Mar
Royal Society of Chemistry backs 36,000 physicists in condemning Climategate
Today, the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) announced to the Parliamentary Select Committee investigating the Climategate scandal that it is not letting Climategate fraudsters off the hook. The RSC has unequivocally stated:
“scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act.”
The RSC now stands shoulder to shoulder with the 36,000 strong Institute of Physics in speaking out against the cover up and destruction of data by unethical and criminal climate researchers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.
With these public statements on the conduct of climate scientists from other scientists, we are seeing a monumental groundswell of scientific opinion against the crooked methods of advocates of global warming theory such as disgraced CRU Professor Phil Jones.
In a thinly veiled rebuke the RSC, an organisation that represents 42,000 chemistry scientists, unequivocally agrees with skeptics that scientific data must be made available to the public and be open to scrutiny. They argue that the benefit for the status of science outweighs the perceived risks. To this end the Society has urged the Parliamentary Select Committee to clarify,
“the severity of the acts carried out by those scientists at the CRU involved, i.e. whether it was a misguided protection of their work or a malicious misrepresentation of data.”
We applaud both the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics for making such a valiant stand for the integrity of the scientific method. We are particularly heartened to see that both institutions have taken the view contrary to the politicisation of science, so that such announcements will be of great comfort to climate skeptics so hotly opposed to the skewed advocacy among left-wing environmentalists now popularly referred to as ‘post-normal science.’
A full transcript of the RSC submission may be found here, and are shown below:
Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society of Chemistry (CRU 42)
Summary
- It is essential that the public and all non-specialists remain truly confident in the scientific method to provide a sound scientific evidence-base on which strong decisions can be made. Correspondingly, it is in the interest of scientists and the public that society as a whole has an understanding and an appreciation of science.
- Access to reliable, up-to-date information is vital to advancing research and enabling the discovery or development of solutions to global issues. Sharing information is especially important in multi-disciplinary research, where progress is very much dependent on willing and effective communication between different speciality areas.
- The RSC firmly believes that the benefits of scientific data being made available and thus open to scrutiny outweigh the perceived risks. To this end, scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act.
Submission
1. The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) welcomes the opportunity to submit formal written evidence to the consultation on the disclosure of climate change data from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia.
2. The RSC is the UK Professional Body for chemical scientists and an international Learned Society for advancing the chemical sciences. Supported by a network of over 46,000 members worldwide and an internationally acclaimed publishing business, our activities span education and training, conferences and science policy, and the promotion of the chemical sciences to the public.
3. The document has been written from the perspective of the Royal Society of Chemistry. It is noteworthy that the University of East Anglia is a member of the RSC Partnership Scheme, however this in no way constitutes a conflict of interest. The RSC’s Royal Charter obliges it “to serve the public interest” by acting in an independent advisory capacity, and we would therefore be very happy for this submission to be put into the public domain.
- What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
4. The apparent resistance of researchers from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) to disclose research data has been widely portrayed as an indication of a lack of integrity in scientific research. The true nature of science dictates that research is transparent and robust enough to survive scrutiny. A lack of willingness to disseminate scientific information may infer that the scientific results or methods used are not robust enough to face scrutiny, even if this conjecture is not well-founded. This has far-reaching consequences for the reputation of science as a whole, with the ability to undermine the public’s confidence in science.
5. It is essential that the public and all non-specialists remain truly confident in the scientific method to provide a sound scientific evidence-base on which strong decisions can be made. Correspondingly, it is in the interest of scientists and the public that society as a whole has an understanding and an appreciation of science. The RSC strongly supports the dissemination of chemical knowledge to foster and encourage the growth and application of the chemical sciences, as stated in its Royal Charter. This includes the dissemination of scientific knowledge as a means to advance public understanding and the learning of science.
6. The dissemination of scientific information is central to progressing scientific developments, as it is based on a sound knowledge of preceding research.[1] Access to reliable, up-to-date information is vital to advancing research and enabling the discovery or development of solutions to global issues. Sharing information is especially important in multi-disciplinary research, where progress is very much dependent on willing and effective communication between different speciality areas.
7. It is also imperative that scientific information is made available to the wider community for scrutiny: the validity and essence of research relies upon its ability to stand up to review. In fact, advances in science frequently occur when the prevailing view is challenged by informed scepticism, this is fundamental to the scientific method and should be encouraged, even if controversial. The RSC firmly believes that the benefits of scientific data being made available and thus open to scrutiny outweigh the perceived risks. To this end, scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act. Furthermore, research needs to be presented in an accurate and reliable manner in the correct context in order to optimise this process. It may also be necessary to incorporate an independent auditing system into peer review with the ability to demand access to raw data sets to ensure best practices are being adhered to.
8. With the increased use of electronic media, access to information is widespread for scientists and the public alike. While this is a great benefit to society, the quality and validity of information available raises complex problems as valid scientific information and general opinion are presented side by side. The inability to decipher which information is legitimate, results in confusion, misinterpretation and may lead to mistrust of ‘science’. There needs to be a clearer understanding in the public domain of what constitutes a reliable source, including an appreciation for the process that is used for disseminating research and the advantages of peer review.
9. The peer review system is central to the credibility of science: its purpose to prevent the dissemination of unwarranted claims and unacceptable interpretations. Formally published scientific research is subject to this authoritative process whereby a community of qualified, impartial experts examine the information and possess the ability to prevent publication. Authors generally protect their data until it has been peer-reviewed and published in a formal publication due to the competitive nature of research.
10. The issue of misinformation in the public domain must also be tackled. Just as the scientific community must be open with regard to their evidence base, those who disagree must also provide a clear and verifiable backing for their argument, if they wish their opinions to be given weight. When disagreements occur, the validity of the analysis must be established before credence can be given to any opinion. Increased understanding of the process of scientific research, firstly in the government, but also within the media and general public, is vital in order to foster a more open sharing of information.
11. Support from the scientific community is needed to provide context and to explain the process by which conclusions are reached. Encouraging scientists to openly engage with the public can only be achieved if researchers are given the necessary backing in the face of any unfounded arguments against their work. This support must come from the highest levels, sending out a strong message on the importance of scientific methodology and research and promoting open sharing of information between scientists and the wider community.
- Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
12. The terms of reference and scope of the independent review are adequate, although some wider reaching aspects must also be examined. The effect on other researchers working in this area such as independent researchers, as well as those collaborating with CRU, should be explored. The impact of this incident on the public perception of the CRU and UEA as a whole should also be considered as a measuring stick for the implications of such actions in the public domain. The manner in which the findings from the items set out are interpreted and applied will determine their value.
13. As has been set out in the review, it is necessary to investigate the email exchanges which were discovered along with other relevant CRU information to establish whether data have been manipulated or suppressed. This is, not only needed in order to identify any unacceptable behaviour, but also to verify the results which have been published. This is vital in clarifying the severity of the acts carried out by those scientists at the CRU involved, i.e. whether it was a misguided protection of their work or a malicious misrepresentation of data.
14. The review of practices surrounding CRU’s use of peer review and dissemination of data should be used to shed light on how these comply with established best scientific practice. Any failings in this area should be examined in the context of the research methods used and any deviations should be assigned either to the individual researchers or to inadequate updating of the best practice to suit research in the digital age.[2] This will beget more valuable information on the motivation and the reasoning behind the conduct of researchers at CRU.
15. Research institutions should review established protocols regarding the management of, and access to, research data to ensure that they remain up to date and clear. This process must be developed in collaboration with researchers so that its importance can be understood. The current practices in CRU and UEA must be examined to ensure the unit and the institution fulfil public regulations and that they offer support to researchers to ensure compliance.
16. The review of the security issues surrounding the release of information is an important internal issue for CRU and UEA. Furthermore, the RSC supports investigations into the highly irregular manner in which information was obtained from the researchers.
· How independent are the other two international data sets?
17. From the information available, the RSC cannot comment on this issue.
I am not sure why you congratulated these two societies for standing up for the “Scientific Method”. It should have been obvious years ago that the real danger to their profession was the credibility of the “Method” among the general public.
It seems they have finally waked up to the long trem threat of public cynicism toward the science profession in general. When some of their members got into bed with the politicians and showboaters like Gore and the Hollywood crowd for the sake of grants, money and fame, the red lights should have been flashing long before Climategate.
Now that the horses have left the barn they finally “do the right thing” I would say that physicists are pretty obtuse about the way the real world works.
JLK
I couldn’t agree more and these societies plus their US counterparts should now pull their official statements on global warming/climate change.
Well done chemists.
Sadly, some of the questioning at today’s inquiry was far from robust and some of the answers that were allowed without challenge were laughable.
It is a disgrace that the main ‘sceptic’ protagonists were excluded, but which politician of any party is likely to action in any way a letter of complaint.
Is there any hope that the proposed scientific inquiry will be more rigorous?
I couldn’t agree more. When Dr. Jones was allowed to say over and over again that the data was available in America, my blood pressure shot through the roof. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that the data were available, that really wasn’t the issue. The issue was, and is, of the available data, what did you use and what program did you use to adjust it? That was what he steadfastly refused to deliver.
On a side note; if he refused to turn that information over because he believed that the information seeker wanted it solely to find fault with it, doesn’t that show that Dr. Jones knew that there was plenty of fault to find?
The Royal Society of Chemists doesn’t deny the reality of human-induced climate change anywhere. They simply and rightfully so object to some of the practices surrounding the use of data. Your article doesn’t support your argument at all; and it just serves to confuse your generally dim-witted readers who understand nothing to very little about science and the world surrounding them.
Dick Morris has come back as a woman?
Lisa, can’t you even see the contradiction of your own statement? As you admit they “object to some of the practices surrounding the use of data.” Is that support or condemnation? I’ll await your reply with interest.
Lisa, you see, reality of any scientific statement does not need to be denied. Any statement is challenged by default (if you are a scientist). It needs to be supported to have any right to exist. Supported by data, which are compromised and therefore can not support anything whatsoever. To say that treatment of data is unacceptable (which the paper clearly did) is quite equivalent to saying that every conclusion based on them is not scientifically based.
Sadly, this article reproduces the “The vast majority of scientists” claims made by the Alarmists. I recall my response to a Wikipedia article where a number of “societies” were listed as AGW sympathizers — which made me wonder how many of each society actually took that position? I know better than to assume that a metaphoric body of thousands of individuals think and act as one.
Whether intentional or not, this article implies that all 78,000 scientists back the representatives who wrote the anti-CRU statements. Do we know if there was a vote? Do we have a breakdown of the vote? Or is the author in need of the same comfort in large numbers that the Alarmists found?
Emulating the Alarmists doesn’t enhance the reputation of the Skeptic’s side. I’d rather read something more honest.
John, sadly the general public relate more to what ‘experts’ say than to the evidence, itself, because they neither have the time nor the knowledge to fathom the truth. I’m not aware of dissent from the membership of these organisations to the statements thus its safe to conclude there is a ‘consensus.’ I don’t endorse the principle of consensus science but its still inescapably influential on public opinion, nonetheless.
Translation: Misleading the public with unsupported raw numbers can be justified.
I lament the cynicism of alarmists for starting to use this shabby tactic. Science never used to be about consensus until ‘post normal’ science reared its ugly head. The public delegates its critical thinking to the ‘experts’ and that’s why we are in this mess. But a wise debater turns his opponent’s arguments against him and that’s why this has become a numbers game, whether we like it or not.
You are right, of course. It IS a tactic that has nothing to do with science. However, any petition has nothing to do with science, unless it is a sociological study. People who signed the petition (on either side) were merely using their job titles in non-scientific field of public pressure.
However, I do not see what you mean when you say that something not related to science can have any effect on reputation of scientific ideas. Reputation, just like a consensus, is NOT part of science. It is a social phenomenon, sure, affecting some factors of scientific research such as grants, but in no way connected with science as such. And, as social phenomenon, is influenced by social actions such as popularization and, yes, petitions.
In the world of ‘post normal’ science consensus is king and no one is allowed to dissent while those who sing loudest from the hymn sheet receive the greatest accolades. That’s the dystopia climatology seeks-ask Michael Mann and Phil Jones. Those scientists who do not conform to post normal models are not going to be funded. Thus, if we take this to its logical conclusion, if we do not defeat the post normalists’ science then no other science will exist.
Now that the The IoP has issued a clarification that states “The institute’s position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change” — using your logic, those 36,000 scientists back that statement, too.
The “wise debater” has painted himself into a corner.
Interesting John Eyon – I especially note use of the word ‘forced’ – I think Galileo would recognsise the technique
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/02/institute-of-physics-emails-inquiry-submission
“Institute of Physics forced to clarify submission to climate emails inquiry”
Further on it gets curiouser and curiouser
“The Guardian has been unable to find a member of the board that supports the submission. Two of the scientists listed as members said they had declined to comment on a draft submission prepared by the institute, because they were not climate experts and had not read the UEA emails. Others would not comment or did not respond to enquiries.”
I couldn’t help but notice this
http://www.iop.org/Media/Press%20Releases/press_40762.html
.. and two of America’s most senior physicist’s think it’s all a crock
“In fact, says Happer, climate science involves some of the most complicated questions of physics and astrophysics imaginable. The science simply can’t be reduced to the simple formulas promulgated by the IPCC, which he termed “an advocacy group for global warming alarmism that masquerades as a scientific organization.”
Happer points out that the tiny amount of CO-2 that man has introduced into the atmosphere could create only a correspondingly tiny rise in temperature. The climate-change crowd gets around this by contending that the CO-2 results in an increase in the amount of the most important greenhouse gas, water vapor.”
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2010/02/rajendra_pachauri_media_went_g.html
The ship is sinking John Eyon. Head for the lifeboats.
I think not. The IOP haven’t in any way withdrawn its damning condemnation of junk science that so far has offered no verifiability. Correct methodology is everything – it is what the IOP argues for. Thus scientists generally are demanding climatologists clean up their act and abide by the essential principles of the science i.e transparency and replication of their methods so that results may be tested. I, like many others, argue if we had been given access to the meta data and methodologies to begin with we’d all know for sure, one way or the other whether Jones, Mann, etc. are either honorable scientists or downright frauds. As it stands justice, truth and science just have to wait a little longer.
John O –
Believing that all the IoP scientists agree on honesty and integrity cannot substitute for the belief that all the IoP scientists agree with the condemnation of the CRU.
It does appear that despite the latest addendum from the IOP they retained the inescapably pertinent judgment about the Climategate scandal, which is “whether it was a misguided protection of their work or a malicious misrepresentation of data.” If there’s no retraction of this damning assessment then it still holds.
Graham -
Yes, curiouser and curiouser. But, these are the arguments that could be used against the previous statement critical of CRU practices. The article you cite actually dramatizes my thesis on the questionable use of clumping the total number of members into a position written by a few.
Such tactics were deplorable when made by the IPCC. I had hoped to see people on the AGW side openly criticize that and other bad tactics. They were generally silent. Nevertheless, I’m taking on that responsibilty here, on the Skeptics side.
But John they haven’t rescinded this original accusation
“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.”
This gets us back to where we started, because no one has ever suggested that they are anything other than true and accurate, which then gives rise to ‘worrying implicatios’ to ‘the integrity of [their] scientific research’.
The statement alters nothing in actual fact. Glad you gave me the opportunity to point that out.
We’re talking about different things. You’re focusing on the substance of the statement. I’m focusing on the the implication that all the members are arrayed behind the statement.
John, the only way we can test if the members are arrayed behind the statement or not is if there is open dissent. Does anyone see any evidence of this? I can’t. Surely no self-respecting scientist of conscience is going to condemn its leadership advocating “Access to reliable, up-to-date information” or for “Sharing information” which the IOP states is “especially important in multi-disciplinary research, where progress is very much dependent on willing and effective communication between different speciality areas.”
John O –
You’ve finally found a point of agreement within the context of this thread. We can look for dissent. Finding no dissent one hour after the statement wouldn’t be fair timeframe. I would argue a couple days doesn’t make it “settled” either.
That is probably moot, however. The IoP offered a “clarification” that promotes AGW. While Graham hints at outside pressure, it could as likely be the evidence that you and I are looking for — internal dissention.
John Eyon: “While Graham hints at outside pressure, it could as likely be the evidence that you and I are looking for — internal dissention.”
Yes, summed up neatly, I totally agree with you.
Well John, you’ve rather stepped on a trap of your own fabrication and raised the issue of what this scientific consensus is that we keep getting told about. Having said that, as others have proposed, scientific theories and postulations don’t achieve credibility by show of hands. That’s a political concept, not a scientific one. Galileo, is a famous example. He was in a minority of one. Which is why the data hiders of UEA CRU are in the dog house.
Seeing the ‘three wise monkeys’ at the government inquiry was another blow to UK science in general. If they seek to bolster the UEA CRU by trying to suggest that all UK science is like this, then forget the Medieval Warm Period, we are submitting our science to the ‘Dark Ages’.
Graham –
I don’t know how many times I need to post this: my thesis is that it is unfair for either side to claim the entire membership of a society as supporting a statement written by the society’s representatives. I wasn’t talking about “consensus” such as a vote on the larger AGW issue.
Maybe this needs to be clarified: I am a skeptic regarding AGW and I know better than to believe that the consensus opinion of all scientists at any one moment settles a controversy.
However… I am also skeptical of anti-AGW people using the same false practices that the AGW used — such as presuming everyone who hasn’t spoken up or cast a vote must be on “our” side.