Climate science vindicated again
A couple of hours ago the Muir Russell inquiry into the hacked CRU emails was published. Here are the key findings from the executive summary (emphases original).
13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.The full text (120 pages) is here. This is basically what I said back in November and confirms the earlier two inquiries into the CRU emails and also stands with the two-part PSU inquiry into the conduct of Michael Mann, who was also decisively vindicated. Claims of a whitewash need to take this into account. This latest finding also needs to be put together with a recently published Dutch review of the IPCC 4th report, which found only minor faults.
14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policymakers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the university and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science.
If this all makes no sense to you, then you are fortunate for not having been following the media circus over the last few months. If you don't believe a word of any of these independent vindications of climate science, then perhaps you need to think about the nature of conspiracy theories. If you're wondering why this even matters, it is because what we do with what we know is important.
Posts
28 comments:
More relevant quotes, analysis and links. No evidence of data withheld, no evidence of biased selection of stations, no evidence of subversion of peer-review process, no evidence of misuse of IPCC processes, no deliberate exclusion of relevant studies. And Jones is no longer in a state of having "stepped aside" during the period of the investigation.
And more good commentary here, including reflections on areas where room for improvement was seen: specifically how to archive and distribute data and respond to FOI requests.
As much as I hate to admit it, I am not surprised. What I did read of those leaked emails wasn't helpful but it certainly wasn't "conspiratorial." More like a bunch of guys blowing off some steam.
Byron,
I haven't read the Muir Russell report, but I did read a lot of the Climategate emails – they weren’t pretty.
I think those who said Jones and co were engaged in fraud went way too far.
But equally I think to say we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt and we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments does appear excessively generous, and no doubt needed to be "balanced" by the statement, but we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the university and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science - and that's really the problem.
The enquiry actually needed to meet the objections of the sceptics because they and 15 years of stationary global temperatures plus China/India have halted the agw bandwagon dead in its tracks.
However an enquiry under the auspices of UEA was always going to be seen to most likely exonerate Jones and co.
Already Lord Lawson and his crew have announced their own enquiry to be undertaken by Andrew Montfort, the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science, a book which I recommend - I'm about a 1/3rd of the way through. Judith Curry who has been a part of the climate change consensus but also become an outspoken critic of the IPCC/its chairman/climategate, lack of transparency and humility, etc has read Montfort and said he makes a strong case that the Real Climate crew need to respond to rather than make the ad hominem attacks.
IMHO, life will never be the same for climate scientists who chose to hide their uncertainties, support alarmist claims (ie highlighting the worse case scenarios without the proper caveats), etc.
Muir Russell will pass into the ether, because it missed an opportunity to build bridges. The sceptics and indeed fair minded scientists like Curry, Hulme, etc will continue to believe that the data had been manipulated (selected for the desired result) and that the peer research process was interfered with buy these people (Jones, Mann, etc).
But as I’ve said before, I think we will get better science as a result of this imbroglio – or at least I hope so.
Byron,
I would be interested in your response to the comments of The Guardian's Fred Pearce and the BBC's Roger Harrabin, who I think offer a more balanced view of the affair than that provided by you - as you know, I think you have consistently underplayed/denied the importance of Climategate.
However, also as I've stated previously maybe good will come from it all, if only because the climate scientists are on notice, must share their data, etc - which might be something we can agree on.
On balance
Balance in much of the mainstream media means the perpetuation or creation of conflict in order to sell stories. It is not very exciting to put out a story saying "Nearly all scientists agree there is very good evidence that smoking causes cancer". Instead, for decades we got stories about the small number who disagreed (who were largely funded by tobacco companies) and about the "debate" that was happening. It's largely the same again here.
That some scientists were nasty in private emails and may have even broken FOI laws is a story, but it is not the headline grabbing news worth months and months of coverage filled with "balanced" quotes from a relative small number of sources (many with poor reputations) who want to spin it into the collapse of all science or at least of all climate science.
I am generally sceptical of claims of media neutrality or balance, particularly when coming from a mainstream for-profit news source. Not that not for profits are more balanced, but they don't feel quite the same need to stick to a "he said, she said" formula in order to sell themselves on their journalistic objectivity.
A "balanced" story on the shape of the earth would require giving equal time to the criticisms of flat-earthers. A "balanced" story on homeopathy would quote proponents and critics. A "balanced" story on AIDS would make sure it always sought out those who think there is no link between HIV and AIDS.
But of course, in each case, what counts as balance has already been decided in advance by the journalist. If one were to really give a "balanced" view on climate change, it would not pit the IPCC against the deniers, but would probably put the IPCC on the conservative side of the equation and would seek researchers who think the IPCC has seriously underplayed the risks on the other side. That would be a more accurate reflection of the debate in the scientific community.
By the way, if you like what Pearce has to say, you might also take a look at his book With Speed and Violence.
The enquiry actually needed to meet the objections of the sceptics because they and 15 years of stationary global temperatures plus China/India have halted the agw bandwagon dead in its tracks.
I have called you on this piece of misinformation a number of times in the past and the fact that you continue to cite it without any evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary leads me to believe that either you don't understand statistical significance or you don't want to understand it. You do realise that warming has not stopped?
However an enquiry under the auspices of UEA was always going to be seen to most likely exonerate Jones and co.
I can only assume you haven't read the article I've linked to a number of times before on why these investigations are very unlikely to all be whitewashes. Indeed, the very fact that these investigations have included criticisms of Jones undermines this point.
IMHO, life will never be the same for climate scientists who chose to hide their uncertainties, support alarmist claims (ie highlighting the worse case scenarios without the proper caveats),
Evidence of where this has been done? Again, I would suggest you actually read the IPCC, NAS, AAAS reports and note the uncertainties woven in at basically every point. Yes, there may be a handful of cases in 4,000 pages where it could have been highlighted for the umpteenth time and wasn't. But to accuse these publications of hiding uncertainties is ludicrous. Of course they can always be improved, but I'm still waiting for something better (or even in the same ballpark) from any of their critics.
Lord Lawson and his crew have announced their own enquiry
Lawson's views are not exactly solid and his crew of known misinformers is hardly convincing either.
I've also posted some links with discussion of Pearce and different reactions to the report over here.
Kerry Emanuel is an MIT climate scientist and expert on hurricanes. It should be noted that until a couple of years ago Emanuel was considered an AGW 'skeptic'. He also voted for Ronald Reagan, so he's hardly a Marxist. Here is his opinion of the climate emails.
What has happened to Judith Curry?
And a review of the Montford book.
Another review of Montford (scroll down to the 3rd or 4th review).
And another review.
More context on Curry
And CRU are vindicated once again. Does anyone see a pattern here?
And now, in an interesting twist, the primary author of the main report cited by many deniers (including Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli) as proof of Dr Mann's "fraud" is himself under investigation for academic misconduct in his report, known as the Wegman Report. See here for more.
And once again by yet another independent inquiry. Anyone noticing a pattern here?
And vindicated again, this time in the official UK government response through the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons.
Carbon Brief: Useful summary of the latest report (which itself is a summary/review of previous reports).
"The clear message from this response is presumably this: If there is a conspiracy to cover up malpractice throughout this affair, it has successfully enmeshed UEA, three reviews (Sci/Tech, Muir Russell and Oxburgh), two review panels in the UK, the Science and Technology Committee, twice, and the UK government, as well as multiple reviews of the affair in the US."
Carbon Brief: Useful summary of the latest report (which itself is a summary/review of previous reports).
"The clear message from this response is presumably this: If there is a conspiracy to cover up malpractice throughout this affair, it has successfully enmeshed UEA, three reviews (Sci/Tech, Muir Russell and Oxburgh), two review panels in the UK, the Science and Technology Committee, twice, and the UK government, as well as multiple reviews of the affair in the US."
CP: And one more time. This time, Michael Mann is cleared on wrongdoing, despite a hysterical witch hunt by one government official.
Just to collate all these exonerations, here are links to each of the nine reports.
Guardian: Confirmation that the emails were hacked by "sophisticated outsiders" (not an internal leak) but the case has been closed unsolved.
GuardianAnother climate scientist exonerated. After having his reputation trashed and being suspended after suspected misconduct, a lengthy US government investigation has found that Charles Monnett was not guilty of any scientific misconduct and the worst that could be brought against him was unauthorised release of emails (whose content was in the public interest).
Slate: Michael Mann summarises the attacks against him. Includes video of a 20 min talk summary of his Hockey Stick and Climate Wars book.
CP: Michael Mann's defamation lawsuit against those who have called him a "fraud" progressing well.
And here for more links re Michael Mann's defamation suit.
Mann's defamation suit continues. Now the legal representation for one of the defendants have walked out after he blogged insults against the judge.
Newsweek: A change in the legal climate.
Post a Comment