A bombshell from the Oxburgh “inquiry”.
Obviously, the most contentious issue in the Hockey Stick controversy has been, uh, the hockey sticks – an area where CRU scientists Jones, Briffa and Osborn have been intimately involved as authors of key proxies, authors of multiproxy studies in the IPCC spaghetti graph, peer reviewers of journal articles and IPCC assessment authors. The core position of Climate Audit in respect to these studies is that the data and methods used in these studies do not permit assertions about the medieval-modern relationship to be made with any confidence. This gets played out in numerous disputes over individual proxies and individual statistical methods, but these do not deflect from the overall issue.
I heard from a reliable source that, during the Oxburgh interviews, Phil Jones admitted that it was probably impossible to do the 1000-year temperature reconstructions with any accuracy. Obviously, this would be a hugely important admission relative to this debate, but the Oxburgh Science Appraisal Panel “inquiry” did not report this admission even though UEA had announced that the Science Appraisal Panel would “re-appraise CRU’s science”.
I accordingly sent the following letter last week to Oxburgh (both to his House of Lords email and the UEA email address used for the “inquiry”), copying the letter to two members of the Parliamentary Committee and two journalists and forwarded it to the Muir Russell inquiry.
Dear Dr Oxburgh,
I am writing to you in your capacity as Chairman of the Science Appraisal Panel, which reported on April 14, 2010 on the independent external reappraisal of CRU’s science that had been announced by the University of East Anglia in February 2010.It has come to my attention from a reliable source that, during one of his interviews with the Science Appraisal Panel, Phil Jones (of CRU) admitted that it was probably impossible to do these [1000-year temperature] reconstructions with any accuracy.
Given that this has been one of the most contentious, if not the most contentious issue, in the disputes about CRU’s science, the failure of the Science Appraisal Panel to record this important information appears to me to be a material omission that, in this case, distorts the research record.
Under the circumstances, I request that you forthwith issue an addendum that clearly reports Jones’ evidence on the probable impossibility of doing the 1000-year reconstructions with any accuracy.
Yours truly,
Stephen McIntyre
This morning, I received the following remarkable response:
Dear Dr Mcintyre,
Thank you for your message. What you report may or may not be the case. But as I have pointed out to you previously the science was not the subject of our study.
Yours sincerly,
Ron Oxburgh
Read it again. The “science was not the subject of our study”. Why would anyone have expected that science would be the subject of study of the Science Appraisal Panel? Well, there’s a good reason why they would. The University of East Anglia and Muir Russell said over and over again that the Science Appraisal Panel would, uh, “re-appraise” CRU’s “science”.
Consider first the original announcement by the University of East Anglia on Feb 11 here entitled “New scientific assessment of climatic research publications announced”, stating:
An independent external reappraisal of the science in the Climatic Research Unit’s (CRU) key publications has been announced by the University of East Anglia. The Royal Society will assist the University in identifying assessors with the requisite expertise, standing and independence.
“Published papers from CRU have gone through the rigorous and intensive peer review process which is the keystone for maintaining the integrity of scientific research,” said Professor Trevor Davies, the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Enterprise and Engagement. “That process and the findings of our researchers have been the subject of significant debate in recent months. Colleagues in CRU have strenuously defended their conduct and the published work and we believe it is in the interests of all concerned that there should be an additional assessment considering the science itself.”
Or Muir Russell’s comments at their Feb 11 press conference:
Our job is to investigate scientific rigor, the honesty, the openness and the due process of CRU’s approach as well as the other things in the remit.. and compliance with rules. It’s not our job to audit CRU’s scientific conclusions. That would require a different set of skills and resources. The University recognizes the need for such an audit. It has asked the Royal Society how this should be done. They have decided they would commission a re-appraisal of the main scientific conclusions of CRU with assistance from the Royal Society to identify the person or persons with the standing and expertise and skill to carry this out.
Or the Royal Society press statement on Feb 11 in which Martin Rees stated:
It is important that people have the utmost confidence in the science of climate change. Where legitimate doubts are raised about any piece of science they must be fully investigated – that is how science works. The Royal Society will provide advice to the University of East Anglia in identifying independent assessors to conduct this reappraisal.
Or the BBC report of the same day:
However, the panel will not review the past scientific work of the CRU, as this will be re-appraised by a UEA-commissioned study that will involve the Royal Society in an advisory role.
“Colleagues in CRU have strenuously defended their conduct and the published work and we believe it is in the interest of all concerned that there should be an additional assessment considering the science itself,” Professor Trevor Davies, UEA’s pro-vice-chancellor for research, enterprise and engagement, said in a statement.
Royal Society President Lord Rees said that it was important that the public had the utmost confidence in the science of climate change. “Where legitimate doubts are raised about any piece of science they must be fully investigated – that is how science works,” he explained. “The Royal Society will provide advice to the University of East Anglia in identifying independent assessors to conduct this reappraisal.”
Or the UEA written submission to the Parliamentary Committee on Feb 25:
2.3 Alongside Sir Muir Russell’s Review, we have decided on an additional scientific assessment of CRU’s key scientific publications; an external reappraisal of the science itself. The Royal Society has agreed to assist the University in identifying assessors with the requisite experience, standing and independence.
Or Muir Russell’s written submission to the Parliamentary Committee:
4. The[Muir Russell] Review’s remit does not invite it to re-appraise the scientific work of CRU. That re-appraisal is being separately commissioned by UEA, with the assistance of the Royal Society.
Or Acton’s oral testimony to the Parliamentary Committee:
As for the science itself, I have not actually seen any evidence of any flaw in the science but I am hoping, later this week, to announce the chair of a panel to reassess the science and make sure there is nothing wrong.
Oxburgh neither confirmed nor denied the Jones admission. Unfortunately, there are no documents of the Jones interview since Oxburgh flouted the Parliamentary Committee recommendation that the inquiries conduct their business in the open, in which they stressed the importance of opennness in achieving acceptance of the inquiry results. Lord Oxburgh in effect spit in the eye of the Commons Committee recommendation by not taking submissions, not transcribing interviews and not even reporting interview notes. Worse, at least one panelist has already destroyed his interview notes.
Despite all the statements by the university to the public and to Parliament through press releases and evidence to the Commons Committee that Oxburgh’s panel was to “reappraise” CRU’s “science”, Oxburgh says that “science was not the subject” of his “inquiry”.
Given all the statements to the public and to Parliament saying the exact opposite, one would expect Oxburgh, as chair of the inquiry, to have clear and written terms of reference, changing the terms of reference from those presented to the public and Parliament. And here, of course, mystery and inconsistency abound, with Oxburgh saying that his terms of reference were “verbal”. (Who ever heard of “verbal” terms of reference?)
But back to Jones admission that it was “probably impossible to do the 1000-year temperature reconstructions with any accuracy.” I have this information on excellent authority. If so, this would be an important admission given statements by IPCC and others that confidence can be attached to the spaghetti squiggles. The validity of this information needs to be determined – perhaps some of the members of the Oxburgh Panel can confirm this to reporters. Perhaps Jones himself will admit the point.
Maybe the Commons Science and Technology Committee can re-convene and find out what the hell was going on with the Oxburgh “inquiry”.
Climate Audit 
85 Comments
Does rather invite the reply “So what was the subject of your study” …
“The subject of my study was measurement of the non-Newtonian characteristics of the viscosity of whitewash, of course.”
Say what they mean and mean what they say? Silly boy…
What was going on with the “inquiry”? Simple.
A joke/farce/scam/whitewash/cover-up. Take your pick.
Mainstream journalists should be all over this. It would be difficult to imagine a more obvious whitewash than this.
Well, we were all wondering what the oxburgh committee was doing, now we know it wasn’t appraising the science
I feel like “appraising the science” now means only ensuring that outright fraud was not committed. It’s not quite a strawman as plenty of ‘deniers’ may have claimed it so. But it’s certainly only going after the lowest hanging fruit. It ignores the arguments of the people involved in the FOI requests and scientific reviews such as Steve and yourself.
This is so typical of political back-and-forths. You take your stance. To argue against those opposing you, you choose the most egregious and easily defeated statements to take issue with. You ignore legitimate arguments and caveats.
If the whole inquiry was to look into outright fraud and wholesale invention of numbers — well, I am sure Mr. McIntyre himself would have wagered on that not having happened. That the papers he praised were the ones chosen as the ones reviewed shows that he doesn’t hold as poor an attitude as most (who won’t read him) assume he does.
Steve, would you do us a favor? — Reply and ask Mr. Oxburgh what the null hypothesis was of the review, and what evidence was needed to refute it. I have a feeling it was closer to looking for fraud than review of their methods.
I think that’s about right. Despite what others have claimed of it, Oxburgh has repeatedly stated that all he considers his inquiry to have investigated is whether there was significant, blatant fraud – total fabrication of results – or whether any dispute over the scientific conclusions is actually a scientific debate (which it is).
Steve has never indulged in it, but there are plenty of nutters out there who allege that genuine fraud – deliberate fabrication of results – has taken place. This is very much low-hanging fruit that needed to be picked off first. The only real problem here is that the Oxburgh inquiry is repeatedly painted by others as something it’s not.
We know what Oxburgh was doing he was “playing a blinder” for Professor John Beddington et al.
Judith, stop it stop it, you’re getting a bad name.
I could say what they were doing, but you would snip it!
Does it involve monkeys and a (American) football???
Green Sand: Professor Sir John Beddington now (it is usual to say for what services people are knighted, but this does not appear to be the case for Sir John). See http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/59446/supplements/1
Re: Phillip Bratby (Jul 1 11:27),
Interesting, could it be that it is there but has been covered with a little splash of whitewash? Maybe when it fades the citation will be revealed.
Must tug forelock and remember that it is now Sir John.
Hasn’t Jones said the same thing in a public interview?
“And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm
Well, Oxbugger’s mission was to look at the sociology of science and possible misconduct. It is questionable whether such things can ever be quite isolated from science – from the scientific evaluation of the scientific evidence (because one needs to understand how the scientists actually think if he wants to know if their work is honest) – but let me assume that it can.
If it is the case, and the goal was to study the sociology and ethics, they clearly failed to do so if they overlooked this not-so-subtle point. If someone is selling reconstructions that – as he realizes – are probably scientifically impossible, it surely does prove misconduct, doesn’t it?
Why would a scientist do so? Because he ceased to be a scientist and the real purpose of his “scientific papers” is something very different from the search for the truth, its presentation, and the evaluation of the empirical and theoretical evidence – namely the P.R. business of spreading certain beliefs for certain other purposes.
I can’t imagine what Oxbugger’s commission could have investigated so that this would not be relevant.
The study focused exclusively on the ethical and moral side of things in the CRU scandal, not the scientific part.
I have not seen the report. Did Lord Ox or his report said “The study focused exclusively on the ethical and moral side of things in the CRU scandal, not the scientific part”?
If Lord Ox had written in his letter reply to Steve McIntyre’s inquiry letter with the above quoted sentence, it prolly would have a very different result than inviting unnecessary criticisms here.
He’s basically said exactly that to Steve before now. Check out previous responses. The problem here is with the way the Oxburgh report is portrayed by others (or perhaps something Oxburgh has said publicly?), not with the report itself.
Lord Ox has to be careful otherwise he could be gored. On the serious side, can the transcript of the proceedings be gotten by FOI request? It would reveal whether Jones really did say that “… probably impossible to do the 1000-year temperature reconstructions with any accuracy.”
I expect the interviews were “verbal”, if in fact they took place at all. I wager there are no transcripts.
I was going to say the same thing… if the study is about the science, then clearly that statement had to be investigated fully. If the study was NOT about the science, but rather ethics, then it still should have been investigated to the extent that Phil Jones took grant money to accomplish something that he knew to be “impossible”.
Oh come on Steve, don’t be so hard on them. They just kind of winged it – that’s how these things are done, don’t you know.
Steve, when he says :
” … as_I_have_pointed_out_to_you_previously the science was not the subject of our study”
What is the “previously” ?
Steve: Presumably he means his letter here , although this previous letter doesn’t use the language of the present email.
From Oxburgh’s 6/3 letter to Steve, reported in the 6/4 CA post “Oxburgh Refuses to Answer”:
To me, this sounds like he had already admitted that he was not assessing the science, even if RS, UEA, BBC, Muir Russell and Acton all said otherwise.
The new statement is more explicit, however, just in case there were any doubts.
From what I remember, Oxburgh is an accomplished mind-reader and body language assessor.
Wow. That Oxburgh quote is simply astounding. No recording devices and, from what I gather elsewhere, incomplete or non-existent interview notes as well. I wish I could say that it is hard to believe, but unfortunately it is far too easy.
I used my PDRA title and UK acdemic address to complain to the House of ‘Lords’ re. Ox. and still got the usual run-around (but they did reply, this with respect to the violation of house-rules on use of crest by Ox.). I seems there is no point in civilities with these guys.
Bruce
I get the feeling Steve might now a bit more than he is letting on but is giving others the chance to come forward first. Would be interesting to see how this can play out later on. Perhaps the source could be revealed?
You realize that none of this matters since a newspaper somewhere had to print a retraction about some other claim unrelated to climategate.
Other than that, the story was accurate…
Perhaps the science will be the subject of the VA AG’s inquiry- someone should look into it, don’t you agree? And if not the appointed (and appropriate) panel, I’m not going to argue against someone else with at least some authority doing it.
I guess one good thing about the good ole USA is that we don’t call our nationally prominent buffoons “Lord” or “Sir.”
No, you call them “Senator”.
But more to the point these titles, whether UK or USA are generally given to people who are supposed to be examples of integrity and public service.
It seems that many of these people have forgotten that.
Interesting development coming just before the Russell report.
Steve,
I don’t think you should feel to bad about this….since you are not alone in
this misguided belief that the inquiry had anything to do with science.
Evidently, Phil Jones also failed to grasp that it was not about science.
In the end, he is the one that was at the inquiry and made this science comment that accuracy was lacking!!!!
Ha,Ha, this is just getting better and better.
Dan
No matter how valid the position you are arguing, language like “I request that you forthwith issue an addendum that clearly reports Jones’ evidence on the probable impossibility of doing the 1000-year reconstructions with any accuracy” is just unbearably snotty and bound to alienate. You can ask for something outrageous in a nice way and get it, and you can ask for something simple in a rude way and not get it.
But I doubt the validity of your position anyway, because it’s so vaguely stated:
“I heard from a reliable source…”
Who?
“Phil Jones admitted…”
What a very loaded word “admitted” is. Your use of here undoubtedly betrays more about your viewpoint than Phil Jones’s.
“that it was probably impossible…”
What is meant by “probably” here?
“to do the 1000-year temperature reconstructions with any accuracy”
What is meant by “with any accuracy”?
If you are unable to understand plain English, that is what is sometimes known as a “YOU problem.” Steve was perfectly clear to me. He may be right, and he may be wrong, but he was clear in his statements.
RW,
Steve’s position is this:
“It has come to my attention from a reliable source that, during one of his interviews with the Science Appraisal Panel, Phil Jones (of CRU) admitted that it was probably impossible to do these [1000-year temperature] reconstructions with any accuracy.”
So when you say:
***********
“Phil Jones admitted…”
What a very loaded word “admitted” is. Your use of here undoubtedly betrays more about your viewpoint than Phil Jones’s.”
“that it was probably impossible…”
What is meant by “probably” here?
“to do the 1000-year temperature reconstructions with any accuracy”
What is meant by “with any accuracy”?
****************************
Your questions and assumptions are really off base. Steve reported what a source told him. Without any evidence to the contrary I’ll assume that he is using language that is consistent with the language use by the source. Why would you assume anything different?
So if the source told steve ” Phil Jones confessed that it was impossible to do these constructions with any accuracy” And Steve, asks the good Lord if this is true, I fail to see how you can call Steve to any account for the connotation of the word ‘admit’. Nor can you hold him to account for what Jones might have meant by ‘probably impossible’. Steve is reporting hearsay. No problem there. The Good Lord can clear up exactly what Jones said. Or better, ask Jones if he said anything resembling this in the commission. There is a vaguely relevant precedent where Jones opinion is documented:
Jones:”I say all this in the Reviews of Geophysics paper !
Bottom line – their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but
years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.”
If you want an analogy for the questions you are asking of Steve consider this.
The other day your wife told me that you confessed to having sex with someone else. And your response is to ask me what my definition of sex is? That’s the LEAST probitive question you could possible imagine. Unless you wanted to lamely try to make my definition the topic of discussion rather than the real topic. What did you say? and what did you mean? and did you even say it?
Time for McCloskey?
“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
RW, your comments to Steve about effective communication have been noted.
What lessons, if any, have you given Lord Oxburgh on the same subject? Could you share them with us?
Political Junkie>
By that argument, Steve should counter CRU’s dubious scientific claims with dubious science of his own. That’s not how CA works – it works by being whiter-than-white.
I have to agree, sometimes (rarely) Steve does himself no favours with his choice of wording. Possibly it’s a trans-Atlantic thing, but I do tend to agree that the original demand isn’t phrased as politely as it might be. The issue is not to say that Steve is wrong to be impolite, or that he should tread on eggshells too placate Oxburgh for the sake of it, but that he might have more luck getting a proper response from Oxburgh if he asks polite questions rather than making demands. *might* 🙂
Steve: I wasn’t asking Oxburgh a “question”. It was a request that Oxburgh do something that he doesn’t want to do. I was direct, but not “impolite.”
Steve>
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to put words into your mouth, but to say how I (and, I suspect, other English people) perceived your sentence. There are lots of subtle differences between English English and other forms of English, and to me “I request that you forthwith issue an addendum” might as well have read “I demand that you issue”. It would be more English in the passive tense: “It might perhaps clarify matters if an addendum were to be issued”.
Purely stylistic nitpicking, though intended as constructive criticism.
Seems to me that if Harrabin were to interview Kelly an interesting story would emerge.
There is some wriggle room here. Oxburgh reports his panel’s task as follows:
“The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of
the published research were correct. Rather it was asked to come to a view on
the integrity of the Unit’s research and whether as far as could be determined
the conclusions represented an honest and scientifically justified interpretation of the data.”
Paper by paper CRUs work, no doubt, did represent honest interpretations of the data. It’s when you take a bird’s eye view of the corpus of dendrological and paleological work, much of it conflicting, that doubts creep in. Jones bird’s eye view may well be nearer to a skeptical view than one would expect , and that can be the case without there being any question of dishonesty in relation to the conclusions of any particular paper he has published. He could have arrived at this conclusion at the end of a series of published papers, maybe his view is becoming more nuanced. That’s not dishonesty.
However, if he holds reservations the question arises as to why he has not been more frank about them: and this may have a bearing on why he felt the need to hide the decline, and much else of the conduct revealed in the ClimateGate emails.
“Have another biscuit, Bernard?”
“I heard from a reliable source that, during the Oxburgh interviews, Phil Jones admitted that it was probably impossible to do the 1000-year temperature reconstructions with any accuracy.”
Well if he believes that, and said that good for him.
Should we not think higher of one who offers clarity when perhaps stonewalling would be more conducive to preserving esteem?
I said something way back when this all broke to the effect:
“We need these guys, they really are not that easily replaced.”
Perhaps just spank the repentants and ditch the zealots.
Of all of the people whose judgment was called into question, Phil Jones seems to me to be the most circumspect and the least zealous.
Now whether he would or could carry this new clarity into the rest of his career, if he has one, is an interesting question?
Has he made himself unfundable going forward?
I hope not.
I, and I hope many others, would wish that he could continue, to work and publish, in the knowledge that, it is permisable to express doubt, to publish that it is not yet possible to know the answer to certain questions, when that is the perceived case.
But if it is the case, that to express sincere doubts, is still scientific heresy, then perhaps his carrer has been sacrificed for nought.
I hope not, I have not come for a lynching, I came for a new start, and one in which there is ample space for all who can partake, irrepective of prior conduct.
Alex
RW
Shooting the messenger is fine sport, but it doesn’t address the issue. Enough of this idea that Steve would get honest and complete answers to his questions if he would just ask more nicely. In this case his Lordship not only offers a stupid excuse he needlessly refuses to answer the question. Childishly even. Petulantly. Evasively. He may or may not know, but by Jove he’s not going to tell because that might have something to do with science! What????
“Doubt comes in the window when inquiry is barred at the door” – Benjamin Jowett
I think that we should extend our apologies to Lord Oxburgh on behalf of the Royal Society who foolishly attempted to deflect him by plying him and his committee with totally irrevelent (peer reviewed) scientific papers which served no purpose other than to evicerate valuable time and effort from the real substance and strategy of the enquiry. Eyeball to eyeball is how you plumb the depths and reveal the underlying truth of the matter and this Royal Society distraction was something that Lord Oxburgh and his team could well have done without.
The committee were all well versed in the art of STRABISMUS. Give them that squinting stare and the truth will come out.
I might agree (or not) with what you say, but a will defend with my title my right to withold that which it is my inclination to withold.
UP yours Mac
It seems like Lord Oxburgh is trying to protect friends and/or ideological running dogs.
I can only draw that conclusion because he’s not holding these hearings out in the open, where they could be recorded and examined by the public.
I know this saves Phil Jones et al from embarrassment, but it does neither the warmists nor the skeptics any good.
Such a pity.
PS: Mr. McIntyre, I commend your efforts on this issue. Thanks.
Very slightly off thread, I know but i cannot wait to hear what you make of the 11th hour submission (by the team) to the Muir-Russell enquiry.
Here’s hoping your heart will take it.
My Goodness! They’re whitewashing the whitewash.
Alexander Harvey – Perhaps there is a place for a Phil Jones. Or a Michael Mann.
But they cannot be given the kind of authority they’ve had in the past.
They cannot again be in a position where they are allowed to dodge scrutiny of their work and to disparage those who do not promote their chosen Party line.
The argument that everyone would have been totally welcoming if I’d only said “pretty please with sugar on it” has been tried before. Climategate letters show the opposite. Indeed, David Rutledge in his online talk was amazed at the contrast between the politeness of my requests and the rudeness of the responses.
The answer is obvious. There has been a mis-perception that the Oxburgh Inquiry, conducted under Dr Ron Oxburgh, is the scientific inquiry into CRU’s work. Oxburgh has cleared this up, it wasn’t. Nopw we just need to ask CRU when the scientific inquiry is going to start, and who will head it up. Simples.
The Washington Post is reporting that Penn State has cleared Mann in the ClimateGate probe
Well, other than that… Mrs. Lincoln… how did you like the play?
In a way it’s an odd comfort knowing that the colonies, with our share of false scientists on the perverse government “research dole”, don’t have a corner on the liars after all. The liars and low-lifes always find their own kind, don’t they…?
So, if true, Jones essentially admits to misconduct (his and every other ‘consensus’ scientist) in an inquiry investigating misconduct that then promptly finds… NO misconduct! An elephant in a room full of elephants… And Oxburgh just thumbs his nose and snickers.
White washing has become the warmists’ favourite pastime, from whitewashing of the Peruvian Alps (funded by the World Bank-no wonder international banks are in such a mess, to whitewashing East Anglia’s Unversity CRU tricks and other conspiracies. Soon they will need to whitewash the whitewash because its already showing. Then another coat, and another, until the whitewash multi-layer will be so thick that it would collapse by its own weight.
Re: Alex the skeptic (Jul 1 16:59),
Though, interestingly, whitewash itself is no longer used in measuring the earth’s temperature. Maybe there’s some scientific law called the conservation of whitewash which needs to be written up.
“Dear Dr Mcintyre,
Thank you for your message. What you report may or may not be the case.”
So what is the truth, is the case or is it not? A very evasive answer indeed which actually gives much credibility to Steve, and less credibilty to Oxburgh.
well he didnt deny it. probably for good reason
Lord Oxburgh won’t deny that Jones’ Trashed Paelo Science!
That’s my title for this blog post
Well obviously the Jones admission is not admissible because he is the source of the problem and the object of the “independent” evaluation–he can’t evaluate himself. However, I’m bemused by the “independent” Oxburg distinction between evaluating the scientific methods of Jones, but not the Science—pray tell, in the last analysis, are they not one and the same in substance?
There needs to be an appeal of the CRU’s FOI decisions. Either Phil Jones takes the stand at that appeal or he doesn’t. If he does, questions like this get put to him. If he doesn’t, CRU loses and the information becomes public anyway.
Gorgeous
I suppose one could write-off Lord Oxburgh and his reactions as that of a character from Monty Python who was carted around on a wheeled platform and he would repeatedly state “I am a good little boy”. Maybe not the case, but the imagery is true for me and leads me to think we should not be taking any of this very seriously.
Steve: have you looked up the references to East Anglia in MOnty Python? I;ve provided a couple of links.
“to try to determine whether their staff had been deliberately dishonest in their research activities”
To this research scientist, anyone who believes it may be impossible to accurately provide the data they publish with a large degree of certainty, and keeps that hidden, is deliberately being dishonest.
If I do not feel confident in the accuracy of my data, its my ethical responsibility to state that whenever the data is presented… or simply not present it and look for a better way. That’s what I consider “research”. That’s the most basic level of honesty expected and required, because nobody else is in a position to know.
McIntyre in very fine form.
But poor Lord Ox has revealed himself, in his own words, to be a complete and utter dunce.
Does anyone know whether the UK Royal Society has a code of conduct? I notice that they’ve done a report encouraging codes of conduct, but haven’t been able to determine whether the Royal Society itself has a code of conduct.
No code of conduct but this is on their website http://royalsociety.org/rights-and-responsibilities/
On admission, each new Fellow signs the Royal Society’s Charter Book and subscribes to the following Obligation:
We who have hereunto subscribed, do hereby promise, that we will endeavour to promote the good of the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, and to pursue the ends for which the same was founded; that we will carry out, as far as we are able, those actions requested of us in the name of the Council; and that we will observe the Statutes and Standing Orders of the said Society. Provided that, whensoever any of us shall signify to the President under our hands, that we desire to withdraw from the Society, we shall be free from this Obligation for the future.
and they can be got here
http://royalsociety.org/Standing-Orders-and-Statues-of-the-Royal-Society/
Looked at their website with no success on Code of Conduct.
But did come across this BBC article about a bunch of RS doubting Thomases getting everyone worked up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10178124.stm
‘The UK’s Royal Society is reviewing its public statements on climate change after 43 Fellows complained that it had oversimplified its messages.’
And this…
‘”Then when we had got 43 names we approached the council in January asking for the website entry on climate to be re-written. I don’t think they were very pleased. I don’t think this sort of thing has been done before in the history of the society.”‘
And…
‘The panel should report in July and the report is to be published in September.
It is chaired by physicist John Pethica, vice-president of the Royal Society.’
The panel is supposed to include several skeptical Fellows. Should make an interesting read when it comes out. Since this review is being conducted at the highest level, could have a great influence on future RS climate stance.
I liken the PSU inquiry to the band playing as the Titanic sank.
A quotation attributed to C. Northcote Parkinson, re government enquiry:
Government’s handling of a difficult matter by appointing a Commission of Enquiry is just like a person going to he toilet — there is a sitting, a report, and then the matter is dropped.
There’s a rough and ready term for this – it’s called taking the piss.
Oxburgh must know who he’s writing to, and that the consequences must include the extensive publication of his deceit. He must simply have calculated, like so many warmists, that it will blow over.
Up to us all to make sure it doesn’t.
Steve, I liked an earlier suggestion – simply accept Oxburgh’s flannel at face value, and write to Acton quoting it and asking what he is doing to fulfil his undertaking to the House Committee to form a committee to scrutinise the science.
Steve,
Perhaps through similar backgrounds, you and I tend to think much in parallel. I am concerned at the dismissive nature of the response by Lord Oxburgh (correct salutations are important to titled Brits) and more so by its implications. Had I the funds, I would gladly support you on a tour of GB to lecture about probity and related matters, particularly statistical auditing. But I no longer do, I’m sorry.
You and I know the consequences that would greet a person working with ore resource evaluation, reporting, fund raising, prospectuses, etc., and honesty therein. The better performance of honesty the resources sector is because the consequences of revealed misbehaviour are felt by the perpetrator somewhat swiftly, personally and harshly; and they are often heard in a formal Court of Law.
This post is to offer you encouragement to continue. FWIW, my feeling is that through persistence and accuracy you are getting close to breaking open some precious eggs, perhaps through events that are hard to foresee. Please keep up application of pressure. It will crack.
We have both been members of Learned Societies. The several which admitted me were proud of their reputations and I cannot imagine that those involved here will be dismissive of what you are telling them. There will be at least some rump groups that will push for clarification and correction.
Steve’s language was direct but not impolite. Unless Oxburgh is not telling the truth then pleading rather than requesting could have produced no other outcome since “the science was not the subject of our study”.
One obvious follow up is to ask the relevant authorities (RS, Parliamentary Committee), “Who then will reassess the science?”
You observe:
“One obvious follow up is to ask the relevant authorities (RS, Parliamentary Committee), “Who then will reassess the science?”
But are you asking for the impossible?
Science is a process allowing 4 possibilities:
1. Honest and right
2. Honest and wrong
3. Dishonest and right
4. Dishonest and wrong.
The default state is 2. Most science is honest but wrong to a greater or lesser extent. Oxburgh formed the view that the process at CRU is honest. Could he have determined whether they are right or wrong? I don’t think he could. That’ll emerge only in the normal course of peer review, which is still ongoing, including at blogs like this one. That’s a process which cannot be short circuited.
If Oxburgh knew an easy way to decide which side in ongoing scientific disputes was right, we could just ask him and accelerate the progress of science dramatically. He did what was doable, he determined whether, in his panel’s view, the process of science at CRU appeared dishonest or not.
Having said that, his response to Steve was not wise. It betrays an over-anxiety to be curt which has led to an ill considered use of words. Had he spared the time to give a more considered response he would not have made this faux pas. There appears to be a fear of reasonable engagement with reasonable people among the academic community and the great and the good which leads them to act and speak foolishly.
Honesty is an extremely weak test. While ultimate truth is an unattainable goal there are much stronger tests available. Competence, professional rigour and proper process would be expected of an engineer whose work we depend on. Why should climate scientists be held to lesser standards?
There is after all Clark’s Law – sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. Oxburgh effectively ruled that the incompetence didn’t meet that test though it is far from clear that his panel and process was competent to make any judgement.
I wish Dr Jones would make up his mind on whether he wants to have guts and self respect or not. But maybe, as we have seen, it is easier to have that for a scientist who is a good looking woman.
When the Oxburgh Report says in paragraph 3 of the Introduction: “The eleven representative publications that the Panel considered in detail are
listed in Appendix B. The papers cover a period of more than twenty years and
were selected on the advice of the Royal Society. All had been published in
international scientific journals and had been through a process of peer review.
CRU agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit…” should we not be asking exactly whom they were agreeing with?
Or should this have read “CRU claimed that … ” ?
Jones pretty much said the same thing when he allowed to Parliament that it is possible that the MWP was warmer than today.
Jones et al are no longer Lead Authors of the next IPCC. He has admitted that his figures are affected by urban effects. When will they correct them, when will they admit that the medieval warm period existed and who is going to do it?
This is surely a good point at which to turn around and ask Jones himself to clarify a) whether or not he made that admission, or a substantially similar admission, during the inquiry and b) regardless of what he said to the inquiry, to what extent, if any, he would now agree that it was probably impossible to do the 1000-year temperature reconstructions with any accuracy.
Listen up Mr McIntyre, I don’t give a stuff about hockey sticks or spaghetti graphs, the fact of the matter is:-
The planet is warming, i.e. the whole planet is warming; CO2 levels are increasing and it is cleary understood by everyone that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the increasing warming is related to the increasing levels of CO2.
Research is telling us that the last time the Earth’s atmosphere held similiar levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to today was 4 million years ago. The result of that, temperatures 4C higher than today and sea levels maybe 25 metres higher than today, no Greenland ice sheet and no West Antarctic ice sheet.
Whilst you and your pig headed deniers continue to sow seeds of doubt through mis-information and distraction the world continues to warm and insignificant action is taken. I hope you have grandchildren because if you do perhaps you might sit down and contemplate what they will think of you in 50 years knowing that you did nothing to stop the massive changes they will then see in their world.
Get a life!
It is *certainly* impossible to do the 1000-year temperature reconstructions with the *required* accuracy.
Ironically, I have more faith in the 10 000 year reconstructions – because of the magnitude of warmth during the Holocene thermal optimum. Would Phil Jones care to comment, on the record?
Steve, did you know this?
http://www.ccsassociation.org.uk/about_ccsa/staff.html
I don’t know since when Oxburgh was honorary president of CCSA, but still.
37 Trackbacks
[…] "climate science" bombshell: Oxburgh and the Jones Admission Climate Audit The supposed rigorous "science" that has been defended to the hilt by among other people […]
[…] huh.. According to Lord Oxburgh…the Science was not the subject of their study. Go figure. Oxburgh and the Jones Admission Climate Audit __________________ Comparing climate alarmist Hansen to Cassandra is WRONG. Cassandra's (Greek […]
[…] Oxburgh and the Jones Admission A bombshell from the Oxburgh “inquiry”. […] […]
[…] Now Steve did a fine job pointing out that the study was alleged to be about the science at his post…e but my favorite bit is that the Ox sob acknowledged (politician style) that Jones made the statement. […]
[…] The ‘Climate Audit’ website publishes a startling written admission from Lord Oxburgh, head of the British investigation into the Climategate scandal that his official inquiry did not check any of the science. […]
[…] Oxburgh and the Jones Admission […]
Government enquiries & the Climategate enquiry…
A quotation attributed to C. Northcote Parkinson, re government enquiries: Government’s handling of a difficult matter by appointing a Commission of Enquiry is just like a person going to he toilet — there is a sitting, a report, and then the matter is…
[…] det tvärt om varit omöjligt att få fram skrivna dokument kring förhören som de hållit. I ett brev till Steve McIntyre skriver den ansvarige apropå ett uttalande som Phil Jones lär ha gjort inför […]
[…] ‘Climate Audit’ website publishes a startling written admission from Lord Oxburgh, head of the British investigation […]
[…] for shining the light onto these Carbon Come Kleptocrats. Mosey over to Climate Audit and read his account. I’m still shaking my head. 10-4, […]
[…] quelconque précision», Lord Oxburgh (président du comité d’évaluation de la Science) a répondu à Steve McIntyre que «la science n’était pas l’objet de son […]
[…] The ‘Climate Audit’ website publishes a startling written admission from Lord Oxburgh, head of the British investigation into the Climategate scandal that his official inquiry did not check any of the science. […]
[…] with “assessing the science” – notwithstanding Lord Oxburgh’s recent astounding claim that “the science was not the subject of our study“) – I suppose one should be […]
[…] why should there be any surprise in Lord Oxburgh’s undermining the credibility of his own rushed-up work on Climategate, given also the fact nobody has been killed about […]
[…] Phil Jones abbia effettivamente fatto anche questa ammissione, Steve McIntyre di Climate Audit ha scritto direttamente al capo del panel, Lord Oxburgh. La risposta è stata: Caro Dr McIntyre, grazie per il suo messaggio. Quanto da lei riportato […]
[…] and now says it was never in his remit. “The science was not the subject of our study,” he confirmed [2] in an email to Steve McIntyre of Climate […]
[…] now says it was never in his remit. "The science was not the subject of our study," he confirmed in an email to Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit. Earlier this week the former chair of the Science […]
[…] https://climateaudit.org/2010/07/01/oxburgh-and-the-jones-admission/ […]
[…] scientific method. Oxburgh did not reassess the science, and now says it was never in his remit. “The science was not the subject of our study,” he confirmed in an email to Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit. Stringer has referred to the Oxburgh […]
[…] reasonable person reading the emails can reach such a conclusion. UEA and Muir Russell both said the Lord Oxburgh inquiry would examine the science. At a press conference on February 11, 2010 Muir Russell said, “Our job is to investigate […]
[…] now says it was never in his remit. "The science was not the subject of our study," he confirmed [2] in an email to Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit. Ah, so the inquiry was not about the […]
[…] thought the Oxburgh Science Inquiry of the CRU, that didn’t look at the science of CRU (see: https://climateaudit.org/2010/07/01/oxburgh-and-the-jones-admission/ ) and the Muir Russell Inquiry that didn’t Inquire too much about the naughty bits ( see: […]
[…] in early February, their written evidence in late February and oral evidence on March 1 – see here for a […]
[…] of the Medieval Warm Period”. 69. Oxbourgh-gate and here (bishop hill) and here (NEW!) and here (NEW!). Lord Oxburgh whitewashes Climategate. The inquiry itself admits that it “wasn’t […]
[…] have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. 69. Oxbourgh-gate and here (bishop hill) and here (NEW!) and here (NEW!). Lord Oxburgh whitewashes Climategate. The inquiry itself admits that it […]
[…] as for those inquiries McNeill mentions that clear Michael Mann and others? They have resulted in a wold-wide shortage of […]
[…] […]
[…] Oxbourgh-gate (RPJ) y aquí (Bishop Hill) y aquí (¡Nuevo! – Climate Audit) y aquí (¡Nuevo! Climate Audit). Lord Oxburgh encubre Climategate. La propia investigación admite […]
[…] malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit”. Reason: Lord Oxburgh reveals “the science was not the subject” of study by his panel. Outcome: Decisions on […]
[…] said the Lord Oxburgh inquiry would examine the science. At a press conference on February 11, 2010 Muir Russell said, Our job is to investigate scientific rigor, the honesty, the openness and the due process of […]
[…] said the Lord Oxburgh inquiry would examine the science. At a press conference on February 11, 2010 Muir Russell said, “Our job is to investigate scientific rigor, the honesty, the openness and the due process […]
[…] an email exchange with Steve McIntyre, Lord Oxburgh was even more explicit: “[…] as I [Lord Oxburgh] have pointed out to you previously the science was not the subject of […]
[…] why should there be any surprise in Lord Oxburgh’s undermining the credibility of his own rushed-up work on Climategate, given also the fact nobody has been killed about […]
[…] In an email exchange with Steve McIntyre, Lord Oxburgh was even more explicit: […]
[…] said the Lord Oxburgh inquiry would examine the science. At a press conference on February 11, 2010 Muir Russell said, “Our job is to investigate scientific rigor, the honesty, the openness and the due process […]
[…] The University of East Anglia (UEA) and Muir Russell both said the Lord Oxburgh inquiry would examine the science. At a press conference on February 11, 2010 Muir Russell said, […]
[…] to "was it carried out correctly?", a distinction not lost on critics such as Climate Audit blogger Stephen McIntyre. We'll be getting McIntyre's reaction […]