The first (of three) inquiries on the CRU email affair has reported, and this thread is for discussions of the UK Parliamentary Select Committee report. The conclusions are not un-expected, but there is bound to something for everyone to chew on. Get gnawing!
p.s. there is a useful summary at DeSmogBlog.
re 141 &143: No, its you thats wrong > there was no reference to a graph actually. We were referring to colour-contour pictures and how accompanying commentary can often be misleading for all sides of the debate.
RE #134 & #80, Hi Philip. Yes, the same NEWSWEEK. But I guess I don’t want to be too harsh on them, even though they did have an article by Lindzen some 5-10 years back, and they’ve had a few denialist comments by their regulars. (I’ve been a subscriber for some 30 years.)
OTOH, in 1995 when I wrote a personal letter to the editor that science had reached 95% confidence on AGW, and that TIME had had a big article on AGW (saw it in a doctor’s office), and that future generations would look back on NEWSWEEK with utter disdain for not covering AGW (this was during the media’s “silent treatment” years), they did run a very good article on it with front page coverage. And they have had some good articles on AGW. They aren’t totally bought out by their devoil advertizers.
I hope this encourages the little people like myself to write letters. Now it’s so much easier with email….
re #134.
Just to round off your interesting observation about Newsweek, the cooling scare in the UK was run by Nigel Calder who created a sensational version of it called the Snowblitz. The difference between it and the fictional “Day after Tomorrow”, was that he persuaded TV, the BBC I think, to show his version as a documentary. Thirty years later, he appeared right near the start of the Great Global Warming Swindle with the statement “You are being told lies”. Later he exemplifed that, with his account of the history of the science which omitted about 140 years.
It seemed to have worked, I have spoken to a well educated person who defended the Swindle with the assertion : ” At least I should agree that Channel 4 was right about the cooling scare. She could remember it herself. Thats what the scientists were saying”.
“there was no reference to a graph actually. We were referring to colour-contour pictures ”
Graph. Graphic.
Join the dots.
#150 Completely fed up
I beg to differ. I have recently been working with climate data from 10 African countries on two different projects. Only one of them has continuous records of temperature and precipitation from stations other than for the main international airport – and some don’t even have that. In many cases this is a situation which has existed for 40 or more years. That we are unable to make accurate projections for these vulnerable countries for lack a few thousands of dollars worth of met equipment is, in my book, a scandal.
Ron sez:
I have an idea. Maybe we could use satellites to measure temps in the atmosphere and see if they give roughly the same picture as the ground station data. We’ll put it in orbit far away from the international space station so we won’t have to worry about any space island heat effect.
What do you think? Good idea?
Margaret wrote: “I would recommend that if you are wanting to be treated as serious scientists …”
If you are suggesting that the moderators of this site are NOT “serious scientists” then there is no reason to take anything YOU say seriously, because
(1) you very obviously don’t have the slightest clue what you are talking about;
(2) you are very obviously regurgitating talking points that have been spoon-fed to you (which you, as a “skeptic”, have of course unquestioningly accepted as the truth); and moreover
(3) you are very obviously engaging in the very sort of dishonest, malicious character assassination that you pretend to be concerned about.
The so-called “credibility gap” that you pretend to be concerned about has been manufactured by the bought-and-paid-for denialist propaganda industry, funded with many millions of dollars from ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, the American Petroleum Institute, and other corporate interests with trillions of dollars in profit at stake in perpetuating business-as-usual consumption of their products as long as possible.
And you assert that the fossil fuel industry’s funding of deliberate, elaborate deceit for the past generation should be ignored — because it isn’t proper to mention the funding source for “research”. The fossil fuel industry isn’t funding “research” on climate change — they are funding a campaign of deliberate lies. The fossil fuel industry’s bought-and-paid-for phony “conservative” think tanks don’t do “research” — they churn out pseudo-scientific, pseudo-ideological propaganda, for money.
I suggest you Google the term “concern troll”.
#32 Hunt, you may want to check this site out for a variety of climate info:
http://www.climate4you.com/
It so happens that the BBC Parliament TV channel broadcast a recording of the science and technology committee questioning Phil Jones, the UEA vice chancellor and others last night.
What was interesting was the Liberal Democratic representative on the panel appeared to have some science knowledge (medical?) and asked a ‘leading’ question that was clearly put forward to give some moral support to Phil Jones and his vice-chan boss. But they both failed to recognise that the Lib Dem was trying to help!
A point to be made is that the main antagonist on the panel was Graham Stringer, a Labour MP and a skeptic.
He has voted against or abstained from all the governments climate change/environmental bills.
After the announcement of the results, Mr Stringer was disappointed with the result and wanted more skeptic ‘scientists’ interrogating Phil Jones. But the fact is Mr Stringer is an ex-scientist, he worked in commercial chemistry, so he is quite capable of understanding the science himself. This suggests that he just wanted greater numbers of skeptics on the panel to swing the vote!
BTW, the Conservative rep on the panel and the one most likely to be skeptical based on party lines, was relatively neutral.
Also although Phil Jones did reasonably well, by far the most impressive person interviewed was the chief scientist at the UK Met Office – Julia Slingo.
She was rock solid when questioned.
re 154; then stop GISS using the ‘pictures’! Our case will be more credible, from what you are telling me …
#143 CFU You disagree with some of the reports findings as it cleary states that the FOIA requests were not dealt with fully.
Just received a reply from ICO to my question from February: ICO responds to Desdemona’s ‘Climategate’ query
Good things.
As Sir Isiah Berlin used to emphasise, it is not enough for something to be desirable in itself. Problems arise when good things conflict with one another , for example liberty and equality.
There is no doubt that FOI is a good thing, especially for journalists, but to pay blind lip service to it, just because there has been legislation about it in the USA and to a different extent in the UK, is a short cut to avoiding thought. It can obviously come into conflict with the right to privacy and like other good things it might not be shared out well. Although it may appear paradoxical, limited FOI legislation can accompany a poor record in civil rights.*
Anyway FOI legislation in the UK is fairly recent, and not as good as you might think. Two examples , not chosen carefully, but from the last two days:
Heather Brooke on BBC Radio 4. Anglo-American pro-FOI campaigner comparing UK & US versions last Monday here (4th. interview at about 29.30 (?) i.e beyond half way)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00rlzdz
and Matt Foot lawyer yesterday, describing his experience getting information from the police here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight
at ~ 24.19 (?) about half way
In the case of the criminal law , the public used to be banned from access to any information before a trial. No FOI in this case and with good reason. But the powerful UK media has begun to trample on this rule at the expense of justice.
———————————–
*. Another curious combination: Jim Lovelock’s recent interview which combined a dislike of democracy with a strong advocacy of open access to other people’s work.
“#143 CFU You disagree with some of the reports findings as it cleary states that the FOIA requests were not dealt with fully.”
They were not REQUIRED to deal with those requests fully.
Just like you don’t have to let the police into your home, though they can ASK to come in.
Just because someone asked for something “under the FOIA” doesn’t mean it falls under the FOIA.
And if you’ve answered a FOI request but they issue a repeat saying “you didn’t answer me!!!” then that second request is not answerable. It’s vexatious and outside the remit of the act.
Try a little reading comprehension.
“155
Ron says:
1 April 2010 at 9:23 AM
#150 Completely fed up
I beg to differ.”
It’s a free country. Doesn’t make you right.
There’s plenty of data to show AGW and how it works. More is almost always nice (but it has to be ACCURATE, as opposed to shoddy), but your casebook there is irrelevant to whether there’s a “shocking lack” of data. Just to whether there’s a case for more data.
And, since the data is going to be free to the rest of the world, how about raising some taxes to put as aid toward those countries getting their own climate work going?
Go in, chip some money into the carry-out.
That deduction is based on a generalisation which I have found to be wanting, although in this case we cannot be sure.
Sou@131
Those are good points about the differences in scale and hierarchical styles of institutions like NASA and CRU, so a simple comparison of their cultures probably is not appropriate. But, if CRU operated under a collegial model, in which the UEA administration had relatively limited power to impose new “cultural” practices in a top-down way, surely that would place more responsibility on the CRU staff members for their allegedly dysfunctional culture of data release, rather than putting all the blame on the UEA administrators, as the parliamentary committee did.
Whether or not CRU broke the letter of the FOI law is still unclear but it does seem from the limited evidence from the emails that that there was intent to subvert the spirit of the law. I sympathize with Jones on a personal level but I do think that one of the most damaging outcomes of this affair is that the sceptics’ accusations of concealment of data can no longer be dismissed as groundless and it has put wind in the sails of the conspiracy theorists. I don’t think Jones should escape criticism for his part in this setback.
In an effort to bring some light to this subject it is useful to look at what is written on the Information Commission website as to the procedure if an organisation does make the decision to refuse information –
What does the FOIA say?
The relevant provisions of the FOIA are contained in:
• Section 1: this provides a general right of access to information held
by public authorities.
• Section 10: an authority must comply with section 1 within 20 working
days, subject to certain provisions.
• Section 17: if a request is refused, the authority must issue a refusal
notice which explains its decision, including the application of any
exemptions, and sets out any complaints procedure the authority has in
place, together with the applicant’s right of appeal to the Information
Commissioner.
Further guidance is provided in the section 45 Code of Practise
Bot sure if this was complied with?
Margaret (#106) said:
Anyone else think that Margaret is trying to hide the recently exposed funding of George Mason University by Koch? Can we get a FOI request on how much Koch money went into the Wegman Report?
I wonder what the effects of the HOC report will have on the sales of Mosher and Fuller’s “book” (Climategate: The Crutape Letters). I hope that at least libraries will have the decency to move it from the non-fiction section into the fiction section.
one step beyond sez:
McIntyre, at least, got explanations both for the original rejection and the upholding of that rejection upon appeal.
The appeal response said that:
1. Yes, indeed, some of that data was not CRU’s to share, and that the ICO representative had correctly decided that this proprietary right outweighed FOI law in this case.
2. CRU was working with various national met offices in order to get permission to share the data.
#2 in particular makes McIntyre’s subsequent hissy fit seem most unfair.
#168 Cannot wait for CFU to re-interpret those rules for us to fit his narrative and his “world”. CFU I am not arguing with you, you need to agrue with the report that is the subject of this post. They wrote it was un acceptable not me.
“Anyone else think that Margaret is trying to hide the recently exposed funding of George Mason University by Koch?”
Comment by Ian Forrester
Funding on both sides of the climate debate comes from sources eager to find support for their own special interests – so what’s new? Most science is funded by sources with a stake in the outcome, whether it’s profit or power.
It is no coincidence that Goldman Sachs is heavily invested in carbon trading, or that CCX exchange rates plunged after the fiasco in Copenhagen. There is a lot of money at stake on both sides of the AGW debate.
AndyS says, “I sympathize with Jones on a personal level but I do think that one of the most damaging outcomes of this affair is that the sceptics’ accusations of concealment of data can no longer be dismissed as groundless and it has put wind in the sails of the conspiracy theorists.”
Horsecrap! What part of “95% of the data are available on-line” is difficult to understand?
And as to the remaining 5%, it could not be distributed due to proprietary agreements. Again, what part of that is hard to understand?
The denialists do not require anyone to put wind in their sails–they make their own wind.
Theo H @ 116. Mmmm let’s see now … oh yeah Newton’s laws. No I don’t recall that one. He just did the gravity thing. We later found out that is where the heat is coming from, I mean the gravity thing as in the sun. The heat had to go somewhere. Some of it, a very small part in 2 billion came our way. Then it used to go somewhere else. But lately a small part of that 1 part in 2 billion has been hanging around and given enough time it will fry our bacon so to speak.
If you do not like predictions all you have to do is wait and then you can go down memory lane instead. You and many Europeans who had to learn french poetry will then remember Francois Villon’s line “Mais ou sont les neiges d’antan”.
If you did not have the pleasure to learn french and/or poetry:”But where are the snows from yesteryear”.
[Response: “cough” – gavin]
“Monbiot…paging George Monbiot! Your abject apology is overdue!”
The UK Parliamentary report found insufficient legal support for EAUniv. It’s not hard to imagine that college lawyers are busy with a myriad of problems. Guidelines need to be provided so that researchers are not winging it. Filling FOI requests should be done with minimum necessary support from researchers on the nature of the inquiry.
Two things are accomplished by this. It takes the harassing work on researchers’ backs — discouraging malicious requests. It removes the harassed person from the direct line of fire, so there is less effect on the researcher. Also, the scientist is not in the position of having to decide what the law means.
Obviously, the University did not anticipate the spamming of FOI requests. There must be some provision in the law to deal with spamming — or it should be added. Government officials have real work to do; they are not the toy of cranks.
I understand Jones’ anger; anyone I ever known who is unmercifully harassed reacts that way. His advocating of the destruction of emails was injudicious even if legal.
Some plan or guidelines to deal with requests for scientific information needs to be gotten together so that it isn’t handled on an individual case by case by busy scientists and lawyers.
Ron #147 says:
Where do you get this from? All calculations I’ve seen are 1-2% of global annual GDP as a total cost, not a recurrent cost, i.e., on your calculation, a total of $1-trillion, not $1-trillion every year. The highest number I’ve seen that’s vaguely defensible is 5%, a cost easily wearable compared with other big economic shocks we’ve seen (GFC, oil price shocks).
Jack Maloney,
OK, let me get this straight: You actually think that the US government would want climate change to occur–even though it means a huge influx of refugees, global unrest, food and water shortages, etc. and mitigating it represents a large expense and probably decreased prosperity for a generation or two?
Dude, I have got to get me some of whatever it is you are smoking!
Ray Ladbury @ 173
My point is that there has been the appearance of scientists preferring to withhold data, even if all the data that could have been legally released were, in fact, released. I don’t doubt for a second that the denialists have cynically blown this out of all proportion. Many, most, of their claims are indeed horescrap but it has now become harder to convince people who occupy the muddled middle ground that scientists would never withhold data from their critics.
“We found prima facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics. The failure of UEA to grasp fully the potential damage to CRU and UEA by the non-disclosure of FOIA requests was regrettable.”
Some may dispute that there were actually any problems with the culture at CRU. Maybe so, but if there were problems I don’t understand why the director of the unit should not be held partly accountable for them.
Secular Animist, #157 – Amen!
“Jack Maloney,
OK, let me get this straight: You actually think that the US government would want climate change to occur–…”
Ray Ladbury — 1 April 2010 @ 7:56 PM
Ray, I think he”s saying that Goldmann-Sachs and the other players likely to make money on Carbon trading etc are funding the AGW climatology research conspiracy at CRU and GISS, and to counter that, the fossil fuel companies naturally fund research by Watts, Monckton, MacIntyre, Plimer, and so on to defend their interests. Plus the warmists fund groups like the NAS and the AGU to propagandize the message, so Murdoch, Koch, Exxon, coal, and political skeptics fund Heartland, CEI, the Marshall Institute so that the public gets a “fair and balanced view” of the policy choices.
(Too snarky? &;>)
> Jack Maloney says: 1 April 2010 at 3:50 PM
> …
> … Funding on both sides of the climate debate ….
But we’re not here to talk about or to people interested in debate, eh?
The people actually doing the science — the real science, not the “advocacy science” — aren’t getting “special interest” funding unless you consider civilization a “special interest” — if so, the barbarians must be funding people too, eh? Just to knock everything over and pillage the ruins.
Hmmmm …..
Science is its own reward. Just ask Dr. Jones, for example.
re: Greenpeace reports 17,19,22,24,33,43,49,55,94
See Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony, as of March 15. I’m not Greenpeace, but when I study the same topics, I get more-or-less the same answers, to within plausible variations of emphasis. My only (minor) complaint with the Exxon piece was that many people place undue emphasis on Exxon by itself, when family foundations spend a lot … but a few days later the Koch piece appeared. Now, if only a Scaife piece appears…
People were talking about funding. See Table A.6.1(a-c), pp.92-95, which shows a matrix of:
– funders (family foundations, two separate values (sometimes different time periods) for ExxonMobil foundation) vs
– think tanks/fronts, described in A.3 (pp.49-78).
The total funding shown there is $463M, and that is likely no more than half the funding provided to these various entities. (See Table A.2.2, p.46, where I compare the foundation numbers to sample think tank 990 revenue numbers, by year, to roughly estimate how much is unknown. Ponder the odd Heartland pattern, in which the visible Exxon funding disappears about the time Heartland gets a big boost of income … and really gets focused on climate anti-science.
Of course, not all of that $463M is earmarked for “science.”
Table A.3.1 analyzes a group of these to see the words used, of which “Institute” is the most common and “Science” second.
I suggest studying these entities to see how much actual science has been produced over the years.
Imteresting sub-thread: why not have a topic on who funds and how much,to both the warmists and the deniers?Much of the information seems to come up periodically on different sites, so why not lets pull it all together here?
Gee — you lot really are not interested in facts are you?
1. You actually know nothing about me (or what I think of climate change) so I do not know the basis on which the various attempts at character assassination have been made. Perhaps is is a modus operandi that is so deeply ingrained that you don’t even realise you are doing it.
2. My comments were made before I had read the Koch report (indeed probably before it was even out) so were neither motivated by trying to avoid it, or by its contents.
3. If you don’t think you have a credibility gap to fill, then I suggest you read the Der Spiegel article.
4. If you suggest that the truth should be decided by the saying whoever got the biggest bucks, then the climate change side has lost — more bucks have gone into climate research than any “evil empire” could match. I suggest you work hard to ensure that this is not the criteria that is used.
Finally – I seriously think that if you keep commenting in the manner in which you are — attaching the character of the messenger and rather than the quality of the message — then you will never bridge that gap and I also seriously believe that you losing (more of) your credibility will do the world no good at all.
AndyS says, “I don’t doubt for a second that the denialists have cynically blown this out of all proportion.”
I believe the technical term for this is “lying”. Let’s call it what it is. If people choose to believe lies, then it is difficult to have much confidence in the longterm survival of the species.
Bryan Dodge@181
Look Rush Limbaugh required large quantities of high-quality of pr-e-scrip-tion pain me- dic -a- tion to maintain such fantasies. Are you suggesting that Jack does so with out major pha- rma- ceut- ical assistance? Wow!
Re: #172
The principle of symmetry. But how about the results of such expenditure? How much new information about the real world? How many true statements from each ‘side’? Complaining that it could not get started because its FOI requests have been refused, is not very convincing when you can see where the money on one side has really gone i.e on funding for lobbyists, astroturfers and so called ‘scientific’ conferences for publicising pure opinion. Any appearance of symmetry is only skin deep.
“Ray, I think he”s saying that Goldmann-Sachs and the other players likely to make money on Carbon trading etc are funding the AGW climatology research”
Rather begging the question, isn’t it?
After all, the question becomes: who is going to the poles with a hair dryer and melting the poles?
Also begs the question: why hasn’t it been implemented by Copenhagen, if the conspiracy is that the governments (who went there to agree) are conspiring to do this?
“My point is that there has been the appearance of scientists preferring to withhold data”
No, they HAVE withheld data: data they were BOUND BY LAW not to reveal.
Heck, pop along to your local central government and ask for all the top secret files. That’s data.
Good luck.
“There must be some provision in the law to deal with spamming — or it should be added”
There already is: FOI requests can be refused if they are vexatious.
“171
Jon P says:
1 April 2010 at 3:30 PM
#168 Cannot wait for CFU to re-interpret those rules for us to fit his narrative and his “world””
Jon P, ever read the FOIA?
No, you haven’t.
Go read them.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/docs/foi-exemption-s44.pdf
“1. Yes, indeed, some of that data was not CRU’s to share, and that the ICO representative had correctly decided that this proprietary right outweighed FOI law in this case.”
The ICO cannot break copyright or coerce someone else into breeching any form of contract. Only a court order can do so.
IT DOESN’T GET PAST FOIA.
Please show us where the ICO stated this, by the way, or are you rewriting your memory to fit as we speak?
“2. CRU was working with various national met offices in order to get permission to share the data.”
And until the negotiations are complete, the FOI request MUST BE REFUSED. Which would inevitably lead to the FOI request not being answered in a timely manner which you say is illegal.
“Whether or not CRU broke the letter of the FOI law is still unclear ”
Nope, it’s VERY CLEAR. They didn’t.
“but it does seem from the limited evidence from the emails that that there was intent to subvert the spirit of the law”
Nope, the subversion was the spamming of FOI requests for fraudulent reasons (the requests were supposed to be to supply data to people who wished to do work on the data: heard of ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE?).
And the letter and spirit of the law is that if you’re being spammed vexatiously you don’t have to consider them.
See, for example, SLAPP legislation in the US or Jack Thompson barred from courts for vexatious litigation against computer games.
re 185. “…Der Spiegel article.”
A magazine article? Really?? We are talking *science* here (as in peer-reviewed papers and scientific conferences), not newspaper or magazine articles for goodness sake.
Margaret says, ” You actually know nothing about me (or what I think of climate change)…”
OK, so why don’t you tell us. Anyone who is familiar with this subject knows there is a lot of concern trolling and sock puppetry out there. It is natural to wonder about the motivations of a poster before he/she has established bona fides.
Margaret: “My comments were made before I had read the Koch report…”
and
Margaret: “…more bucks have gone into climate research than any “evil empire” could match.”
Margaret, I think you need to make a distinction between money spent on propaganda and money spent on research. Research dollars ultimately are intended to result in publication in a peer-reviewed journal. What that means is that your research will be reviewed and critiqued (harshly) by those who will be competing with you for research dollars the next time around. If your “peers” can find a way to savage your research, they will. What is more, it is usually expected that the source of research grants will be prominently acknowledged in the publication.
In contrast, Koch et al. sought to remain in the shadows. Now why was that do you think?
No peer-reviewed publications, only op-eds. No research, just character assassination.
So, no, Margaret, we don’t judge “the winner” in the “debate” by who is funded, but rather by who publishes. By that standard, the denialist lie machine has forfeited. And those publications and all that evidence are there waiting for people to actually look at them. If people switch to an evidence-based decision making paradigm, there will be no credibility problem, regardless of what Der Speigel says.
This one looks fair:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/the_first_of_the_numerous.html
@ #167 Andy S
I can’t comment on UEA but would be guided by the UK Parliamentary Committee findings. (That accords with the situation in Australia.)
Here in Australia, universities typically have an Accredited FoI Officer in central administration who is responsible for handling all FoI requests, setting up systems, determining what information is to be provided and what information is exempt under the Act. They also provide advice to staff holding the information requested. Some universities charge a fee for FoI applications.
FoI is a special-ised job requiring training and expertise, with the delegated person at a senior level in university administration.
”But where are the snows from yesteryear”.
The most famous modern translation is “Where are the Snowdons of yesteryear?”
Given the logic of denialism, it’s an apt one.
Just to add to Ray’s 196:
“it is usually expected that the source of research grants will be prominently acknowledged in the publication.”
In fact, the funding agency will not be happy if you don’t acknowledge their funding. Moreover, everywhere I publish I am asked bout conflicts of interest and whether I have a financial stake in the results. This is standard stuff that you have to go through every time you publish a paper. I’m not sure why Margaret seems to think conflicts of interest aren’t relevant to the scientific process.