[Vision2020] 949 Responses to “Whatevergate”
Ted Moffett
starbliss at gmail.com
Sat Mar 6 16:48:03 PST 2010
One minute of research reveals how questionable is the independence and the
transparency of the authorship of the "memorandum" you submitted to
Vision2020 from the Institute of Physics, regarding what they allege is
revealed in the criminally hacked and possibly inaccurate emails from the
Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University. Odd that you find these
criminally hacked emails to be so compelling when those who hacked them
remain hiding... Talk about a lack of transparency.
I would not describe this source you offered, assuming the United Kingdom's
Guardian article quoted below on this subject is accurate, as "independent,"
but rather involving someone with a conflict of interest given their
business connections to fossil fuel related corporations. And the Institute
of Physics is refusing to name individuals who were involved in this
*Memorandum
submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39).* They therefore may be less
transparent than the Climatic Research Unit, as the Guardian article
implies:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/05/climate-emails-institute-of-physics-submission
A few quotes from the article at the Guardian website above:
The Guardian has established that the institute prepared its evidence, which
was highly critical of the CRU scientists, after inviting views from Peter
Gill, an IOP official who is head of a company in Surrey called Crestport
Services.
According to Gill<http://www.iop.org/activity/groups/subject/Energy/Newsletter/file_6845.pdf>,
Crestport offers "consultancy and management support services … particularly
within the energy and energy intensive industries worldwide", and says that
it has worked with "oil and gas production companies including Shell,
British Gas, and Petroleum Development Oman".
--------------------
However the IOP would not reveal names because they would get "dragged into
a very public and highly politicised debate".
--------------------
The IOP added that the submission was approved by three members of its science
board <http://www.iop.org/aboutus/Governance/Science_Board/page_21340.html>,
but would not reveal their names. The Guardian contacted several members of
the board, including its chairman, Denis Weaire, a physicist at Trinity
College Dublin. All said that they had little direct role in the submission.
-------------------
Evan Harris, a member of the science and technology select committee, said:
"Members of the Institute of Physics … may be concerned that the IOP is not
as transparent as those it wishes to criticise."
----------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "Illegal" doesn't always equate to "immoral". All I did was copy it from a
> blog.
> To help you get another perspective on the emails, even though you do not
> require such a reminder, I submit the following memo submitted to UK's
> Parliament by the Institute of Physics:
>
>
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
>
> Memo text:
>
>
> *Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)*
>
>
>
>
>
> *The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the
> University of East Anglia*
>
>
>
> The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the
> practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide
> membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related
> science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the
> general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in
> scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.
>
>
>
> The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons
> Science and Technology Committee's inquiry, 'The disclosure of climate data
> from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia'.
>
>
>
> The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for
> evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute's Science Board,
> and its Energy Sub-group.
>
>
>
> * *
>
> *What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of
> scientific research?*
>
>
>
> 1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved
> to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the
> integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of
> the scientific method as practised in this context.
>
>
>
> 2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide /prima facie/*
> *evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable
> scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that
> scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to
> independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open
> exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance
> has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This
> extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with
> researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also
> involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.
>
>
>
> 3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different
> categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:
>
>
>
> · those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean
> surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
>
> · historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for
> example, tree-rings.
>
>
>
> 4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for
> the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published
> reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may
> be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used.
> Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different
> conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the
> (rejected) requests for further information.
>
>
>
> 5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the
> reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been
> represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used
> by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with
> contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
>
>
>
> 6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge
> displayed in the
>
> e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is
> vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to
> the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the
> peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and
> objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to
> bias or manipulation.
>
>
>
> 7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the
> verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals
> to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such
> appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the
> possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding
> newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the
> time of publication, would remove this possibility.
>
>
>
> 8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to
> provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific
> journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic
> data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from
> journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would
> be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through
> interpretive codes at various levels.
>
>
>
> 9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by
> experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is
> important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data
> and its provenance, together with* *the criteria used for, and effects of,
> any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any
> statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and
> replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be
> given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer
> modelling.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced
> on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?*
>
>
>
> 10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the
> allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of
> Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with
> researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the
> formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those
> scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is
> need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in
> this field.
>
>
>
> 11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to:
> ".../manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable
> scientific practice../." The term 'acceptable' is not defined and might
> better be replaced with 'objective'.
>
>
>
> 12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond
> reviewing the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been
> breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure
> from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the
> publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to
> override scientific objectivity.
>
>
>
> * *
>
> *How independent are the other two international data sets? *
>
>
>
> 13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are
> subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in
> judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different
> final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any
> communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing
> between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Institute of Physics
>
> February 2010
>
>
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>
>> Given you are posting criminally obtained text, allegedly authored by the
>> person you name, text that may have been somehow altered, I don't regard
>> your advice in this matter to have merit; nor do I require a reminder to
>> seek an independent source, on any subject.
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>> On 2/27/10, *Paul Rumelhart* <godshatter at yahoo.com <mailto:
>> godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Quoting an email from Michael Mann that was part of the hacked
>> emails that were leaked in "whatevergate":
>>
>> "Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC any
>> way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be
>> careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very
>> careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can.
>> On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post
>> replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact
>> you about whether or not you think they should be screened through
>> or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include."
>>
>> (RC above refers to realclimate.org <http://realclimate.org/>)
>>
>>
>> Gavin Schmidt was referenced in many of those emails. Of course
>> he's going to say that it was all a big pile of nothing.
>>
>> Perhaps you should look around for a more independent source, for
>> comparison's sake.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> Ted Moffett wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate/#more-2806
>>
>>
>> Whatevergate
>>
>> Filed under:
>>
>> * Communicating Climate
>> <
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/communicating-climate/
>> >
>>
>> * Reporting on climate
>> <
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/communicating-climate/reporting-on-climate/
>> >
>>
>> — gavin @ 16 February 2010
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/gavin-schmidt/
>> Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard
>> Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in
>> modeling past, present and future climate.
>> ---
>>
>> It won’t have escaped many of our readers’ notice that there
>> has been what can only be described as a media frenzy (mostly
>> in the UK) with regards to climate change in recent weeks. The
>> coverage has contained more bad reporting
>> <
>> http://climatesafety.org/swallowing-lies-how-the-denial-lobby-feeds-the-press/
>> >,
>> misrepresentation
>> <
>> http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_the_case_for_fraud.php>
>> and confusion
>> <
>> http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis.php
>> >
>> on the subject than we have seen in such a short time
>> anywhere. While the UK newspaper scene is uniquely competitive
>> (especially compared to the US with over half a dozen national
>> dailies selling in the same market), and historically there
>> have been equally frenzied bouts of mis-reporting in the past
>> on topics as diverse as pit bulls, vaccines and child
>> abductions, there is something new in this mess that is worth
>> discussing. And that has been a huge shift in the Overton
>> window for climate change.
>>
>> In any public discussion there are bounds which people who
>> want to be thought of as having respectable ideas tend to stay
>> between. This is most easily seen in health care debates. In
>> the US, promotion of a National Health Service as in the UK or
>> a single-payer system as in Canada is so far outside the
>> bounds of normal health care politics, that these options are
>> only ever brought up by ‘cranks’ (sigh). Meanwhile in the UK,
>> discussions of health care delivery solutions outside of the
>> NHS framework are never heard in the mainstream media. This
>> limit on scope of the public debate has been called the
>> Overton window <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window>.
>>
>> The window does not have to remain static. Pressure groups and
>> politicians can try and shift the bounds deliberately, or
>> sometimes they are shifted by events. That seems to have been
>> the case in the climate discussion. Prior to the email hack at
>> CRU there had long been a pretty widespread avoidance of
>> ‘global warming is a hoax’ proponents in serious discussions
>> on the subject. The sceptics that were interviewed tended to
>> be the slightly more sensible kind – people who did actually
>> realise that CO2 was a greenhouse gas for instance. But the GW
>> hoaxers were generally derided, or used as punchlines for
>> jokes. This is not because they didn’t exist and weren’t
>> continually making baseless accusations against scientists
>> (they did and they were), but rather that their claims were
>> self-evidently ridiculous and therefore not worth airing.
>>
>> However, since the emails were released, and despite the fact
>> that there is no evidence within them to support any of these
>> claims of fraud and fabrication, the UK media has opened
>> itself so wide to the spectrum of thought on climate that the
>> GW hoaxers have now suddenly find themselves well within the
>> mainstream. Nothing has changed the self-evidently
>> ridiculousness of their arguments, but their presence at the
>> media table has meant that the more reasonable critics seem
>> far more centrist than they did a few months ago.
>>
>> A few examples: Monckton being quoted as a ‘prominent climate
>> sceptic’ on the front page of the New York Times this week
>> <
>> http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/09/new-york-times-elisabeth-rosenthal-unbalanced-climate-coverage-ipcc-pachauri/
>> >
>> (Wow!); The Guardian digging up baseless fraud accusations
>> <
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/weather-stations-china>
>> against a scientist at SUNY that had already been investigated
>> and dismissed; The Sunday Times ignoring experts
>> <http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate.php>
>> telling them the IPCC was right in favor of the anti-IPCC meme
>> of the day; The Daily Mail making up quotes
>> <
>> http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php>
>> that fit their GW hoaxer narrative; The Daily Express
>> breathlessly proclaiming the whole thing a ‘climate con’
>> <
>> http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/154428/Global-Warming-What-a-climate-con-
>> >;
>> The Sunday Times (again) dredging up
>> <
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece>
>> unfounded accusations of corruption in the surface temperature
>> data sets. All of these stories are based on the worst kind of
>> oft-rebunked nonsense and they serve to make the more subtle
>> kind of scepticism pushed by Lomborg et al seem almost erudite.
>>
>> Perhaps this is driven by editors demanding that reporters
>> come up with something new (to them) that fits into an
>> anti-climate science theme that they are attempting to stoke.
>> Or perhaps it is driven by the journalists desperate to
>> maintain their scoop by pretending to their editors that this
>> nonsense hasn’t been debunked a hundred times already? Who
>> knows? All of these bad decisions made easier when all of the
>> actually sensible people, or people who know anything about
>> the subject at all, are being assailed on all sides, and
>> aren’t necessarily keen to find the time to explain, once
>> again, that yes, the world is warming.
>>
>> So far, so stupid. But even more concerning is the reaction
>> from outside the UK media bubble. Two relatively prominent and
>> respected US commentators – Curtis Brainard
>> <http://cjr.org/the_observatory/mia_on_the_ipcc.php?page=1> at
>> CJR and Tom Yulsman <http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2797> in
>> Colorado – have both bemoaned the fact that the US media
>> (unusually perhaps) has not followed pell-mell into the
>> fact-free abyss of their UK counterparts. Their point
>> apparently seems to be that since much news print is being
>> devoted to a story somewhere, then that story must be worth
>> following. Indeed, since the substance to any particularly
>> story is apparently proportional to the coverage, by not
>> following the UK bandwagon, US journalists are missing a big
>> story. Yulsman blames the lack of environmental beat reporters
>> for lack of coverage in the US, but since most of the damage
>> and bad reporting on this is from clueless and partisan news
>> desk reporters in the UK, I actually expect that it is the
>> environmental beat reporters prior experience with the forces
>> of disinformation that prevents the contagion crossing the
>> pond. To be sure, reporters should be able and willing (and
>> encouraged) to write stories about anything to do with climate
>> science and its institutions – but that kind of reporting is
>> something very different from regurgitating disinformation, or
>> repeating baseless accusations as fact.
>>
>> So what is likely to happen now? As the various panels and
>> reports on the CRU affair conclude, it is highly likely
>> (almost certain in fact) that no-one will conclude that there
>> has been any fraud, fabrication or scientific misconduct
>> (since there hasn’t been
>> <
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/
>> >).
>> Eventually, people will realise (again) that the GW hoaxers
>> are indeed cranks, and the mainstream window on their rants
>> will close. In the meantime, huge amounts of misinformation,
>> sprinkled liberally with plenty of disinformation, will be
>> spread and public understanding on the issue will likely
>> decline. As the history of the topic has shown, public
>> attention to climate change comes and goes and this is likely
>> to be seen as the latest bump on that ride.
>>
>> Eppure si riscalda
>> <http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif>.
>>
>> Comments (pop-up) (949)
>> <http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2806>
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving
>> the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100306/00b9a414/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list