Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

Here is a very well written article on the need for change in the field of climate science, especially as it relates to claims associated with the use of climate models, and also with regards to the kinds of publications needed to back up assertions of "settled science" on this topic:

[RQUOTER]The Perverse Economics of Climate Modeling

As the dust continues swirling around emails purloined from the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, global warming activists keep insisting that computer climate models predicting disaster represent "settled science." How can that be when climate models aren't science at all?

Laws are science. Models are engineering.

Scientists conduct controlled experiments, collect observable data, and construct testable hypotheses. In this case, they compare and discuss the accuracy of various sets of temperature measurements, ice core drillings, or tree ring observations. The peer review process, when properly administered, helps establish a body of accepted facts that both scientists and engineers can work from.

Given the credible allegations that the peer review process may have been corrupted and that some of the data has been cherry picked, it's in everyone's best interest to have a thorough public review of the quality and comprehensiveness of the data collected. This should give all of us a higher degree of confidence about when, where, and how much the earth's climate has actually changed. Such a review can be done without taking a position on potential causes of climate change or proposed solutions. After the data are scrubbed, it might be correct to claim that climate measurement science is "settled."

That's step one.

When testable, repeatable relationships are observed on a set of data that can be expressed in the language of mathematics, scientists often say that they have discovered a new "law." Examples run from the straightforward F=MA and powerful E=MC2 to the numbingly complex Schrödinger equations.

If anyone can articulate a mathematical law that describes the relationships amongst the climate data collected thus far, let them step forward and publish it. Not just the predictions - show us the equation so scientists everywhere can test it to see how well it matches the "settled" climate measurement data.

This has not yet happened.

....[/RQUOTER]

 

The investigation into the Climategate scandal has determined that Phil Jones and his crew hid requested climate data and violated freedom of information standards in their quest to keep the climate data secret. No big surprise here, at least as far as I am concerned.

These people just cannot be trusted.

It appears unlikely that Phil Jones will be reinstated in his former position as head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University as a result of his misconduct in this matter. Of course he is not in the position now because he had been put on leave while this matter was being investigated.

[RQUOTER]Scientists in Stolen E-mail Scandal Hid Climate Data

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny. The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late, The Times has learnt. The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach.

The stolen e-mails , revealed on the eve of the Copenhagen summit, showed how the university’s Climatic Research Unit attempted to thwart requests for scientific data and other information, and suggest that senior figures at the university were involved in decisions to refuse the requests. It is not known who stole the e-mails. Professor Phil Jones, the unit’s director, stood down while an inquiry took place. The ICO’s decision could make it difficult for him to resume his post.

Details of the breach emerged the day after John Beddington, the Chief Scientific Adviser, warned that there was an urgent need for more honesty about the uncertainty of some predictions. His intervention followed admissions from scientists that the rate of glacial melt in the Himalayas had been grossly exaggerated.

In one e-mail, Professor Jones asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also told a colleague that he had persuaded the university authorities to ignore information requests under the act from people linked to a website run by climate sceptics. A spokesman for the ICO said: “The legislation prevents us from taking any action but from looking at the emails it’s clear to us a breach has occurred.” Breaches of the act are punishable by an unlimited fine. The complaint to the ICO was made by David Holland, a retired engineer from Northampton. He had been seeking information to support his theory that the unit broke the IPCC’s rules to discredit sceptic scientists.

In a statement, Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner at the ICO, said: “The e-mails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information.” He added: “The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. We will be advising the university about the importance of effective records management and their legal obligations in respect of future requests for information.”

Mr Holland said: “There is an apparent Catch-22 here. The prosecution has to be initiated within six months but you have to exhaust the university’s complaints procedure before the commission will look at your complaint. That process can take longer than six months.” The university said: “The way freedom of information requests have been handled is one of the main areas being explored by Sir Muir Russell’s independent review. The findings will be made public and we will act as appropriate on its recommendations.” [/RQUOTER]

 

If you do not like the message, just go after the messenger. Very nice.

How much intellectual integrity does that kind of a reply demonstrate?

The answer is obvious. Not very much.