Tuesday 1 December 2009

Smug? Moi?

It is, of course, very flattering to see The Times reach the opinion that I published last week in its report on the "Climategate" scandal, i.e. that there should be a distinction between a scientist and an advocate and that the CRU staff failed in that regard.

We now also know that the 1980s raw data on which much of the current thinking is based was thrown away, apparently because there was nowhere to store it. This is truly appalling. Combined with the refusal to disclose the methodology by which corrections were made to the data, it means that the final results that are relied on for modern policy are not scientific; they are fictional.

If the CRU staff were proper scientists, they would realise that such corrections were perfectly acceptable, provided that you also made available the original data and the methodology by which you corrected it. That way, if someone disagrees with you, you can say "Well, go and collect your own data and/or correct it yourself and tell us what you think the answer is", allowing a debate over whose data collection methods were better and whose correction methodology was more valid. That is how science works.

You don't publish a set of data, order the world to change the basis of its economy, then delete the data, refuse to disclose the methodology, and suppress dissenting opinions. That is simply not science.

This is, in fact what I've been banging on about for years, such as my post back in June 2008, bemoaning the inability of climate change advocates to enter into a reasoned debate...

7 comments:

  1. Your penultimate paragraph is beautifully devastating.

    However, if I were pedantic, (what? me?) I'd point out that Jonathan Leake wrote,This weekend it emerged that the unit has thrown away much of the data. Tucked away on its website is this statement: “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites ... We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data.” If true, it is extraordinary. It means that the data on which a large part of the world’s understanding of climate change is based can never be revisited or checked.

    You, however, wrote: "We now also know that the 1980s raw data on which much of the current thinking is based was thrown away"

    Know? Know? You mean that the matter is settled?

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Young Mr B, I think perhaps P is basing his comments on this page as well:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

    We know, because they've admitted it:

    In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

    ReplyDelete
  3. We know, because they've admitted it

    I would have said "We believe, because they've claimed it."

    ReplyDelete
  4. A fair point, YMB, and well spotted.

    However, lawyers would call the CRU statement quoted by Albert an "admission against interest". These are taken to be true unless there is a strong reason not to.

    ReplyDelete
  5. (oh ... and thank you for the comment on my penultimate paragraph!)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would have said "We believe, because they've claimed it."

    Good point Mr B. Now that you've put it like that, I'm becoming sceptical that they have destroyed it - after all, their other claims seem more and more doubtful. Also, (contrary to P's comment), it may be an admission in their interest. At least by destroying the figures their treatment of the data cannot be falsified, so they retain some credability. (Though I'm not seriously accusing them of telling lies.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'd sooner watch you being smug than the supercilious gits you are speaking out against. Enjoy!

    ReplyDelete