Der Spiegel is at the front of the pack in covering issues of climate science and policy. Their latest article is titled "How the Science of Global Warming was Compromised" and provides a very insightful look at the politicization of climate science. Have a look and feel free to come back here to discuss.
14 May 2010
How the Science of Global Warming was Compromised
Der Spiegel is at the front of the pack in covering issues of climate science and policy. Their latest article is titled "How the Science of Global Warming was Compromised" and provides a very insightful look at the politicization of climate science. Have a look and feel free to come back here to discuss.
85 comments:
The article is a good look at the politicization and comes to the conclusion that no one knows enough about the complexities of the climate to draw conclusions on climate change. I guess that means the science is not settled which in itself is a stunning realization from a prominent German magazine.
The next 10 years will be telling however. The world oceans, which can act like a large calorimeter, are now monitored closely by the Argo Bouy system. There are more satellites than ever before monitoring incident short wave radiative and reflectivity as well as long wave radiant emmisiviity. That system coupled with the fact that CO2 will increase substantially over the next decade (predicting warming) while the ocean oscillations and solar cycles are set up for cooling (if you believe contrarians), then we have set the stage for verifiable predictions in fairly short order.
Half truths have half lives.
Professional's that engage in half truths know this.
Excellent article. It suggests plausible explanations for the current state of affairs and does not attempt to demonize or defend either group.
They whitewashed the most important point!
"But what appeared at first glance to be fraud ["hide the decline"] was actually merely a face-saving fudge: Tree-ring data indicates no global warming since the mid-20th century, and therefore contradicts the temperature measurements. The clearly erroneous tree data was thus corrected by the so-called "trick" with the temperature graphs."
Clearly erroneous???
It's not like it's an outlier, virtually ALL dendro reconstructions diverge significantly in the latter half of the 20th century. Which brings to mind the incredibly pertinent question of whether this is even a reliable proxy for temperature.
Secondly, what they did was plain and simple fraud. You can't just lop on temperature to a proxy graph and then say "look the proxy matches the temperature." Obviously the temperature will match the temperature! How can you label it as anything other than fraud?
I stopped reading the article at that point; don't care to see what is in the McIntyre section. Shoddy journalism.
#4 - I felt exactly the same way. At this point in time I think that anyone who defends or rationalizes the "hide the decline" is either uninformed, incompetent or dishonest.
-4,5-
Der Spiegel has "hide the decline" just about right, sorry.
6
Roger,
You don't think the divergence problem (i.e. hide the decline) cast serious doubt on the value of tree rings as temperature proxies? Please explain.
-7-charlesahart
Simple, Der Spiegel says:
"But what appeared at first glance to be fraud was actually merely a face-saving fudge: Tree-ring data indicates no global warming since the mid-20th century, and therefore contradicts the temperature measurements. The clearly erroneous tree data was thus corrected by the so-called "trick" with the temperature graphs."
Face-saving fudge, not fraud. Fair and accurate.
I disagree on the face saving fudge. People keep concentrating on the rising portion of the hockey stick but the fraud was flattening out the Middle ages warm period and the little ice age. If the paleo record had not been truncated the way it was, the impact of "warming unprecendented in a 1000 years" would have been lost. The fact that Mann and Briffa argued the point for so long indicated the graph was used to maximize political impact. The divergence, if left in place, would have given a better indication of the accuracy of paleo record.
Hiding the data that proves your method doesn't work, while continuing to use the method you now know doesn't work, is fraud not fudge.
-10-Jonathan
"fraud not fudge"
This judgment depends if you'd like to engage in a debate about semantics or a debate about research misconduct.
Roger been reading your site since its inception (and in its previous incarnation) and have yet to see you mount such a strong defense of this particular issue. Can you elaborate either here or in a new post (or link me to your defense)?
Suffice it to say I could not possibly disagree more. And I'd add that its a symptom of a greater problem with those handling the reconstructions, as once you recognize what happened here, things like the Yamal kerfuffle, Mann's choice of proxies, and Mann's statistical methodologies become more clear (it's the "tidier story" that is the true goal, not the presenting of all data, warts & all). And I'd further remind readers that every IPCC reconstructions dating back to the 'MWP' contain dendro reconstructions. Every single one. Not to imply that it's some conspiracy, just driving home the importance of this datum. If we're going to figure out if the 1990s were warmer than [1290 or 1390 or whatever subset of years], we must have reliable proxies.
-12-Kenspy
Thanks for your comment. If you have a case for fraud, please make it. You have a case for "fudge".
Fudge is not fraud. But if you think otherwise, just make the case, thanks!
Roger, if they were hiding "erroneous" data then this would indeed be fudge. But the data is not "erroneous" (that is, incorrectly measured, or contaminated by known and understood error processes); it is anomalous (that is, inconsistent with the theory, in this case to the extent of effectively disproving it). Not openly stating the existence of data which disproves the method you are using IS scientific fraud, plain and simple.
What would you think of a drug company that omitted to report in its submission to the FDA late deaths among patients who had initially responded well to treatment, and then excused itself on the grounds that these deaths were mentioned elsewhere?
-14-Jonathan
Yes, I hear exactly what you are saying. But the reality is that the methodology is contested (see, e.g., Sarewitz's "excess of objectivity") and the implications of the divergence are subject to multiple interpretations.
The best case that you have is thus _fudge_ and fraud is just not part of the equation. It just is not.
The FDA analogy that you invoke involves none of the ambiguities or uncertainties that I have cited. Der Spiegel got it right.
#8 - Roger
IMO hiding uncertainty _is_ research misconduct.
More importantly, "hide the decline" also involved pasting the temperature data on the end and smoothing the result to make it look like a continuous data series. This step clearly turns a "fudge" into a "deliberate deception".
If they had simply truncated it you would have a better case.
-16-Raven
"IMO hiding uncertainty _is_ research misconduct"
I hear what you are saying, however, in the world of academia, this is just not the case. If it were, most work across most field would be guilty of such charges ;-)
Roger says "I hear what you are saying, however, in the world of academia, this is just not the case."
In the real world, as opposed to the world of academia, hiding the decline is fraud. In academia Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay (Enron) would still have tenured jobs.
A "fudge" is a conscious choice to mislead from the truth AND the real science. Calling it less than fraud is mere splitting hairs on a bald head. This wasn't just a "whoops!" It was intentional.
I would like to understand the basic principles here. At the most primitive level, it sounds like today we have temp measurements and tree rings. If they do not match well (such that they have to be adjusted), how do we know that tree rings represent the past well?
Sorry if my question is too simplistic.
#17 - Roger
Perhaps what is necessary is a caveat with any discussion of the 'hide the decline'. Something like:
Exercises such as 'hiding the decline' are a common practice amoung scientists working in academica so it does not rise to the level of academic misconduct. However, such pratices are generally considered to be gross malpractice by scientists and engineers working in any industry where public safety and/or legal liability is a concern.
The fact that climate scientists see no need to live up to the scientific/ethical standards of scientists/engineers working in industry is something must be considered before introducing radical policy changes based on the work of these scientists.
8
Roger,
Hiding data that contradicts your theory is clearly bad science if not fraud (depending on intent). Why don't you discuss this with physics profs there on the faculty with you. This is the same as claiming AGW is causing increased storm damage based on selective data presentation.
I am amazed that you are taking this position given what happened to you regarding your own publications and the IPCC. The two situations seems very similar if not identical.
8
Roger,
I would like to ad....
"Simple, Der Spiegel says:
"But what appeared at first glance to be fraud was actually merely a face-saving fudge: Tree-ring data indicates no global warming since the mid-20th century, and therefore contradicts the temperature measurements. The clearly erroneous tree data was thus corrected by the so-called "trick" with the temperature graphs."
******"The clearly erroneous tree data"******
If the tree data is erroneous then it can't be used as a temperature proxy period! Can you imagine Newton doing his gravity experiment with a ball on an inclined plane and deciding to throw out data near the end of the plane because it didn't adhere to the theory? If the theory can't predict the position of the ball at every point on the plane as a function of time then the theory is not a valid theory.
Seems like high school science to me. What am I missing?
"Clearly erroneous???"
Yes, clearly erroneous. Land and ocean measurements, balloon measurements, satellite measurements, and indirect indicators (e.g. early spring thaws, later fall frosts) all indicate that the earth has warmed since the middle of the 20th century.
Consider the following situation. You write an article. I don't like the last part of your article because it doesn't have the impact that I had hoped it would have. So I write my own last part to the article, replace your last part by my last part, but pretend that it's all still the same article written by you. Now, to my amazement and disappointment, you don't consider this fraud (but innocently call it a fudge). I suggest you find yourself a dictionary, and look up the word fraud since you obviously don't know its meaning.
What is the difference between fudge and fraud?
You can eat Fudge
Der Spiegel conveniently forgot to mention the Wegman Report when describing the Mann/McIntyre hokeystick dispute. Just mentioned that Mann disputed McIntyres paper. Also it deviously linked, at least in the beginning, skeptic science with Big Oil. Not entirely unbiased I would say, but to be expected after so many years of AGW indoctrination.
#20 Sharon
I think you have briefly captured the point at the heart of the discussion. The "not matching well" has been named the Divergence Problem.
Moreover, if ground is ceded on the Divergence Problem, the AGW side can no longer argue that current warming is unprecedented. They don't have a solution to the Divergence Problem, so they tried to conceal it with the "Nature trick", and don't want to discuss it now.
#24
"Yes, clearly erroneous. Land and ocean measurements, balloon measurements, satellite measurements, and indirect indicators (e.g. early spring thaws, later fall frosts) all indicate that the earth has warmed since the middle of the 20th century."
Data is data. This data is not erroneous, it is data. It is not erroneous because it contradicts observed temperature, it is divergent data. The divergence is not erroneous, it is anomalous.
Deleting, removing or somehow concealing anomalous segments of data - specifically, as in this case, purposefully; intentionally - is malfeasance. Grafting replacement data in place of data which is anomalous is malfeasance. This case of "hiding the decline", in all its manifestations, is scientific malfeasance.
Wafting this behaviour away as a "fudge", and distinct from a "fraud", is an appalling act of posturing and a scientist that would condone it is deserving of VERY close scrutiny.
I am shocked, Roger. What miserable standards of scientific conduct can you possibly subscribe to, if you deem this manipulation and concealment excusable behaviour in scientific research!?
Roger, I find your attitude towards this extremely hard to understand. You are clearly aware of precisely what was done and of its significance, but you shy away from the obvious conclusion. The only way I can make sense of this (you're clearly not stupid, and you don't seem to be wicked) is to suppose that you are using "fraud" in some highly technical sense, which requires quite extraordinary levels of malfeasance. Perhaps this is a UK/US thing? Or a physics/social science thing? Or maybe you're just a kinder nicer person than I am?
You speak of "multiple interpretations" of the divergence problem. Well everything potentially has multiple interpretations, but for the divergence problem these fall into two broad categories: (1) that these trees are not good thermometers, and the apparent early correlation is spurious; (2) that these trees were good thermometers until about 1960 but then suddenly stopped being so. The first explanation is a scientific one, built on the principle of uniformitarianism which underlies all observational science. The second one is just special pleading.
Special pleading almost never has a place in science, and when you are doing it you must make crystal clear up front that that is what you are doing so that other people can be suitably skeptical about your results. Hiding the decline is pretending that you used a uniformitarian interpretation when in fact your whole argument is built on special pleading.
This deliberate attempt to deceive is fraud. It may or may not be "research misconduct", which is a highly technical matter and varies from place to place; that doesn't really interest me. But it is fraud and entirely unacceptable, at least in my field.
I just read the first few paragraphs and there were so many facts wrong that I didn't bother with the rest.
In science, a fudge is a fraud which can't be prosecuted due to the statute of limitations.
Roger
Clearly you should apologize to the IPCC for your recent criticism as by your metric it was merely another case of fudge and therefore acceptable.
As the above discussion above shows, I think Roger is using an official academic or legalistic interpretation of the word "fraud".
If the hockey stickitions take comfort in this, so be it.
But you know, "fudge" isn't far from the mark either.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/fudge
Roger,
IRT hide the decline, sorry but the tree ring data was useless unless they hid the decline.
So either the claims made based upon tree rings are accurate or they are not.
Which is it?
I too am a little curious about the hair-splitting around definitions. Is "fudge" simply a less dishonest presentation of the data, and "fraud" much more dishonest? Do we believe there was less intent to deceive, so we use the word "fudge?" Roger points out that the methodology is subject to debate in the literature and therefore is not fraud. I think that the Climategate e-mails indicate that the authors understood that tree-ring temperature decline would lead to a debate, and "hide-the-decline" was conceived deliberately to avoid that debate, but apparently this is not academic misconduct. I suppose that it is partly because the word "fraud" has significant legal connotations, in addition to its common negative implications, and academics are loathe to use the word because it almost mandates misconduct.
That said, I think Roger's comment 21 provides a neat summation of the issue, and perhaps one that deserves its own comment thread. The fact that academics hold themselves to a different standard for this kind of thing and then insist that their findings be the basis for "massive government action now now now!" should receive broader discussion. It is one of my disenchantments from my (very) brief exposure to academia.
Some quotes from the wikipedia article on scientific misconduct:
"fabrication – the publication of deliberately false or misleading research, often subdivided into:
• Obfuscation – the omission of critical data or results. Example: Only reporting positive outcomes and not adverse outcomes.
• Fabrication – the actual making up of research data and (the intent of) publishing them, sometimes referred to as "drylabbing".[4]
• Falsification – manipulation of research data and processes in order to reflect or prevent a certain result.[5]
• bare assertions – making entirely unsubstantiated claims"
"A related issue concerns the deliberate suppression, failure to publish, or selective release of the findings of scientific studies. Such cases may not be strictly definable as scientific misconduct as the deliberate falsification of results is not present. However, in such cases the intent may nevertheless be to deliberately deceive. Studies may be suppressed or remain unpublished because the findings are perceived to undermine the commercial, political or other interests of the sponsoring agent or because they fail to support the ideological goals of the researcher. Examples include the failure to publish studies if they demonstrate the harm of a new drug, or truthfully publishing the benefits of a treatment while omitting harmful side-effects.
This is distinguishable from other concepts such as bad science, junk science or pseudoscience where the criticism centres on the methodology or underlying assumptions. It may be possible in some cases to use statistical methods to show that the datasets offered in relation to a given field are incomplete. However this may simply reflect the existence of real-world restrictions on researchers without justifying more sinister conclusions."
My reading of the situation is that the original journal articles on this topic might be labeled as "bad science," in the sense that the decline was clearly discussed. The real issue is with the IPCC, since the text taken at face value, is arguably guilty of obfuscation, fabrication, bare assertions. The way they technically get around the charge of obfuscation and fabrication is reference to the published papers. However, the IPCC third assessment report in terms of their statements and confidence levels surrounding the paleo records borders on bare assertions.
So criteria for formal scientific misconduct in research is not met in the published papers (a "bad science" verdict for sure), but a case could possibly be made for the IPCC third assessment report. Industry standards are higher than basic academic research standards, since academic research is exploring topics that are far more speculative and with novel methods. When academic research becomes policy relevant in the case of climate research, industry type standards for accountability and due diligence should arguably be applied to assessment reports such as the IPCC.
This is my take anyways.
Judith Curry
Whether or not the AGW Consensus' handling of the Divergence Problem is "fraud" or not, it reveals very serious flaws in the thinking and behavior of these scientists.
A divergence from the normal practices of science.
The contrast with the standards for analyzing and disclosing clinical trial data (comment #14) is apt.
This thread dovetails with a discussion at Lucia's Blackboard about the divergent interpretations of the Photoshopped polar bear picture.
While scientifically literate, I don't know enough to evaluate most of the claims of the AGW Consensus (e.g. IPCC AR4). I have seen enough bad behavior on the part of the principals to arrive at the opinion that their strongly-stated conclusions are Not Trustworthy.
This could be a "divergence" among social practices of different science communities. One thing I think is interesting about the Der Spiegel piece is that the discussions we often have here- among members of different scientific disciplines attempting to understand climate science and raising questions- does not show up at all. We are invisible people in the "scientist" vs. "oil company" debate.
So the way my discipline would probably handle the divergence is to 1) identify it, 2) provide a host of hypotheses for why that might be the case, 3) discuss evidence for and against the alternative hypotheses. We would have Divergence Symposia specifically to discuss it and might even start the Journal of Divergence.
It seems to me that some folks in the climate science community may not like as much to wallow in discussion, but may want to rush to policy conclusions. I wonder if that is really true, and if so, why might that be.
Also, as a tree biologist, I must say I have to take issue with "The clearly erroneous tree data was thus corrected by the so-called "trick" with the temperature graphs."
Tree data IMHO by itself is not "erroneous." It was either collected improperly, lacked QA/QC or it is "correct" tree data. Trees get to grow the way they want to, when they want to, why they want to. How trees grew (if the data is collected, handled, stored and analyzed properly) is a fact.
We have here a tangle of facts (observations), models (which are quantified assumptions about unknown facts) and estimates. The facts of tree growth are never "erroneous" in my view, and should be privileged over other information that is not directly factual. Otherwise, science is not ultimately empirical.
Will you apologize to the IPCC for your recent comments regarding the fudging of your findings or am I barking up the wrong tree ring.
Jonathan
Academics are the masters of euphemism. 'Face saving fudge' competes with 'terminological inexactitude' and 'economical with the actuality',
British politicians are famous for their use of other phrases for 'liar' because its use is against parliamentary rules. Academics seem to have a code of honour which forbids the use of the word 'fraud' unless it has been proved in court. Hide the decline was a very deliberate fraud. It doesn't compete with Bernie Madoff, but it is still fraud.
fudge = deliberate deception = fraud (lite)
I notice the article is based on the biggest lie of all. "On the other a powerful lobby of industrial associations", the one that has liberals who are * 10 semesters short of a BA fuming with rage.
As I have said before, I now suspect that these tribalists are more likely to be environmentally inclined 'scientists' than dumb liberals (although probably both).
The most revealing email for me was Mick Kelly agreeing to limit his academic freedom in order to promote carbon trading for the Shell Oil company, principal sponsors of the Guardian environment pages for about a year.
"Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a 'strategic partnership' with the TC, broadly equivalent to a 'flagship alliance' in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc. "
http://magicjava.blogspot.com/2009/11/setting-research-agenda.html
* Newly created euphemism for stoopid which would equally apply to the dood who wrote the article.
Professor Pielke,
I am surprised and disappointed at your stance.
Misleading the public (the employers of Mann Jones etc. et al) is wrong whatever the reason.
If there is money involved (eg research grants, salaries, book writing) then I call it fraud.
Please keep up the (generally) good work.
Ed Moran.
I've obviously been troubled by academic failure to disclose adverse results, ever since Mann's non-disclosure of adverse verification r2 results. This sort of non-disclosure would be very problematic in a business prospectus, an area where I had experience.
Nevertheless, I'm also aware that academics don't generally feel that academic misconduct policies require such disclosure or that the various incidents constitute academic misconduct, (let alone fraud). People need to recognize this before getting too worked about these incidents. If a case were brought, there were would be lines of academics forming up to say that such non-disclosure was accepted practice within academia.
However, in my opinion, climate scientists remain on the horns of a dilemma. Disclosure of adverse results is an essential component of full, true and plain disclosure regimes. If climate scientists (or academics in general) do not regard themselves as being governed by such an obligation, the obvious recourse of the public will be to place credence in their pronouncements.
While climate scientists spend a lot of energy blaming others for this situation, the problem surely arises not from the critics, from their own acquiescence in this sort of behavior.
Steve McIntyre
#26 Patrick, "What is the differnce between and a fudge and a fraud?"
According to my dictionary a
Fudge -> Trick
whilst
Fraud -> Trick
So a trick is somewhere between a fudge and a fraud. but this is supposed to be science.
To reprise the original, "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
This represents collusion by two or more persons to commit a wrongful act.
Scientific fraud is used to describe intentional misrepresentation of the methods, procedures, or results of scientific research.
What we have eventually is collusion by two or more persons to intentionally misrepresent results of scientific research.
That is more fraud than fudge.
Roger, say I'm a manager at a family of mutual funds. I send you a prospectus that contains prominently a spaghetti graph of the performance of the funds, but for a couple of the funds I chop off the end of the graph and splice in the S&P 500 instead, with a small note elsewhere in tiny type that some funds recently have diverged from tracking the market. Is that fraud or fudge?
If fraud, please explain how that would be different than 'Mike's Nature Trick'. If it's an acceptable fudge, well, I suspect there are going to be a whole lot of brokers that want to talk to you.
Roger
There is a discussion about this thread here
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/5/15/everybody-does-it.html
I agree with Jonathan who put it very well. And I think Roger will agree that "The trick to hide the decline" is both intentional and a serious deception.
Der Spiegel writes: "But what appeared at first glance to be fraud was actually merely a face-saving fudge"
I'm curious how Der Spiegel perceived the trick at a first glance?
How does the appearance at first glance differ from the reality of the matter?
How did Der Spiegel get from fraud to fudge when they studied the incident? What did they believe about the circumstances of the matter at the first glance that turned out not to be the case? I think the incident was very straight forward and I think Jon Stewart got it almost right:
"See, I tell you it's nothing. He was just using a trick to hide the decline. It's just scientist speak for using a standard statistical technique [...] in order to trick you into not knowing about the decline."
As usual Raven (at 17) manages to say something insightful and succinct.
RP - I cant believe you dont think this is fraud (general meaning not criminal one). It is dishonest and was intended to deceive, therefore fraud/deception.
And I am fairly sure that is how most people would see it.
By and large a fair article. Clearly some concessions were made to make it publishable. I admit to not understanding why industry is not allowed to challenge science it thinks is overly pessimistic - especially when it is blindingly obvious that it is. Wigley was right to be concerned about opinions masquerading as facts. Alas he and Briffa got caught up in the groupthink.
That fudge/fraud semantic difference seems to divide. Arguing about specific words is a speciality in climate talk. But perhaps we can agree on the fact that it was just plain bad science. If the data didn't fit the only part where we might expect a matching overlap - somewhat essential in proxy studies - then it is of no use whatsoever as a proxy. This cheating may or may not be common practise among scientists (which I highly doubt) but that doesn't make it acceptable. But worse this is science that policy depends on so it needs a much higher standard.
So far the IPCC promotes studies with no real peer review, no data available for replication and authored by people with unremitting bias: No surprise there because they were allowed to select only their own work and ignored contrary studies and all reviewer comments.
"what appeared at first glance to be fraud was actually merely a face-saving fudge"
To some, it appeared to be fraud, at first glance. But where does this "was" come from? To some, it still appears to be fraud (see above), and until actual intent is decided, it may very well have been fraud. The modifier "merely" is inappropriate. The "guilty" said that's what they did, but that hardly constitutes writing it off as a mere piffle. Indeed, what the article got wrong was presenting the fraud vs fudge issue as settled.
More importantly, "hide the decline" also involved pasting the temperature data on the end and smoothing the result to make it look like a continuous data series. This step clearly turns a "fudge" into a "deliberate deception".
As a reporter, it looks that way to me. If I were to write a story and run a chart like that, I'd explain to my readers how the chart was made. That is just standard practice to help readers interpret the chart. If I altered a data series to compensate for a major anomaly, I'd say so right in the story. Problem solved.
My other option would be to drop the troublesome data series entirely.
I'd hope that scientific ethics are at least as high as journalistic ethics -- in theory if not in practice. You're not supposed to alter or present the data in a way that arbitrarily favors your premise. That's misleading the reader.
Feynman's lecture on cargo cult science applies here.
"It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated."
Now, Mann and his ilk say the full data were given in the scientific literature, which his peers know how to find. But when a scary chart is presented to the media and politicians who aren't necessarily familiar with the literature, I think you're ethically obliged to explain what was done to make the chart.
Otherwise, the media and politicians are just being fed cargo cult science.
The difference between "fudge" and "fraud" is similar to the difference between a petty crime and grand larceny. Both involve breaking the law, but differ in the scale of the crime. When a first year student alters his observed measurements in a chemistry lab (to make them closer to what they theoretically should be), it is considered a fudge since no money is involved, and the results of the experiment are irrelevant (since the instructor only cares that the student performed the experiment, not about the data observed by the student). When it was discovered that Enron executives had fudged the company's financial statements, the executives were charged with fraud and eventually imprisoned. It was a fudge, but it involved a great deal of money, and the fudged data was very important.
Consider the matter in question. Briffa had data that were (according to him) valid proxies for temperatures over a long period of time. If they were, in fact, valid proxies, then the information was very important, and would very likely lead to the expenditure of a huge amount of money. Since we have no real temperature records for most of the time period covered by the proxies, we (and the Team) have no way of knowing whether most of the proxies are actually accurate or not. However, for the recent time period, we do have real temperature records, and thus the Team knew that the proxies that were supposed to indicate recent temperatures were not just inaccurate, they were totally wrong. If the proxies for recent temperatures were totally wrong, then there would be absolutely no reason to believe that the proxies for all the older temperatures were totally right, or even mostly right. The historical temperature record as written by the Team would have no credibility. As we all know, the Team avoided this embarrassing problem by the "face saving fudge" of replacing the obviously faulty proxy temperatures with the real temperatures. In spite of the fact that the financial stakes here are even higher here than they were in the Enron case, and the historical temperature record is of great importance in determining the significance of possible AGW, Roger apparently doesn't think that this fudge should be considered fraud.
To indicate how irrational this view is, consider the following scenario. Suppose I operate a weather forecasting service that sells ten day forecasts to the media (as Joe Bastardi and the U.K. Met do). Say that Roger owns a TV or radio station that is interested in using my services. Roger naturally wants to be certain that my weather forecasts are accurate before spending the company's money on my service. As a sample of my work, I am to send Roger a ten day forecast for Denver that is already two days old. However, the forecasts for those first two days (that have already passed) were sunny with temperatures of 60° F, and the actual weather was heavy snow with temperatures of 30° F. I correctly reason that when Roger sees this, he'll have no confidence in my weather forecasting skills. So I perform a "face saving fudge" of retroactively replacing the obviously incorrect forecasts for the first two days with the actual weather data for those two days (just as the Team replaced the obviously incorrect proxy data with the actual temperature data). Roger, seeing how accurate my "forecasts" were for the first two days, is impressed, and purchases my services. Shortly thereafter, he learns about my splicing the real weather data onto my forecast. Does he pass it off as merely a face saving fudge, or does he go to the authorities, and ask that I be charged with fraud?
I think this problem is deeper than has been realized. For example: Scientists quantify uncertainty. The IPCC does this all over the place. It has all sorts of categories and gradations of uncertainty. This may seem to be an admirable attempt to be open about uncertainty. But does it work? The problem is that when you quantify uncertainty, you ignore uncertainty about uncertainty and the possibility that the uncertainty might not be quantifiable.
Even beyond that, it's a fundamental paradox of communication: two core values of communication--clarity and honesty--are in conflict when communicating uncertainty. Hiding uncertainty makes the gist of the message clearer. So the effort to be clear may make you dishonest.
Any simplification hides details. Does that mean that all simplification is dishonest? Clearly not.
I don't want to defend "hide the decline". But is there really clear-cut a way to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable cases of hiding uncertainty? I don't know, I'm still groping for the answer.
I think that prior to Climategate, I might have given the benefit of the doubt regarding fudge vs fraud. At this point however, I can't see a reason to do so.
At least under what I'd consider 'normal language' definitions of the two words. Perhaps there are some nuances in academic circles, but this subject has gone way beyond specialists arguing with each other in obscure journals.
What if the study wasn't about trees but, say, cold fusion?
Jonathan,
The research article on which the graph was based clearly discussed the issue of the divergence problem. There is absolutely no case for fraud, or really anything else given that this was laid out. One could disagree with the conclusions since it is obviously an important and to this day unexplained issue.
The graph is on shakier ground, but since the article is referenced the term fudge seems much more appropriate. Someone who wanted to understand the science wouldn't have had to look far.
If there is no such thing as clear results then why are we basing trillion dollar policies on it.
Also what Spiegel does not highlight is that the alarmist case is one of computer model projections which as time goes on stand in stark contrast to reality
Perhaps I can help clarify. Scientific misconduct definitions usually include the big three: plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. Doing any of these on purpose is scientific misconduct. Honest mistakes don't count. I think it would safe to refer to such misconduct as fraud. Notice that this definition does not include more subtle manipulations such as selecting some data sets for presentation but not presenting other data sets.
Hiding the decline was not good scientific practice, and I would argue that in most fields of research it would seriously deviate from accepted standards in research, and could be called scientific misconduct on that basis. However, it does not include precisely fit into widely used definitions of misconduct or fraud.
What is shocking is that most climate scientists have vigorously defended hiding the decline and seem completely unconcerned about the divergence problem and what it does to confidence in the tree ring proxy data. I really can't understand that. Maybe Roger can help us understand why the tree ring data are still being defended and used.
When the movement of Mars against the fixed stars did not match the Ptolemaic principles, Ptolemaic astronomers just added an epicycle or eccentric, and voila, the problem disappeared! Scientists do it all the time, perhaps, but it is bad science. What is worse, Ptolemaics apparently keep adding more and more epicycles to fudge the orbit of Mars, even after Copernican or more recent astronomy is already around and provides a more solid explanation for the strange behaviour of Mars.
Whatever, we're being asked to trust these guys because they are supposed to be honest experts. They are clearly neither, but worse, they long ago decided to be salesmen instead of scientists. The more people defend this shoddy hockey-stick malpractice and pretend that it is normal scientific behaviour, the more they undermine real scientists. The only decline I worry about is the general decline in honesty. And the silence of the complicit paleo community is deafening.
I seriously doubt climategate affected policy though. Nobody likes to admit being duped so most pretend they weren't and besides there are lots of cushy jobs at stake here. Whether it affected public opinion is probably moot too since the public don't want taxes whether they believe in AGW or not. And if any politicians have even so much as skimmed the IPCC documents I'd be very surprised.
So it was all for nothing. If these carbon cuts were easy to do then there would be no issue or controversy. As it is, we'll decarbonize when it becomes possible and not before. Meantime both sides will continue pretending to care about the plight of the worlds poor, who apparently are screwed under every possible scenario but who are not going to be given any money to get unscrewed.
I wonder if the ardent climateers realize they've been played like a fiddle by the nuclear lobby.
Stephen Pruett #59
While I can agree with almost all of your post, I still can not justify the splicing of two datasets and NOT see it as fabrication.
Even on a presentational format, this would be referred as a "semi-analytic model". Parameters were set to give the "presentation" validity. While I find these "semi-analytic models" as useful tools, they do represent data in a "fabricated" mode.
Given all the "fudges" associated with climate science (the "trick," all the IPCC-gates, etc.), perhaps we should rename climate science to fudge science. I suppose the use of upside down proxies is also just a funny little fudge that is OK with academics, despite the fact that it would get a mining promoter thrown in jail. I guess it's OK in some branches of Der Spiegal's and Roger's new concept of "academic science" to deliberately cherry-pick your tree ring series so that they show what you want them to show. And it just follows that it's OK for all your friends to use the same few series, knowing that that is just another great "trick" to manufacture a hockeystick. It's also OK to manufacture data and call it "infilling" or "extrapolation." Just another funny little fudge. Main-line scientific journals ignore their rules on posting data and methods, I guess, just because this is such an important issue.
After all, with tenure and academic freedom, there are no real standards, anymore. Everything is relative, everyone is a victim, and far-left liberals are the only folks with brains.
Roger, you are wrong, IMHO. I'm gonna go puke.
Dammit, comment #63, is from me. My grand-daughter, Alex, needs to stop commandeering my Google account :)
I just can't leave this illogical, immoral bullshit alone. It scares me. Dishonesty has somehow now been accepted in our culture. Listen to Obama lie every day. Listen to Roger and Der Spiegel say that a terrible dishonest "fudge" is OK in science, because it happens all the time in "academic science," (or something like that). I guess science doesn't have to strive for truth, anymore?? Academic science is absolved from the rigors of the scientific method? It's OK to "fudge?" WHAT THE F--K is wrong with this planet???
Listen to the clamoring unbelievable nonsense in the media about climate change causing hangnails, early slug death, obesity, and everything else. Nothing but nonsense believed by nobody but retards, but still not countered by the "climate scientists!" What a disgusting world this has become!
BTW, Judy-on-the-fence is not helping much.
Bottom line: I want to see where "fudge" fits in with the scientific method.
If the purpose of the fudge is to save face, the easier course is not to publish. It's publishing that creates the need to save face.
Not publishing data that undermines something you have said previously is common in the academic areas that I know.
Hi Roger,
If you believe this to be an acceptable academic fudge (and not academic fraud), then perhaps you could give us an example- have you ever done this before? If so, can you explain how you got away with it?
Suppose you had a tabloid know for its sensational breaking news publish the graphs in question. I would call that fudging the data. Now suppose you had a reputable newspaper known for the accuracy of its articles publishing the graphs in question. I would be more inclined to call it fraud. Now is the IPCC like the tabloid or like a reputable newspaper? It claims to be the latter but I think it is more like the tabloid.
It doesn't matter whether one commits fraud or fudging. What matters is how your actions affect your reputation for accuracy.
It saddens me that some in academia seem to place so low a value on a reputation for honesty and accuracy.
klee12
Lets not forget the alarmists' politics required, no demanded 'unprecedented' warming. The hockey stick gave the alarmists exactly that. That is why every climate scientist is happy with the 'fudge' arguement.
It allows them to sleep better at nights.
It allows them to stand up and defend the science in face of critics.
It allows them to continue to peddle such nonsense to their students.
However history is cruel. It took over 50 years to expose the fraud that was Piltdown Man, because scientists and various societies continued to believe. It did a lot of harm.
As Winston Churchill famously said, "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
Skeptics have scored a major victory over the hockey stick because climate science has been made to defend the indefensible - bad science. To concentrate political and scientific resources over a word such as fudge rather than deal with the reality of fraud is a sign of weakness. Either the hockey stick science is a fraud or it is not, it cannot be left as a fudge.
#59 Stephen Pruett,
What you say may well be true, but it is not going to clarify anything.
Every word is special pleading that academics, note academics, not scientists, but particularly climate science academicsare this special and exalted group who make their own rules and are not bound by the same rules and conventions as the rest of us.
I think that the majority of the comments here might convey to you how well that is being received?
Fudging, not fraud? Sorry, but if this sort of thing is happening World-wide, then it's fraud.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/crisis-in-new-zealand-climatology
Ok, I get it - it's just a bad science trick, not a criminal act, maybe not even 'scientific misconduct'.
Fine. But add that to all the other tricks (bad statistics, UHI, sea ice, hurricanes, sea level etc etc) and it does feel like we have been at the sharp end of a fraud.
A little repentance might do a lot more for Climate Science than nuanced excuses.
The Spiegel article is completly wrong to describe the trick to hide the decline as
"An Innocent Phrase Seized by Republicans",
and Roger Pielke is completely wrong to say they 'have it just about right' #6 #8.
It was not 'seized on by republicans', it was noted by honest scientists who saw the deception that was going on.
The statement about 'clearly erroneous tree data' is just ridiculous and shows that the writers have no understanding of science.
The data is not erroneous. What is erroneous is the false assumption of the 'climate scientists' that tree rings are a good way of measuring temperature, and this is what they were trying to hide.
I see many people above have said this, but it cen't be said too many times.
Roger, you have lost a lot of credibility by attempting to defend this drivel.
I started out sympathizing with the idea that "hide the decline" type of presentation would not be condoned in "real life" as opposed to science. But the more I think about it, the more I believe that the parallels are unfair and inappropriate. In "real life" you are typically in a well-defined context with hard and fast rules of what you are allowed to do. For example, financial statements (see #54 Jeff) belong to this domain.
Presenting scientific results is a completely different game. The degree of novelty is vastly higher, and the typical research paper involves lots of uncertainties. Discussing all those uncertainties is not realistic when summarizing the results. Therefore, you have no choice but to "hide" some of them. If there were some established rules that governed which uncertainties must be discussed, and those rules had been broken, that would be an indication of bad faith and possibly fraud. But apparently, there are no such rules.
Giving the decline-hiders the benefit of the doubt and trying to put myself in their shoes, it comes out like this: They had a result (hockey stick, unprecedented warming) they wanted to present. They honestly believed it was correct. To make this result understandable to their audience, they created the infamous diagram to *illustrate* it (in other words not to persuade readers into believing it). Hiding the decline was a trick to make it easier for the reader to get the point. In other words, the trick was intended to ease communication, not to mislead people into thinking it was more solid than it was.
You may call that description naive, but I don't think you can disprove it.
I am working in the field of biophysics. Some fudging in science might be acceptable but the fudge done by Jones is clearly fraudulent as Jones had the intention to hide something that could undermine the desired outcome (trees as thermometers)
@dagfinn,
The problem with what you claim is that it makes my case completely:
That catastrophic AGW is not a science based theory but a social mania.
The promoters, in this case Jones, Mann, Briffa, *know* we are facing a climate catastrophe caused by CO2, and pesky little counter evidence like the trees not being accurate is ignored in favor of making sure their larger 'truth' is seen.
As to your granting these people the benefit of the doubt, why? They do no such thing to those who dare question them, and it is obvious after 20 years of their crying climate wolf that they are wrong. We are not experiencing what they predicted.
This is the link tim.peters posted.
Crisis in New Zealand climatology
by Barry Brill
May 15, 2010
The warming that wasn't
The official archivist of New Zealand’s climate records, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), offers top billing to its 147-year-old national mean temperature series (the “NIWA Seven-station Series” or NSS). This series shows that New Zealand experienced a twentieth-century warming trend of 0.92°C. The official temperature record is wrong. The instrumental raw data correctly show that New Zealand average temperatures have remained remarkably steady at 12.6°C +/- 0.5°C for a century and a half. NIWA’s doctoring of that data is indefensible.
The NSS is the outcome of a subjective data series produced by a single Government scientist, whose work has never been peer-reviewed or subjected to proper quality checking. It was smuggled into the official archive without any formal process. It is undocumented and sans metadata, and it could not be defended in any court of law. Yet the full line-up of NIWA climate scientists has gone to extraordinary lengths to support this falsified warming and to fiercely attack its critics.
For nearly 15 years, the 20th-century warming trend of 0.92°C derived from the NSS has been at the centre of NIWA official advice to all tiers of New Zealand Government – Central, Regional and Local. It informs the NIWA climate model. It is used in sworn expert testimony in Environment Court hearings. Its dramatic graph graces the front page of NIWA’s printed brochures and its website.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/crisis-in-new-zealand-climatology
dagfinn
The cru emails prove that only Mann was utterly certain the hockey stick was correct while very strong doubts were expressed by several others. Yet the "censored" files on his own ftp site (found by McI) strongly suggest that he knew the truth too.
Let's be clear too that the 20th century temperatures used as the calibration for the stick studies were produced by the same sly team and the adjustments to the raw data are still as yet unknown and hence certainly not properly peer reviewed. The possibility remains that the downward trending proxies were not anomalous at all.
Indeed the very few proxies to have been brought up to date in the most influential areas (Siberian larches, US bristlecones) show no hockey stick and hence underline the known fact that the original hockey-stick stands didn't even represent local temperatures nevermind global temperatures. In short, the science seems to be dominated by unfounded and unjustified assumptions. It needs to go back to basics.
Some may say this isn't important to the overall picture but the reality may still be that the warming now is much the same as the warming in the 30's and 40's. And if anyone thinks that absurd, then be aware that the only reasonably trustworthy data (Arctic, US48, European long-term instruments, US max-min data) show exactly that pattern and that NOAA seem to add 0.25K onto the warming trend before cru even gets the data. There may still be a century long trend but it would perforce be mostly natural. That result would make the solar correlation even better.
Lastly it can't be stressed enough that the hockey-stick graphs from this old-boys network were always the outliers. Before that everyone in the paleo community (even the IPCC report) believed in a global medieval warm period and little ice age and nobody thought tree-ring data could seriously be used for a global reconstruction. The whole thing was a trick - a sales brochure gimmick to force policy.
jgdes
I'm not trying to argue in favor of the hockey stick. As far as I know the issue, you are correct about all that. And perhaps you could make a case from the emails that they were seriously in doubt about it and hid that doubt.
However, the reason this example is important is just that it's in the IPCC report. RealClimate has published stuff on the hockey stick that I find even more suspicious. For instance, the hockey stick parade here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/.
They have graphs that appear to be convincing examples of the hockey stick, but several of them go only ~500 years back. Since the MWP was ~1000 years ago, the fact that these look like hockey sticks would not really surprise anyone and proves nothing. So what's the point of publishing them? Being who they are, they cannot plead ignorance. I find no good explanation except to deliberately try to give a misleading impression. I wouldn't use the word "fraud", though. "Propaganda" will do as far as I'm concerned.
Chuck,
Please note that I indicated the graph would be regarded as significantly deviating from standards of practice and could be considered misconduct. However, in the context of the paper, which discusses the divergence problem and does not hide it, misconduct would be difficult to establish in this case. You may be right that the public does not like academia's views of misconduct, but I suggest to you that the cost of real misconduct in academia to the academic is enormously greater than the cost of similar transgressions outside academia. I think the public would be pleased with the level of accountability in academic research.
Please understand, I think climate science has huge problems due to group think and selective data presentation and assessment. I just don't believe that this particular case is clear misconduct. If divergence had not been mentioned at all, I think misconduct would be a valid charge.
An honest scientist (or journalist reporting the science) would have indicated the substitution of the thermometer record with a clear graphic (different colour, broken line). That the graph was published with the "trick" rendered graphically invisible strongly suggests an intention to deceive.
A number of commentors have pointed out that the tree ring data was not erroneous; it simply did not fit the CO2 induced temperature rise narrative. And there was no obvious way to explain why tree rings should be temp proxies before 1960 when they clearly were not post 1960.
That, in turn, created a real problem for people like Mann, Bifra and, to a degree, Jones because they were heavily invested in tree ring driven reconstructions of past climate.
So, did these climate scientists have a motive to practice a bit of deception? I think there is ample evidence as to motive.
At the same time, because of the state of climate science and the involvement of the climate scientists in the drafting and review of the various IPCC reports, there was also an institutional willingness to be deceived. The IPCC needed a story which was tidy and clear enough that they could tell their political masters, with 90% confidence, that GW was real, unprecedented, a threat and caused by CO2.
As the great Edward Tufte once put it, information can be graphically represented for maximum "inter-ocular shock value". The tree ring driven hockey stick graph slapped policy makers between the eyes and, to this day, has defined the narrative even though it has been discredited.
The real "trick" here was to allow nothing to impinge upon or qualify or render less certain the AGW narrative. Coming clean about the "divergence problem" would have confused policy makers with the facts. That was apparently unacceptable so the intentional substitution of one record with another without proper and ongoing disclosure occurred.
This was not a tiny adjustment to fudge a couple of missing years with approximated values; this was a calculated attempt to conceal an essential problem with the science and thereby deceive policy makers and the public.
If this is not fraud it is tough to see what is.
dagfinn wrote <>
I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to accept that. But then I'll view with suspician the accuracy of their future pronouncements, just as I would an tabloid dedicated to sensational news. Leave aside the question of ethics, scientific misbehavior, and all that other stuff. What are the consequences of "hiding the decline" for their credibility? For me, and I think for many other (but not all) scientists the consequences lost credibility.
klee12
Ooops ... the first sentence in my previous post seemed have disappeared. The first sentence should read
dagfinn (75) wrote
In other words, the trick was intended to ease communication, not to mislead people into thinking it was more solid than it was.
klee12
Ooops the first paragraph of my previous comment seemed to have disappeared more or less it should read
Dagfinn (75) wrote
n other words, the trick was intended to ease communication, not to mislead people into thinking it was more solid than it was.
klee12
Post a Comment