it mentioned CAGW, its message was that we should accept what the Met Office told us climate science said, without qualification.
At that time, the Met Office was certainly pushing CAGW. [I am assuming CAGW covers "dangerous" / "severe" AGW.] About two weeks earlier, the Met Office, also under Julia Sligo's name, issued a statement along with two other bodies:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2009/climate-science-statement
[A very careful reader might notice that "dangerous climate change" in the first line becomes "climate change" a few lines later. Most readers would not notice the change and assume we are still talking about dangerous climate change. Such microsurgically performed wordsmithing comes across as deceitful.]
[Here again we have some extremely carefully micro-crafted wording. Any but the most careful of readers would take this to mean, from what they had read a few lines earlier, that "Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement" about "the call for action now". It's deceit by wordsmithing.]
A petition that says we can believe what climate scientists tell us is a petition that supports this stuff too.
Richard Betts, you write above:
*Sigh* (('The "Cause"', as some say, and, for a moment, even also the plural) "causes", aside:)
While we are at it: Understandably enough, it seems that you haven't understood one of my points above at 9:36 AM -- or you didn't note it or didn't take it serious. I am a bit glad that I apparently do not belong to "that folks" you refer to. I am quite sure you mean the so-called Global Warming. If so, I argue roughly that the evidence for the claim of an odd (GHG-induced and_even/or man-made) "global" surface temperature is questionable for various reasons (for example for technical, methodical and physical reasons).
Firstly, before we can go into detail, a prize question -- that, at least to me, seems relevant: Is it possible to clear up one of my doubts regarding 'Climategate I', in particular w.r.t. one of Phil Jones' CRU-emails (11 Mar 2003 at 08:49 to R. Bradley, M. Hughes, S. Rutherford, M. E. Mann, T. Crowley and cc'ed to others)?:
It is nearly certain that the winner will be a person that John Maddox would have little use for.
Jun 27, 2012 at 11:23 PM | Richard Betts
Except that:
a) The Statement made absolutely no mention of these "serious allegations"
b) The last time we went around this particular mulberry bush, your position was somewhat different:
As several of us observed, the "credibility of the science" is affected by the "reputation of the scientists" - of which mention was conspicuously absent in the statement.
And, as I recall, your explanation - last time around - was something along the lines of "well, there was no need to mention the scientists because everyone knew what it was all about". In fact your precise words were [same discussion, page 4, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:48 PM]:
Let's set aside, for the moment, the now known serious deficiencies in these so-called "investigations". Your new, improved, explanation, i.e. that it was "not appropriate to comment ... especially if formal investigations were then going to take place" does not quite tally with what actually transpired during the flurry of well-orchestrated publicity surrounding the release of the Statement..
As I had noted Sep 29, 2011 at 12:16 AM:
"There's a saying that goes, 'silence is acquiescence' ... 1700 signatories were deafeningly silent on the matter of self-inflicted damage to the reputation of the scientists involved, and the extent to which their words and actions had the potential to undermine public trust in the science of others - and in the IPCC."
[I had excerpted from Webster's article in the Times:]
And as I further observed:
"[This statement] was so very "carefully worded" that it studiously avoided claiming that any climate scientist was even deserving of "reproach".
And Hirst and Slingo appear to have filled this (conveniently?!) silent vaccuum by, well, blaming the skeptics rather than the responsible climate scientists.
So my question to you, Richard ...If you now consider that it would have been "inappropriate" to criticize the scientists and institutions involved [none of whom appear to have signed this "petition", btw], in light of "formal investigations that were to take place", why was it "appropriate" for Slingo and Hirst to:
a) Frame the Statement/petition as a "defense" of the profession against an alleged (and far from proven!) "unprecedented attack ..."?
b) Blame the skeptics rather than those whose own words and actions had brought both the profession and the "science of climate change" into disrepute?
Marion:
"Where was Karoly's 'professional integrity' in this absurd portrayal of Bob Carter's book."
Karoly's clear misrepresentation of Carter's book (thanks for bringing that up again, Marion) reminds me of a Climategate2 email by Stephen Schneider that Ross McKitrick brought up in Climate Audit.
Unlike Karoly, who demonstrated his lack of professional integrity in public, Schneider shared his with the Team. Ross McKitrick's "A Somewhat Late Response to Schneider" should be read again in full:
Note again to whom Schneider cc'd the email: "... Mann, Hegerl, Overpeck, Briffa, Hughes, MacCracken, Jones, Bradley, Santer, Thompson, Mosley-Thompson, Crowley, Trenberth, Osborn, Wigley and a couple others".
It isn't just Karoly that lacks professional integrity; the best and the brightest of the climate science community are no better.
Linah Ababneh -- she got her PhD in spite of doing good science in very adverse circumstances. Even her hedging or skirting round certain areas was done without compromising her results too much. A worthy recipient.
See: http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/16/the-ababneh-thesis/
JF
Jun 28, 2012 at 6:27 AM sHx
Has any climate scientist ever suffered any censure from their "peers"?
What, if anything, does this tell us about the trust we can have in its practitioners? And the value of "peer review" as confirmation of the trustworthiness of a climate science paper?
Hi Hilary
Much as I enjoy talking to you, I really think it's just going to waste our time agonising over the nuances of why decision to sign the statement :-)
The storm in the media, saying things like "the myth of AGW", was perceived as being major, unjustified criticism of our profession as a whole. Yes it was precipitated by the thoughtless actions of some of our number, but it seemed it was being used to get at all of us, and also to undermine the truth of what the science says. The most important thing was to make it clear that the statements being against climate science as a whole were wildly out of proportion.
As you say, we've been here before and we are not going to get anywhere by repeatedly going over old ground. I signed the statement, still stand by it, and have explained why several times. If you disagree with my reasons, fine, but there's little to be gained by me giving further, ever-more-detailed explanations. I'm very sorry but I am no longer going to be able to give this topic of conversation a very high priority! I've already spent time answering you here when I could have been answering other point on the Gergis thread, and now I've run out of time for the moment.
All the best
Richard
Should there not be an Alternative Prize, let's call it the 'Mann Prize' for:
a. Creating misleading information about scientific or medical issues.
b. Bringing fraudulent evidence to bear in a public or policy debate.
c. Obfuscating a complex scientific issue.
It could qualify for a prize of, say, £0.02. Plenty of possible nominees come to mind but I think Mann and Gore might share the first award.
Steve - better to avoid naming a particular individual.
Ah Richard Betts, impossible to dislike even though it's easy not to accept your interpretation of the issues. Like the affable bloke down the pub who's fond of regaling everyone with his idiosyncratic view of the world, leading to wry smiles and chuckles all around, and leaving everyone in a good mood.
Somehow this thread seems to have been sidetracked from its original purpose. Richard, I hope that at least you can acknowledge that Steve McIntyre is the epitome of scientific integrity and probity, and that the objectivity he represents is the only honorable way forward in climate science. Your endorsement of Steve would really help to get things back on track. It would be great to see a paper co-authored by McIntyre, Betts, McKitrick & Curry!
There are content as well as integrity aspects to Climategate, though. Surely the Harry_ Read_ Me file raised - ahem - questions about the accuracy and quality of 'the science' on which so many trustingly rely?
"getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.
I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight."
So, to bring the thread back on topic - perhaps the anonymous leaker should get the award? After all, he/she definitely communicated effectively to the public while addressing misleading information about a science issue!
Richard Betts, you write above (8:59 AM):
You sound authoritative now, don't you?
For example Frank Turek examines in an videotaped interview with H.C. Felder (21.05.2012):
Climategate, lying and ethics is mentioned in that video at 6:30min! ("dramatic increase in media statements that were authoritative" at 22:00min) (See also that a third of the researchers who were surveyed for a study admitted that they were fudging data, either to get the results they wanted or to keep their jobs or to get grant money or just to get what they were looking for: "Science Doesn’t Say Anything– Scientists Do"!)Harry Collins wrote in an essay in Nature (4 March 2009):
and the essay suggests that 'Science' lies in the intersection of 'Truth' and 'Scepticism'.PS: Do I get an answer to my question above (see 4:06 AM)?
Let's try rephrasing Jonathan's original question again, unambiguously:
Richard, would you agree that Steve McIntyre would be a worthy recipient of this prize?
Jun 28, 2012 at 8:59 AM | Richard Betts
Indeed, you did spend time on a 226 word post answering a "question" I did not ask i.e. in your words, "nuances of why decision to sign the statement" and points I did not make - while ignoring those I did.
My two questions - which derived from what you had claimed was "the key point" - would have required far less than 226 words. Each could have been answered with "Yes", "No" or "I cannot comment".
If I didn't know better, I'd be inclined to think that you were using selected observations on the issues surrounding this 2009 Statement as a convenient diversion to avoid answering the question that was put to you by Jonathan at the top of this thread - and which has now been unambiguously rephrased by Paul Matthews.
I hope you will find time to answer Paul's question. And I also look forward to seeing your response to the substantive points that have been made on the Gergis thread ... when you have time, of course:-)
FOIA.
Richard,
Again I need to remind you of the actual wording of the petition which you signed.
"The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method."
Forgive my surprise that you can feel able to endorse that the highest levels of professional integrity have been adhered to 'by many thousands of scientists across the world' or that those papers provided 'traceabilty of the evidence and support for the scientific method' without your having participated in the actual papers to witness it!
It is also particularly noticeable that those papers most used to promote the anthropogenic global warming theory are those where it is patently obvious that the 'scientific method' has NOT been followed.
To quote from Wikipedia the Scientific Method is where
"Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance)."
Full disclosure has simply NOT been practised and it is simply untrue to declare that it has.
An appropriate response to this would be to provide links to even just one of those papers that underpin the 'unequivocal' 'observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities' and 'and that Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations' where of course the scientific method HAS been followed. Please provide the empirical evidence for this so that we can move on.
I'm sure that if, as you have claimed, this evidence is so 'deep and extensive' you will be able to provide such else one can only be disappointed that you view your own 'professional integrity' with such little regard!
(Nor have you responded to my observations on David Karoly. Are you still prepared to promote him as someone who will "help ensure that a good job is done" despite his disgracefully misleading article on Professor Bob Carter's book!)
While I would not decry Richard's reluctance to go any further out on the limb, it would have been nice to see any effort at all on the part of the climate establishment to call out the bad practice and the cheats and to disassociate themsaelves from it and them. Unfortunately the only disassociation is from the truth.
That is why the letter is bad and the signatories are all complicit. I'm sure that the voluntary signing was akin to a sergeant-major asking for volunteers for a messy job. One wonders when that sort of covering-up ever works, or is ever for the good. That idea of not wanting to discredit the true message is soooo lame.
Now, where is my best evidence?
Richard Betts
Climategate showed that numerous climate leading science lights are deeply corrupt and politicised, ie have been sabotaging the science process for other ends. Absolutely no action has been taken against them for this, and very little real criticism from the establishment has even been forthcoming.
This deafening silence over corruption can mean only one thing - tacit approval. Which means corruption and the theory of C/AGW are inextricably linked. The only way this link can be is broken, is if the likes of Mann and Jones are sacked or disciplined in some other way. No amount of trying to ignore the issue is going to make it go away.
So why don't honest,C/AGW-believing scientists like yourself now start a new petition for some serious disciplining to start happening, and so start the long-awaited cleanup of climate science ? This would go a long way to heading off scepticism.
Jun 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM | Marion
Sorry, Marion, but much as I would prefer to predict/conclude otherwise ... considering many of his past responses (to me and others) I would not be surprised if - when RB finds time to respond to this well-argued post of yours - he chooses to respond in a manner that is flippantly - and disappointingly diversionary and/or - non-responsive to the valid points you have raised.
The quality of the opposition one sees here suggests a sure fire winner :
the Editor of Nature.
Russell
The quality of trolls around 'skeptic' sites is so low one might assume the CAGWarmists have no case at all.
I will avoid such over-generalization and simply infer that only the most pathetic creatures bother with zero-content snide trolling remarks.
When you have an intelligent and informed contribution to make I'm confident that many here will be eager to discuss.....
So... having returned from several days spent travelling with no access to the internet why does it not surprise me that there has been no substantive response from Richard Betts?
Is this really your best effort Richard -
"All I can offer in response is my personal experience. Having worked in climate science for nearly 20 years, I have worked with a very large number of other climate scientists both in the UK and abroad, have published about 70 peer-reviewed papers and reviewed many others myself, and from what I have seen in all this I remain confident of the professional integrity of myself and my colleagues, and of the peer-review and traceability of the science"
After all, even Myles Allen in the post you linked to didn't stoop to this - see for example his closing comment (May 31, 2012 at 12:47 PM | Myles Allen ) -
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/23/myles-allen-on-climategate.html?currentPage=2#comments
" “Trust me, I’m a climate scientist” is not a phrase I have ever used, and I hope I never will. ...
The only basis of trust in science is the reproducibility of results. This is why availability of data and model source code is so important"
Well .... would you agree with Myles Allen that the 'only basis of trust in science is the reproducibilty of results' which is 'why availabliltiy of data and model source code is so important'.
I know I certainly do.
And isn't this exactly the problem with Climate Science. There has for far too long been a reliance on the professional integrity of the 'scientists' concerned (undeserved in my opinion, after all one of the memes revealed by Climategate was the propensity of the 'team' for recommending each other for prizes and awards, even one that has been demonstrated on this very thread by yourself and Tamsin!) so that they weren't made to archive their data and methodology.
After all without their professional integrity to guide them they will show no constraint in cherrypicking data, using inappropriate data, using inappropriate statistical methods to exaggerate results, splicing different sets of data together whilst denying they are doing so, deleting adverse data, and failing to provide adequate data and methodology to ensure the traceability of their results and adherence to the scientific method. And because the data and methodology has NOT been archived others simply cannot reproduce their results.
(So shame on you Dr Betts for trying to misdirect this thread by claiming -
"It seems that folks here do not think the emails were particularly relevant to the actual scientific issues of the existence and causes of warming, so you think the petition was wrongly focussed"
)
The emails were extremely 'relevant' to the scientific issues!
For without the 'professional integrity' of the scientists and the reproducibilty of their results their science crumbles into NOTHING!!!
And isn't this exactly the problem that Steve McIntrye continues to highlight in recent posts -
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/28/boultons-nature-editorial/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/01/mrs-lonnie-serial-non-archiver/
So wouldn't you (as peer reviewed, and peer reviewer yourself of multiple papers) support the solution he has recommended
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/28/false-positives/
So how about it Richard?
Is Steve McIntrye, in your opinion, a 'gratuitous troublemaker' or rather a worthy nominee to the Maddox award?
Re: Jun 30, 2012 at 9:51 AM | Hilary Ostrov
" I would not be surprised if ...he [Richard Betts] chooses to respond in a manner that is flippantly - and disappointingly diversionary"
Unfortunately, Hilary, I'm inclined to agree with you.
Sigh... Such is always the way with Climate 'Science'.
Hello - I didn't recommend myself for the award - I pointed out that someone else had....
Tamsin
Re: Jul 3, 2012 at 5:31 PM | Tamsin Edwards
Nor did I claim that you had, Tamsin, you should read my posts more carefully - my actual words were
'recommending each other for prizes and awards' !
Ah yes, sorry.
By the way, I'm completely in favour of open code and data - I changed from proprietary software (e.g. IDL) to free (e.g. R, cdo), often tweet about it (articles on open access, Figshare), and plan to put my own code and data online for my own first author papers just as soon as I finish and submit them (or more likely once they're accepted)...
Tamsin
Re: Jul 3, 2012 at 5:51 PM | Tamsin Edwards
Certainly the way forward !
Can I recommend this article, Tamsin, both it and the comments section make for very interesting reading on the quality of climate model software.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/04/15/assessing-climate-model-software-quality/
Oh, and this one -
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/06/13/junk-science-week-climate-models-fail-reality-test/
Interesting to contrast this latter with Climate scientists perceptions of climate models
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/GKSS_2010_9.CLISCI.pdf
Perhaps you will reconsider your response to requests for completing climate science surveys, I'm sure that you will agree they can be very revealing if the questions posed are detailed enough. This particular survey was conducted in 2008 when the reputation of the IPCC was at its peak and before the Climategate mail scandal had hit - very interesting to see the results of a similar survey conducted after Climategates 1 & 2, as well as of course Donna Laframboise's book on the IPCC and our host's book the Hockey Stick Illusion!