In the comment thread to a post on the recent Der Spiegel article about the politicization of climate science a long series of comments has resulted from the following exchange about the IPCC presentation of the so-called Hockey Stick graph. First, Der Spiegel wrote the following (translated from the original German):But what appeared at first glance to be fraud was actually merely a face-saving fudgeA frequent and thoughtful commenter said:
IMO hiding uncertainty _is_ research misconduct.To which I responded:
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 ;-)Those two sentences have resulted in several lengthy comment threads, with many comments critically directed at me, fueled by a cheap-shot post by Andrew Montford who has since apologized and asked for clarification, which is fair enough. Here is the clarification.
First, what are we even talking about?
We are talking about the presentation by the IPCC of Figure 2.1. in the Third Assessment Report.
Why does this matter?From the perspective of policy, it does not matter. Let me be very clear about what I mean by this: My views on climate policy are not sensitive to any of the information presented in IPCC TAR 2.21. The Hockey Stick could be rotated 180 degrees or mirror-imaged or shaken like a jump-rope and it would not alter my views of climate policy one bit. When, back in 2005, I asked Steve McIntyre and some of his critics at Real Climate about why the debate matters for climate policy, there seemed to be a consensus that that time that it did not.
Of course, things are a bit more complicated than this. For many observers, especially those more skeptical, the Hockey Stick debate has come to serve as a proxy for the integrity of all of climate science and the IPCC. It thus serves as a political proxy for larger debates about climate change. For better or worse, it is an important lens through which people view the practice of all of climate science.
What happened?
What happened with respect to the presentation of the IPCC graph is that uncertainties were hidden from view in an effort to present a "tidy story." Steve McIntyre has well-documented the events in a large number of posts, but this one pretty much tells the story.
From the CRU emails we are privvy to some of the inside discussion about this issue (quotes from here). One scientist explained that there are some complexities that should probably be discussed (emphases added):
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple… [There are] some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.Another scientist wanted that "nice tidy story" and protested that if they included the data showing "unexpected changes" then (emphases added):
. . . we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. . . Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!You can see the problematic data series in the following early version of the IPCC 2.21 graph below in yellow, with its pronounced decline at the end.
You can also see the "decline" at the end of the series that was at odds with the instrumental record -- it was this divergence which complicated the "tidy story." But as you can see in the final IPCC figure 2.21 that was published (shown above) decisions were made to "hide the decline" and present a "nice tidy story."
Was it Fraud or Something Else?
The facts of what happened here should not be controversial. A group of scientists associated with the IPCC decided to simplify the presentation of paleo-climate data in orger to convey a "tidy message" and to try to avoid the "skeptics" some "fodder" with which to have a "field day." Of course, those plans backfired pretty badly!
The selective presentation of information is a form of cherrypicking, a widely used term that I described in 2004 as follows:
the careful selection of information to buttress a particular predetermined perspective while ignoring other information that does notThe actions by the IPCC scientists to "hide the decline" were a form of cherrypicking.
Semantics aside, anyone seeking to bring charges of formal scientific misconduct against these scientists or the IPCC would have a tough -- I'd say impossible -- case to make. To understand this you need to know what scientific misconduct actually is, and how it is judged. The scientists here were clearly shaping a message, explicitly motivated by a political agenda against the "skeptics" and grounded in a fundamental distrust of policy makers and the public to be able handle the complete information.
As I argue in The Honest Broker, the penalties for cherrypicking are a loss of credibility and legitimacy in scientific and political processes. But make no mistake, everyone is selective in the information that they present when making an argument, scientific or political. In fact, there is no practical way to present all of the information and all of the uncertainties. The question thus is not whether one seeks to manage the presentation of uncertainties -- but rather have you made a argument that is fair, robust and legitimate? Meeting these criteria typically means being open about uncertainties, warts and all. If you are perceived not to have made such an argument then you may see some of the following occur -- your paper could be rejected for publication, your peers might disagree with your views, your policy arguments dismissed, your credibility diminish and so on. Thus, while the selective presentation of information is unavoidable, one cherrypicks at some large risk.
What I find most remarkable about this episode, and others in which the IPCC has been found cherrypicking, is ultimately how very trivial the episodes actually are. Just take a look at the two figures above -- is the science of climate change undermined by that loose yellow thread dangling down in the original graph? Are non-experts incapable of understanding the uncertainties associated with the "divergence problem"? The IPCC has clearly allowed or perhaps even enabled some serious lapses in judgment by its authors by allowing them to risk so much for so little.
This episode is not about scientific fraud -- at least in the way that I understand the concept to be defined in the academy. This episode if one of several --too many -- in which the IPCC was found to be risking its credibility to present a "tidy story." Hopefully, the scientific community has learned that a desire for tidiness should not trump an overarching concern for maintaining the credibility and legitimacy of expert advice, even if that means presenting the science alongside uncertainties and complexities.
But there are lessons here for critics as well. It is reasonable to feel betrayed, angry and upset that the experts tried to play you for a fool. But making wild accusations of fraud and calling for legal sanctions (and worse) simply diminishes your own credibility and represents an ironic sort of overreach.
62 comments:
Roger,
Wouldn't it have been better to really cherry-pick the reconstructions and simply show the ones that conformed to the story - assuming there were any? I have much less problem with not showing data which has "non-confirming" indications than changing the data so that it appears to conform.
But it is still insufficient.
In an earlier post, you discussed "trust" with regard to scientists. Mine is gone. Now when I see a story commencing with "Scientists have said..." I start looking for the holes.
It's too bad.
-1-JohnF
There are probably a lot of other ways that the story could have been "fudged" ;-)
But please do recognize that the field of "climate science" is very large and the vast majority of scientists are not engaged in political war with skeptics and are trying to do good work. That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism about scientific claims and verifying results for yourself.
Roger.
A tidy story is a proper excuse for license in a BBC drama series, not a whole branch of science with multi trillion dollar economic implications. The truth seems to be that these so called scientists have a bias.
You said
"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 ;-)"
In my experience, academics today are often untrustworthy, arrogant and incompetent. The reasons are hubris, unlimited power over students and living in a hermetic environment in which the laws of nature are twisted to suit the participants.
The story of climate science is that the (hermetic) seal has been broken and the wind of reality has rushed in. Every time climate scientists interact with that reality, they lose.
Please re-read James Lovelock's excoriating opinions of today's climate scientists.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock
Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I'm not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It's the one thing you do not ever do. You've got to have standards.
I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done
***
I have a science degree myself and taught in a college science dept with a number of science phds. The older ones were generally honest, hard working and decent. The new generation were different, as Lovelock said.
I think your comment about a "cheap shot post" by Andrew Montford should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Andrew posted on his blog to say he didn't understand your position with regard to the fudge or fraud issue. I have to agree with that comment as you were being somewhat vague.
Roger,
You say
"The actions by the IPCC scientists to "hide the decline" were a form of cherrypicking."
I agree with this. We now have common ground for further discussion.
First cherry picking is clearly bad science. Can we agree on that?
Do you agree that "cherrypicking" in a published corporations financial statements is fraudualent? Is a corporation includes favorable gross sales data but leaves out high return rates? Negative gross margins? Any material information?
How can anyone publishing climate science to policy makers where trillions are at stake be held to a lesser standard?
Isn't this what Enron did? Enron omitted material information. If you cherry picked in drug test studies you would be sent to jail?
Here is a relevant article about deception from today's London Times. It would certainly provide an excellent model for corporate and political advancement.
Kids who fib get to the top of the pile
LITTLE fibbers could grow up to be big players. Children who learn to lie at an early age have better developed brains, marking them out as potential executives and leaders, say researchers.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7127784.ece
Roger, I only have one thing to say. Stop Digging, the hole you are in from the first thread is deep enough and has already damaged your esteem amongst your readers.
Roger, while that is an example of MNT, it isn't the one that the infamous email was actually talking about. The one from the email was documented here. In that one, he takes the Briffa series, and rather than just truncating it as above, actually splices and smooths the temperature data onto the same color line. It actually does that to the Jones series as well, although there's less decline hidden on that one.
Are you _really_ saying that you think that just dropping data that disagrees with the thesis and splicing on and smoothing with data that's not even the same domain, without any sort of notification, is just a "fudge", because the data had been presented some other location?
I was a lawyer for may years and I can assure you that if a lawyer were to make a legal argument to a court which deliberately omitted a discussion of cases unfavorable to his position, it would be deemed a "fraud on the court". Besides damaging the lawyer's reputation and his client's case, such behavior would very likely result in the lawyer facing sever sanctions by the Bar Association, which could include disbarment.
Regards,
Will J. Richardson
Why are all proxies in the hockey stick graph such fantastic thermometers during the calibration period? Isn't it reasonable to assume they'll revert back to the mean once the calibration period is over assuming that little tidbit isn't "hidden?" Don't you think McCain would've found that decline interesting before buying into AGW after seeing the hockey stick? I have a perfect stock picking system that works 90% of the time from 2000 to 2010. I can show you charts. I've even tacked on some winners this year for the brochure (fudge;-). The system is on sale for $50k. Interested?
Let me point out something that should be obvious -- this is not a post about financial information, the drug approval process, legal proceedings, etc.
This post is also not about the science of proxy reconstructions, as interesting as that may be.
It is about the presentation of information in the IPCC.
I am still awaiting someone who wants to make a case for fraud, rather than just tell me I am wrong. The fact that no such case has been put forward, other than via sweeping generalities is a pretty strong case that there is no case to be made.
But I am listening ...
I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but I'm not sure I agree. So let me try to argue by analogy.
Let's say that a company testing a new drug runs ten trials. The trials take several months to complete. Nine of the trials have a successful outcome. In the tenth trial the outcome looks promising up until the final month, where the numbers suddenly head in the wrong direction.
In presenting their results the company charts all ten trials in a spaghetti graph. In so doing they choose to stop displaying the tenth trial just before the final month. They make no mention of having done so--and in the tangled lines of the graph it's impossible to see that the series ends abruptly.
Is this a case of fraud? If it is, how is it different from what you're talking about? And if it isn't, what *would* constitute fraud?
charlesahart said... 5
"Do you agree that "cherrypicking" in a published corporations financial statements is fraudualent?"
The management of a corporation have a legal obligation to keep the shareholders(owners) informed.
Hence, the Management of Walmart has a duty to inform the shareholders of a products high return rate.
The sales clerk at Walmart does not have a duty to inform potential purchasers of a products high return rate.
The only part of science where an obligation to report adverse results exists is in medical research. Even then it only exists if one wants to get FDA approval.
The only 'right to know' in US public policy discourse is whats published in the congressional record.
Unfortunately, the constitution specifically states that congress is not subject for arrest as a result of any statement they make on the floor of the House or Senate.
As a 'shareholder' of USA, Inc I am entitled to be informed by the management. If management chooses to deliberately misinform me my only recourse is to vote for a different management.
Roger,
If you agree that cherry picking (withholding material information) is fraudulent (and punishable) in financial, drug and legal cases then it would help all of us to understand what distinguishes the following cases in your mind.
a) using cherry picked data in grant applications
b) submitting papers with cherry picked data for publication in journals
c) submitting publications (that you know are cherry picked) to the IPCC for source material
d) submitting IPCC publications, graphs and charts which you know contain/reference cherry picked data/papers to policy makers
As you can see, most of you commentators see little if anything to distinguish between a to d and the financial, drug and legal cases mentioned above.
-14-charlesahart
I am not an expert in financial, drug or legal disclosures.
I do know something about science in policy. I can tell you that the information I am aware of about the IPCC does not fall under any standards of scientific misconduct that I am aware of. In fact, I am not even sure that the IPCC falls under such a designation (which, of course is part of its problem).
If you wish to rewrite guidelines for scientific misconduct such that what has been observe in the IPCC falls under them -- well, good luck. But a first step would be to argue what the general principles are that you are calling for.
I see lots of outrage on these threads, but very little effort to examine the issues systematically.
Just take a look at the two figures above -- is the science of climate change undermined by that loose yellow thread dangling down in the original graph? Are non-experts incapable of understanding the uncertainties associated with the "divergence problem"?
I guess you really don't understand. This isn't just about the science of climate change per se; it's also about how it's being sold to the media, politicians and the public. If we can't trust the climate scientists to fairly represent what's going on, including the ambiguities, what good are they? Just tell us the facts, both those that support what you think is the truth, and those facts that call the interpretation into question.
By selectively presenting data to non-scientists, these CAGW climate scientists have taken on the role of advocates, while claiming to be just representing the science. Whatever you want to call it, this is deception. If scientific ethics tolerates taking advantage of the ignorance of non-scientists to advance an agenda, then those ethics are in a pretty rotten state.
Received by email:
"Professor,
Would this word "humility" apply when the truth comes out that there was no global warming?
The Cap and Trade legislation newly named "American Power Act", designed by the left and lobbyists to enrich individuals like Gore and maybe you, only adds to the corruption and folly of those individuals bent on destroying this great nation.
We know and we know that you know that we know the truth about this whole scam. Human caused global warming is so preposterous that one can only wonder how you can sleep at night.
What is sad it that when the full disclosure comes, men and women like you will not loose their jobs.
Time is closing in on you Roger. Not too late for a little bit of that humility you speak of!"
Roger,
"Hiding the decline" is only the beginning of the story here, as has been seen in all the fallout from this part of the IPCC 3rd Assessment.
The IPCC led itself into controversy by choosing these particular studies, which had the aim of trying to show that the late 20th century temperatures are exceptional, at least within the past couple of thousand years. The "medieval warm period" and the "little Ice Age" were established aspects of climate history and the IPCC chose to undermine them, by selecting these studies. This was controversial at the time. How much more controversial it has become as the science of these studies has been examined!
Of course, the IPCC was in a bind - difficult to argue that modern warming must be caused by mankind's activities if there was medieval warming of a similar magnitude, caused entirely naturally. But the IPCC built their house on sand when they chose these studies.
I don't wish to delve into the details now, but the use of these studies has undermined the IPCC, since it just makes them appear as shrill advocates for a particular stance, that is not supported by good science.
Scientific misconduct? Perhaps not. Poor science? Surely yes. Damage done? Enormous.
I am one simple example of the damage done. I used to accept the proposition of human-induced global warming - the story of the hockey stick caused me to read more and delve deeper. I am now a global warming sceptic in the true sense of the term. I accept no claims at face value.
Roger, from your own "thoughts on the challenge" page:
"it is the job of the IPCC to treat science and scientists fairly, not to protect a consensus or political symbols."
Clearly the IPCC has failed - and not just wrt the "hockey-stick" which has, in fact, become a highly politicized symbol for an (initially forged - in both senses of the word* - and) increasingly zealously "protected" consensus.
*cf. Hulme & Alcamo's Nov. '97 pre-Kyoto solicitation of endorsement of an EU "Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate".
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/the-fog-of-uncertainty-and-the-precautionary-principle/
That the scientists involved apparently saw nothing wrong - or unethical - in forging the "consensus", or fudging the data to support it, does nothing to enhance their credibility, or that of the IPCC.
Unless I'm mistaken, your position seems to be that the hockey-stick is "trivial" and doesn't matter. Considering the use to which it has been put, I find such an assessment tends to give a whole new meaning to the word "trivial"!
You have also been quite insistent that such fudging does not constitute "scientific fraud". If true, it would seem that - in the ethics department at least - science has made little, if any, progress since Brian Martin wrote (June, 1992):
"ABSTRACT: In the routine practice of scientific research, there are many types of misrepresentation and bias which could be considered dubious. However, only a few narrowly defined behaviours are singled out and castigated as scientific fraud. A narrow definition of scientific fraud is convenient to the groups in society -- scientific elites, and powerful government and corporate interests -- that have the dominant influence on priorities in science. [...]
[...]
"[...] out of the many things that scientists do, they attach meaning only to some things, which they call 'doing science' or 'applying the scientific method' [1]. The same applies to fraud. Fraud is what scientists tell each other is fraud.
"This raises the question, why are certain things called fraud and others not? My general answer is that the social definition of fraud is one which is convenient to most of the powerful groups associated with science. [...]
"My argument proceeds this way. A host of things go on in scientific research that could be open to suspicion. Some of these are accepted as standard practice, others are tolerated, and some are considered unacceptable."
http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/92prom.html
It's a rather long article, but worth reading. It certainly explains the "findings" of the various enquiries since Climategate.
But considering that which is being foisted on the public in the name of "science", is it not high time that the obvious absence of standards be addressed?
Roger, you said that Der Spiegel has it just about right. A fair and accurate description you called it.
I would be grateful if you could tell us how you interpret Der Spiegels use of the word fraud in the very sentence you quoted from the magazine:
"But what appeared at first glance to be fraud was actually merely a face-saving fudge"
What was it that appeared to Der Spiegel (and you?) at a first glance and that could be described as fraud?
Dear Dr. Pilke,
"Fraud. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Any kind of artifice employed by one person to deceive another."
Black Law Dictionary, 594 (5th Ed. 1979)
Regards,
Will J. Richardson
Folks, please. You are missing a really important point in this particular case. There was no fabrication. The data shown were the real data. Rather than show the divergent data in the graph, the authors decided to discuss divergence in the text. I agree this was not best practice and was clearly (as revealed by climategate email) designed to accentuate a particular conclusion, which is not appropriate. However, because the results in question were discussed in the paper, this does not seem to me to be a clear case of fraud. Please don't misunderstand. I was dismayed at the degree to which some climate scientists unconditionally defended hiding the decline. The graph was clearly outside the accepted standards of science and cannot be legitimately defended. However, for it to be fraud, there would have to be no mention of the divergence issue in the paper at all. This would represent obfuscation, which is an element of scientific misconduct.
With regard to generalities about the trustworthiness of academic science, I would be perfectly happy for the public to know the details of the degree to which most scientists hold each other accountable. The cost of misconduct to a scientist is huge, and it should be. I would suggest that the portion of the overall scientific record that contains blatant misconduct or even inappropriate tidying is tiny. There is evidence that it is much too prevalent in climate science, and that should be fixed. However, this is not representative of the rest of academic science, at least in my experience. I don't want to write a book here, but I could give you personal examples in which scientists went to extraordinary lengths to find an explanation for results that were not consistent with results from another lab. Even a hint that one's results are not trustworthy or repeatable can be a career killer. Blanket condemnation of the integrity of academic scientists hurts the credibility of the accusers; unless there is some real, quantitative evidence I haven't seen. If not, isn't it fabrication to make blanket accusations?
In my view, the Der Speigel article is a cover up from beginning to end. It seeks to trivialise what almost all of us regard as fraud.
The niceties of academia are irrelevant in the face of the reality that politicians are using this fraudulent presentation of information to increase the price of all energy by the use of carbon trading.
Europe's climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard is to set out the case for a unilateral 30% EU cut in CO2.
"It is too soon to kill off Kyoto. And the carbon markets can provide us with more finance for clean development if we can drive up the carbon price somehow. "It's not an accident that China is now developing trial carbon markets with major firms."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10109088.stm
Dear Republican voter
It was warmer in medieval times than it is now. All actual recorded temperature records show nothing extraordinary about the late 20th or early 21st centuries. The reason the Arctic is warming quicker than the rest of the world is down to the magic of a certain Dr Briffa in a minor English university, working for the British Ministry of Defence.
His colleague Phil Jones volunteered to give an interview to the BBC fundamentally undermining the the case for AGW.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm
The British Institute of Physics provided a damning assessment of the content of the emails.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
The Wegman report said this about the hockey stick team
"As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility."
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060906_02/20060906_11.html
As Bob Gedorf famously said, "just give us your .... money"
You say you are listening but are you hearing?
You imply that are hoping to read a very precise legal argument about fraud versus fudge.
I dont think you will get one.
And the postings at Bishop Hill (unfair to call the first a cheap shot btw) and the majority of comments in both your posts are saying much the same thing: namely that we dont really see the difference between fudge and fraud, not being legally inclined, nor seeking to take prosecute anyone.
I just about get your nuanced definitions, and sympathise with the difficulties of presenting a scientific story, fair enough.
But actually taken as part of the whole climate story it just seems like common or garden fraud..or fudge..or dishonesty.
Not exactly Honest Brokering is it.
I see. Everybody does it so "call it a wash". Of course the other two upticks on that graph also used tricks and cherry-picking, without which there would be no blade and a clear medieval warm period which would undermine the overall sales pitch somewhat.
Quite right that it's being used as a proxy for climate science honesty - especially of the silent majority. The trouble is the climate community have made such an enormous play about being honest scientists just doing the best they can. But it's the fact that they seem to get away it all so easily that irks so much. There is absolutely no accountability whatsoever in this old boy network. The law is the only recourse left.
Actually I am surprised that no legal action has been taken sooner. It seems to me to be a sure fire winner. Maybe it's because it was mainly government funded so it's just another taxpayer loss - and somewhat miniscule compared to all the others. Or maybe nobody wants to be politically incorrect. Greenwashing is what the focus groups recommend until the issue dies naturally to make way for the next catastrophe du jour.
Lay people must be now wondering how many more fudges are out there after the realisation that scientists set themselves lower standards than many political, commercial, legal and health instituitions.
That is damning.
I'm with you, Roger. All the analogies prove nothing. Yes, you could make an analogy with financial statements, in which something similar would not tolerated. Or you could make one with journalism, in which it would hardly be noticed. How do you know which analogy is valid and fair? You don't. Seeing only the similarities and not the differences will not work in the end.
Unless you can point to formal rules governing the particular context, there is no way to pin anyone down. As you, Roger, and many others have pointed out, the IPCC keeps breaking its own rules. And perhaps the rules need to be improved. That's worth pursuing, but I don't think calling it fraud will help.
Dear Dr. Pielke,
You and your readers may find it useful to look at the U.S. Government’s formal policy with respect to “research misconduct.”
The Office of Science and Technology Policy, then a part of the White House, promulgated the U.S. Government’s Research Misconduct Policy in 2000. See Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Federal Policy on Research Misconduct, Preamble for Research Misconduct Policy, 65. Fed. Reg. 76260-64 (December 6, 2000)(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=fr06de00-72).
The Federal Research Misconduct Policy “applies to federally funded research and proposals submitted to Federal agencies for research funding. It thus applies to research conducted by the Federal agencies, conducted or managed for the Federal government by contractors, or supported by the Federal government and performed at research institutions, including universities and industry.”
Research conducted by university academics relying on U.S. Federal grants is thus clearly covered.
The Policy defines “Research Misconduct” as follows.
“Federal Policy on Research Misconduct
I. Research Misconduct Defined
Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
• Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
• Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
• Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
• Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.”
Id., at 76262 (footnotes omitted).
Federal Policy therefore defines "research misconduct" comprised by "falsification" to include "omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record."
U.S. universities have also adopted their own policies on the topic of research misconduct. For obvious reasons, those university policies incorporate the U.S. Federal standard with respect to Federally-supported research. When it comes to research not covered by the Federal Research Misconduct Policy, universities routinely prohibit "falsification." Some universities, however, do not expressly define "falsification" to include “omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.”
That appears to be the case for both the University of Colorado (https://www.cusys.edu/policies/policies/A_MisconductResearch.html)and Pennsylvania State University (http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/sari/teachingtools/misconduct/index.asp#policies). The link to the University of Virginia Research Misconduct Policy (https://policy.itc.virginia.edu/policy/policydisplay?id=%2527RES-004%2527) is broken, so I cannot tell you how "falsification" is defined for non-Federal research at that university.
I do not know if the United Kingdom or the University of East Anglia has a similar policy.
I hope this is useful.
Mark Kantor
-26-Mark
Yes, this is helpful ... while it is clear that the situation here does not rise to research misconduct under this set of guidelines, it is also clear that the IPCC does not fall under them, being a UN effort.
Thanks for posting it!
Presenting two different data series on a graph using the same colour and thickness line, and then arranging the scales so that several lines cross near the point where the two data series don't quite meet: that's not cherry picking. It's out and out deceit. Cherry picking is when you use a subset of data, chosen to suit your story. Presenting two different data series as one, while disguising what you’ve done, isn’t cherry picking. If you want a fruit analogy, it’s mixing cheap melon with strawberries, and selling it as strawberry jam.
Dear Dr. Pielke,
Thanks for the reply. I am no expert in this area, but I think the Federal Policy covers a researcher wherever he or she presents the record of the Federally-supported research (e.g., in a report to the U.S. Government, in a report to third parties, in a journal, or in a report by third parties into which the researcher incorporated the research in question). So, if the presentation by the researcher was "research misconduct" as defined in the Policy, then the researcher could be in violation of the Policy even if the IPCC is not itself in violation.
Regards,
MK
You define cherry-picking as:
"the careful selection of information to buttress a particular predetermined perspective while ignoring other information that does not"
Your argument seems to be: 1) what they did can be defined as cherry-picking and 2) cherry-picking, by definition, cannot be fraud (since it simply amounts to the selection of data in support of an argument--something we all must necessarily do).
I have trouble equating the intentional truncation of data in a series in order to hide a negative result (or, worse, the merging of that data with a different series) to the "careful selection of information ... while ignoring other information." I think that's manipulating information, not ignoring it.
I also have trouble with the second part of your argument; cherry-picking and fraud are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and some forms of cherry-picking (as you define it) can amount to fraud.
From the Federal Policy on Research Misconduct:
"Falsification is ... changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record."
Apparently omitting data can be construed as misconduct if the resulting presentation doesn't accurately reflect the research.
Roger, this is frustrating. In the threads on decarbonization we found out that you were using decarbonization in a sense that, while it might be how economists use the term, it wasn't how, well, basically every other person on earth would use it, as it's a pretty silly definition of decarbonization that allows the actual amount of carbon emitted to rise and still be counted as a decrease.
I suspect that we're seeing something similar here, where you in academia use the term differently than the rest of us. Can you give us what you mean by fraud? Or, barring that, some examples both fraudulent and non-fraudulent? 'Mike's Nature Trick's usage of data is clearly fraudulent to me out in the real world, but it evidently is not to you.
Dear Dr. Pilke,
You said:
"Yes, this is helpful ... while it is clear that the situation here does not rise to research misconduct under this set of guidelines, it is also clear that the IPCC does not fall under them, being a UN effort."
Why are we splitting hairs? Either it is scientifically acceptable to deliberately conceal data unfavorable to your preferred message or conclusion (a "trick" to "hide the decline"), or scientifically unacceptable. One behavior is what we call "honest", and the other meets the definition of "fraudulent".
The fact that neither climate scientists nor the IPCC have adopted a code of conduct which defines the deliberate concealment of unfavorable data as "scientific misconduct" or "scientific fraud" is not material to the question of whether such conduct is right, moral, or honest. Furthermore, the lack of such a code of conduct should not determine whether or not universities or scientific associations or authorities should punish scientists for dishonest practices.
Review what Emory did to Bellesiles when he was discovered to have "lost" his data and omitted data unfavorable to his conclusions. Emory had no problem determining that the concealment of unfavorable data was scholarly misconduct and forced Bellesiles to resign his tenured position.
Regards,
Will J. Richardson
Roger, sorry but your concept of correctness in science sucks, IMHO. I cannot tell just where you draw the line, here, but it's far beyond what I consider honest and responsible. Just what the hell would constitute "scientific misconduct" in your mind? I don't think you understand science at all. You should be glad that I was not on your PhD committee.
The IPCC deliberately picked only data that supported their goal of inciting fear about a climate calamity.
Their premier summation of the risk, the hockey stick, is garbage.
It is not even fools gold quality garbage.
Why is this so hard for people to admit?
The hockey stick *does* affect climate policy, right where it counts, i.e. with politicians.
Show a politician the hockey stick and even they can grasp its significance. Say "we must do something now" and the politician's instinct will be to create some activity, which in this case means disastrous taxation and regulation.
Dr Pielke Jr,
When you conversationally 'winked' about fudging in the previous post, it was understandable perhaps, but your characterization of the divergence issue at the IPCC report as a fudge is not.
It amounts to inserting a citation in a paper and you turn to the index and seeing a wink. ;) I think that is how everyone took what you said to be.
You claim the IPCC report is document put together for scientists for policy-maker consumption. Other say it is a review of the all science at a point of time. Which one is it? It cannot be both.
The IPCC deleted the divergent part in the sphagetti graph. They had Mann's hockey stick graph on its report cover at one point. They do not even show Briffa's reconsrtruction in the AR4. Apparently *they* think it is important enough for the whole of climate science, for something to be done about, each time. It is not only the skeptics who see the whole of climate science through the lens of the hockey stick.
The Team wouldn't have thought it worth fretting and fussing over otherwise.
Is paleoclimatology worth all the attention it is getting, ... but for the hockey stick?
Your bashing of Montford is completely, absolutely unfair.
Roger,
I generally agree with your comments on many, if not most issues, and I am trying to be respectful; however, there are a number of observations that I think must be made to explain this total disconnect between your view, and the views of most of your readers on this issue.
You grew up in an academic household, and have continued to live in an academic environment as an adult. Most of your readers have grown up in, and live in, what we call "the real world". In the real world, most people make the mistake of assuming that most business people are greedy and cannot be trusted. This is unfair in most cases, but is certainly true in some cases. As a result, we have a myriad of rules, regulations, and laws to ensure that business people don't do the kinds of things that the Team has done. On the other hand, most people in the real world naively think that academics are pure at heart, have no greed, and have no ambition other than to help mankind. As you have yourself pointed out, while there may be a few saints like this somewhere in academia (they're probably still post-docs because they lack the "street smarts" to move up the ladder), most academics in the "publish or perish" world of academia are not like this at all. No more trust should be put in them than we put in the CEO's of big businesses. Unfortunately, we do put much more trust in them, and do not have very many, if any, rules, regulations, or laws to ensure honest behavior on the part of these academics. As you have heard Steve McIntyre say on many occasions, if climate scientists were subject to the regulations he is familiar with in the Canadian mining industry, they would never be able to get away with many of the things that they do get away with. When your readers talk about fraud, they are talking about fraud as it is generally understood to mean in the real world. When you talk about fraud, you are talking about fraud as it is understood to mean in the academic world, and as you correctly imply, virtually no scientific work, under any circumstances, can be declared a fraud. Even when a scientist publishes a study that never actually took place, and consists of imaginary data, it is generally only considered to be "academic misconduct" (if his university is even willing to pursue the matter at all).
In the past, this never caused a problem. When someone published a math proof, there was no cause for concern, because anyone with sufficient skill could carefully check the proof to see if it was valid. When someone published a physics or chemistry result, other people could attempt to duplicate the experiment, and if no could get the same result, we knew the result wasn't valid. In the social sciences, things were (and are) far less well defined, and contradictory results are often published, but in general, the real world doesn't take the results of psychology or sociology experiments too seriously, so we don't worry about which study (if any) is "right". The situation, however, in climate science is unique. Climate scientists withhold data, refuse to disclose methods, and make predictions that can't be tested for a century. Nevertheless, they pretend that climate science should share the same high ground that mathematics, physics, and chemistry hold, even though the safeguards inherent in those fields are absent. Most important, unlike those other fields, the "consensus" claims of climate science are being used to form government policy and encourage the expenditure of trillions of dollars of public money.
This is why we get so angry when we see what in the real world is considered fraud, and this is why you don't understand this anger.
Calling the hiding of the decline fraud is somewhat misdirection. The fraud derives from the trick of saying that recent results diverge from direct temperature measurements but that must have been caused by some unknown recent problem, and data in the more distant past is good. They come right out and admit that problem, but wave their hands to make you pass over the actual problem. If you ever read about the purloined letter, you would know why that is fraud. It is convincing you to ignore the facts right in front of you. You can call it anything you want, but it clearly shows that you can't believe tree ring data as a prime method to obtain historic temperature levels.
I'm afraid I'd have to agree with those who have suggested that where public policy and large amounts of public money is concerned, scientists simply must rise to a higher level than you appear to be accepting as "usual practice" for science. The parallels to Enron and drug trials are apt, IMO. Sorry Roger, on this I feel you are most definately wrong.
Dr Pielke Jr,
I have a question, if the hockey stick debate doesn't matter, then why many scientist, proponent of AGW, went after McIntyre as if he was a monster set loose in the city?
If the hockey stick doesn't matter why waste so much time and effort defending the bad methodology behind it?
It seems that the hockey stick graph does matters to many people.
You say cherry picking is not fraud and I notice that your account is “cherry picked” but, of course, neither fraudulent nor research misconduct. You are blogging, and you are being polemical. A blogging polemicist is very loosely constrained by law and unconstrained by ethics in any way. A blogger may wish to retain credibility and this may moderate their expressed opinions.
In polemics one should always observe the first principle of lying – depart from then truth as little as possible. “Cherry picking” is the easiest way to do this. One selects the bits that are true and convenient and omit the bits that are true and inconvenient leaving the intended audience with a misleading impression.
Many would describe this as fraud, some describe it as fudge.
If you compare the depiction of the Hockey Sticks in TAR draft and final as they appear in your post you will see that only the depiction of Briffa 2000 changes, and although the decline is truncated in the final depiction, that is not the only change. Absolutely no points on the plot of Briffa 2000 coincides between the draft and final graphics. Although labelled as such, the yellow line in the final graphic is not a representation of Briffa 2000 at all. Briffa 2000 was problematic in its entirety, not just because of the decline.
In your post you omitted to account for this, though the story is fully set out in the ClimateGate emails and I assume you are familiar with it. That is cherry picking, but you are blogging so this amounts to no more than polemic.
Whether the graphic in TAR amounts to research misconduct is debateable. TAR is given an honorary title of “peer reviewed literature” - but in reality it is no more than a polemical book by a large number of authors, that is, it doesn’t really form part of the peer reviewed literature. On that basis there is no sustainable charge of research misconduct because the publication is not covered by professional ethics. This doesn’t exclude the possibility that right thinking people may be of the opinion that the final graphic is deceptive in that it misrepresents Briffa 2000 in its entirety and may fairly describe it as a fudge or fraud according to taste.
The difference between a fudge and a fraud, however, is fairly clear. Briffa 1992 contained a fudge. The real data from 1800 onwards was not used. Substituted data was used, this was declared to the referees and the Editors of nature and appeared in the published paper. At no time was anyone under the impression than the data was offered as anything other than an artist’s impression of what the data should be and not what the data was. There was no deception.
When you look at the final graphic above, and the accompanying text, how would you know that the plot of Briffa 2000 was merely an artist’s impression of what the data should be and not what it was? If there is no way, then it is closer to fraud than fudge.
Is this at the heart of your focus here?
"But making wild accusations of fraud and calling for legal sanctions (and worse) simply diminishes your own credibility and represents an ironic sort of overreach."
And is this in part prompted by the investigations into Michael Mann by Cuccinelli?
If so, fair enough, I agree with you.
I suspect a lot of us commenters are having quite a different discussion - and tho' both are worth having it is your blog so you get to choose ;-)
Roger, you still dont seem to get it.
"From the perspective of policy, it does not matter."
This is nonsense - if the full data had been presented, it would have been clear to policy-makers that the tree-ring data is unreliable as a temperature indicator.
This is not cherrypicking IMO. Cherrypicking is for example when the IPCC says that hurricanes have increased since 1970, then when you look at the graph you see there has been no trend since 1950 but a slight dip in 1970.
This is deletion of data that doesn't fit their agenda, a deliberate attempt to mislead and deceive the viewer.
Please read the dozens of comments by scientists on the previous thread.
Arguing about whether the word should be "fudge" or "fraud" is meaningless, particularly since the original article was in German.
One of the chief outputs of my job is Power Point slides. Long experience has taught that once the slide is out of your hands, it can take on a life of its own, being misinterpreted by many people for many different purposes. I get that the authors just wanted "a tidy story." That doesn't make it right. Motive isn't everything.
Nevertheless, it's difficult to read statements such as, ". . . we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. . . Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!" with a straight face.
And I think the point of all of the analogies here is that for most people, deliberately misleading people as was done by 'hiding the decline' has serious negative consequences. And all of the discussion, such as I quoted, merely comes off as desperate defense of something the commenter knows to be wrong, but that he is unwilling to admit.
This went beyond cherry picking: removing part of a data series and plotting something else entirely to make it fit the tidy story.
I don't completely buy the triviality of this issue to the larger debate. As has been mentioned, this pokes holes in the "Unprecedented Warming" aspect of the story...an aspect that I think is critical to the way the policy is presented as a response to an emergency--a catastrophe even! "Gee, it might warm up to be like it used to be," just doesn't have the same effect.
Scientists above the law? Really? Oh dear, Roger, this doesn't bode well.
The UN/IPCC/WMO may not be under the jurisdiction of these regulations, but its contributors most certainly are.
Even the UK-based participants of this fudge/fraud are recipients of grants covered by these regulations - and merely as an aside, for the sake of hammering the point home, the emails were written during "office hours".
Irrelevant though it is, supposing that you could wriggle the hockey team out of trouble by somehow steering scrutiny away from the originators of these material misrepresentations by playing the IPCC trump card, do you think that your success would serve to improve the perception of climate sciences in the wider public and restore their credibility in the public's mind? I don't. We don't generally respond well to people who perceive themselves to be above the law, or those that demonstrate that they are. We don't like corruption.
If you think that we think this kind of wriggling is funny or cute, cast that notion away with vigour.
Roger's definition of cherry-picking doesn't seem precise enough. Omitting extraneous or neutral information fits the definition of: "the careful selection of information to buttress a particular predetermined perspective while ignoring other information that does not"
But what's at issue is information that runs counter to that perspective. That should be part of the definition.
Here's my proposed revision:
"the careful selection of information to buttress a particular predetermined perspective while ignoring other information challenging that perspective"
Long time reader, 1st time commenter. I find this blog to be one of the rare not completely polarized sources of information on AGW. Good job.
I find this quote to be the best summary of the HS I have ever read:
"The scientists here were clearly shaping a message, explicitly motivated by a political agenda against the "skeptics" and grounded in a fundamental distrust of policy makers and the public to be able handle the complete information."
As an engineer, I looked into the HS pretty hard, and found Mann's statistics a bit wanting.
But mistakes are not fraud, and neither is having an ego that refuses to let you admit your mistakes. The reality is the refusal to back down in this HS argument caused more damage to climate science than any other issue, it was a gift to skeptics. Time to move on.
All scientists and engineers should learn a valuable lesson from this. Your reputation will survive being wrong on an issue, it may not survive it you refuse to acknowledge it.
We all know the burn and humiliation of being wrong on something we strongly argued (at least those of us who are married do), but most of us secretly admire and respect those who can admit it with grace.
Roger:
I think I understand where you're coming from on this, but at the same time it's very hard to understand why you think it doesn't matter, especially for someone who is an acknowledged expert in science policy. What will be seen and remembered by both policy makers and the general public is the graph and the first explanation thereof. That image and those words set up a benchmark, an entrenched position in our minds against which future information is measured. None of the people or politicians will read the accompanying detail text, and even if they do, will they be able to find it, decipher it, determine it's relevance to the graph, and then re-evaluate the benchmark? Likely not. Policy makers deal in summaries, not details, and the average person will similarly not delve deeply unless motivated.
Further complicating this is the high profile nature of climate science. As has been mentioned above and in other blogs, no one would care if this happened in a relatively backwater field (like a dispute in the taxonomical naming description of the monarch butterfly) because there is no policy implication. Here we have unbelivably huge worldwide policy and monetary implications, and every living person will be affected by them, so both the science and the presentation matter significantly. Fudging any bit of it, no matter how small, must have commensurate penalties, if that is the correct word.
I can understand that scientists will try to present their view of their own research--that's human nature. People cling to the ideas that make sense to them, their own ideas preferentially, and they do not easily let go. I do not agree that the presentation of science should be that way, though, since that frame of mind is more akin to salesmanship than the disinterested presentation of facts, but that tendency cannot be entirely removed.
Whether these events shake your belief in climate science as a whole and the predictions thereof is not the same process as it is for the general public. We don't have the background that you and other scientists do when it comes to thinking about these issues in these particular types of ways, and so inevitably we will reach different conclusions. Perhaps you know that this type of thing happens regularly in many fields of science, but we have to trust our experts--we can't all be experts in every discipline, we don't have the time or the money to focus deeply on that many fields. If the "expert authority source" (IPCC) presents us with one view and we are told that there is no other reasonable explanation for it, we tend to accept that. When we find out later that not all the evidence was presented or the uncertainty was not fairly represented, we respond emotionally and begin to distrust those experts, whether the strictly scientific case for the position was undermined or not.
When scientists get to directly implement political and economic policy according to their best understanding of the data available, then it won't matter what the presentation was. Until that time, the non-experts have to do it, and they will be largely influenced by the masses. And both of those groups depend absolutely on the presentation being unbiased. With implications this far-reaching, every bit of it has to not only BE scientifically solid but also APPEAR to be scientifically solid. If that means judging these scientists harder than anyone else, so be it.
It would probably be worth comparing this to Robert Millikan's treatment of data in his oil drop experiments. He claimed in his publications to have published all results from 60 consecutive days of measurements, but subsequent analysis of his lab notebooks demonstrated that he'd only published about 1/3 of the measurements he made.
This would be unacceptable conduct today, but would not rise to the level of fraud and Millikan retains his reputation as one of the great scientists of the 20th century.
Horace Freeland Judson's book, The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science has a good chapter on the difficulty of defining and identifying fraud and distinguishing it from honest error, honest difference of opinion, or sloppy but not intentionally deceitful work.
Here's a particularly relevant quotation: "Any serious definition of scientific fraud must mediate between the ways of science and the procedures and presumptions of the law---and these may well be incommensurate." [p. 156] Judson goes on to document that there's a lot of disagreement in the scientific community over precisely what constitutes fraud or professional misconduct.
Regarding the IPCC TAR, while one might dispute the figure, the text of WG1, Chapter 2 clearly states that there's a problem with dendroclimatology ("the climate signals contained in tree-ring density or width data reflect a complex biological response to climate forcing. Non-climatic growth trends must be removed from the tree-ring chronology.... [B]iological response to climate forcing may change over time. There is evidence ... that high-latitude tree-ring density variations have changed in their response to temperature in recent decades. (Briffa et al., 1998).... Thus, climate reconstructions based entirely on tree-ring data are susceptible to several sources of contamination or non-stationarity of response." [p. 131]), so the anomalous data are indeed reported, just not represented in the specific figure at issue.
mkantor said...at 26.
It is clear from the data that you posted that Research misconduct has been committed, not just once, but many times by the "Team". I don't know whether that is the same as fraud but it should be punishable in a court of law.
#51, Jonathan Gilligan
Indeed the divergence is referenced. However, looking at the graph, the divergence is quite clearly so insignificant that it's visually undetectable. And that's what you call a neat "trick" to "hide the decline" in an IPCC report.
The difference between fraud and just 'bad science' is intent. Intent is something that is extremely difficult to prove although much easier to discern.
The phrase "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period" was attributed to a major climate researcher in 1995 by David Demming in his Congressional testimony. Such natural climate variations were/are a soar spot for the IPCC, because the models could not duplicate them and the AGW theory could not explain them. If the science indicated that much of the 20th century warming could have been natural, it could undermine, not only the conclusion of the IPCC, but the entire purpose of the IPCC.
There was clearly motivation for a paleoclimate study that eliminated natural climate variations under static CO2 concentrations. While it is theoretically possible that Mann's team may only be guilty of bad science, his subsequent lecturing and behavior indicates that he has an agenda and is very likely guilty of fraud. His intent from the beginning appears to have been the removal of natural climate variations over the last 2,000 years, whether the data supported it or not.
Certainly the IPCC is guilty of fraud. It deliberately choose to highlight a poorly done study that was in direct conflict with the prevailing research of paleoclimatology. It wasn't a case of cherry picking, but a willful attempt to mislead for the purpose of "inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right." (see definition above in #21)
The fact that it is difficult for some to see the significance of this (including our host) is the tenacious yet subtle influence of the "noble cause". If one believes in a noble cause, they are far more likely to forgive transgressions of established value systems if those transgressions support the noble cause. The 'noble cause' can be so powerful that it has brought nations with established laws against murder to practice genocide against innocent people.
If Enron or Phillip Morris did the exact same thing as the Hockey Team and IPCC, I do not believe that anyone, including Roger, would have difficulty calling it fraud, but Enron and Phillip Morris can not lay claim to a noble cause!
Re Jim Clarke, #54:
I don't think the IPCC as an organization can be construed to be guilty of fraud. Persons within it, probably (notably Overpeck), but not the organization itself. It has virtually no rules to speak of to hold itself accountable to any standard, relying instead on the accountability of individual contributors to not do bad things.
While this would be monumentally stupid for a for-profit international organization, it is nonetheless in line with the rest of the UN, and therefore, according to their own rules, legal. There should be watchdog groups for the UN and other international organizations, but until we specifically ask our leaders to create them and enforce the policies, this will continue to happen.
I agree on the noble cause excuse--I don't think that should be any sort of yardstick for whether you get to do bad things without someone prosecuting you. You either have rules and ethics to go by, or you don't. We've gotten so far into the meme of, "Can we get away with it in a legal sense?" that we have stopped asking ourselves, "Does this violate our ethics?"
I just re-read Roger's post above, and believe that his characterization of the graph manipulation as simple cherrypicking is incorrect. If they had left the original line as it was but truncated it to not slope down at the end, that would be cherrypicking (and still wrong, in my opinion, in an international publication of this magnitude). But in addition to doing that, they actually modified the original line to make it "agree" more with the other data, and that is knowingly and willfully committing fraud.
Dr. Pielke, two things. First, you have been very clear about what you think is not fraud, which (as near as I can understand) would seem to include things like cherry-picking, data snooping, placing of information that destroys your case in a folder called CENSORED and publishing your paper anyways, lying about whether you calculated the R^2 of the early results, sneaking the Jesus paper into the IPCC report, and the like.
What is missing here is your bright-line definition of what in fact is fraud.
Without that, I fear I can't make heads or tails of your system for including some things as fraud and calling others "fudging".
Second, you also have not given a bright-line definition of "fudging", one which would allow me to say "OK, Dr. Roger would say that is fudging" or "Yes, Dr. Roger would call that fraud", or "No, Dr. Roger would say that is not fudging."
Those two definitions would help immensely in making sense of your claims. If you could take a few minutes and write out for us a concise, dictionary-style definition of what you are using each of the two words to mean, it would be of immense help.
As always, my thanks for your valuable contributions to the ongoing discussions
w.
PS—Whether scientists should fudge their results seems like a no-brainer to me ... seems like if you asked a hundred people "Should scientists fudge their results?" not many people would say "Sure, that's a great idea!"
Which is why I suspect that you may mean something very different when you use the term.
-56-Willis
Thanks ... I'd suggest starting with the OSTP guidelines for scientific misconduct:
http://ori.hhs.gov/policies/fed_research_misconduct.shtml
The short summary is: fabrication, falsification or plagiarism
If you suspect someone of research misconduct there are procedural steps you can take to levy such charges and have them heard.
No such charges have been upheld in the case of the "climategate" guys.
Roger, you were making a distinction between "fraud" and "fudging". I had asked you for your definition that would let us know how you are distinguishing between the two concepts. This would allow us to understand why you call some things "fraud" and some things "fudging"
Since the OSTP guidelines don't discuss either "fraud" or "fudging", I fear that it doesn't help us in the slightest in understanding how you are using the two words. Even in theory, how would a definition of scientific misconduct help us distinguish between what you are calling "fraud", and what you are calling "fudging"?
So I ask again—what are your definitions, not definitions taken from the web or from some report but your definitions, of the two words? Without those definitions (and hopefully some examples as well) we cannot determine what you mean.
Thanks again.
w.
PS—Yes, I understand that your colleagues in the climate science field have not upheld any charges against the climategate folks, and indeed the reputations of the un-indicted co-conspirators remain as whitewashed as snow ... however, as a result, the reputation of the field as a whole is now sunk in the mire.
For some of us, this was not unexpected. Did you truly think that the spineless creatures inhabiting ClimateWorld would do otherwise than let the climategate folks walk without even mild opprobrium, much less real action? From the outside, it looks like just another verse of what academics do so well, pat each other on the back and assure each other that their actions are noble and justified and that there's nothing to see here, move along, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ...
If you see this lack of the charges being upheld as having even the slightest connection to do with whether the ClimateGate folks are guilty or not, I fear that you are not following the story ... they have condemned themselves with their own words, Roger. Read their emails again.
And strange as it may seem, some of us don't need a university investigation to point out the rot, we just read their own descriptions of their actions, and we sniff the air, and we smell the rot, and we draw our own conclusions about not only the Climategate folks but about the field as a whole.
Now, that's not the best way to go about it, I know that. But Roger, when your colleagues sit silent while bogus "investigations" go on, and when they say nothing about obvious wrong actions by the leading lights of the field, and when the entire field has refused to police its own scientists in even the most trivial fashion ... what are us poor members of the polloi to do but make up our own minds?
So if you'd be so kind, Roger, please let us know the difference between fraud and fudging in your world. Because I can assure you, if I tried what you have described as "fudging" in my world, I'd be arrested for fraud ... so it's not clear at all what distinction you are making between the two.
w.
-58-Willis
Thanks ... as used here and in this broader conversation, I equate "fraud" with fabrication, falsification and plagiarism as it is conventionally defined in the scientific community.
In this post I defined "fudge" as a selective presentation of information, cherry picking.
Fraud is actionable, fudge is not.
Thanks, Roger. Unfortunately, without examples the line is still very far from bright. Perhaps you could clarify things by telling us your categories for some examples.
Michael Mann hiding adverse Hockeystick data in a directory marked CENSORED ... is that fraud, or fudging?
How about Mann falsely saying he didn't calculate the R^2 for the early period of the Hockeystick ... is that fraud, or fudging?
Or we could look at Lonnie Thompson refusing to archive data ... fraud or fudging?
How about Phil Jones convincing the FOI folks to ignore my FOI request on the grounds that I posted at ClimateAudit ... fraud, or fudging?
If you could tell us how you categorize those four examples, it would help a lot in understanding your distinction.
All of those could be said to involve the selective presentation of information, so they could be fudges ... but on my planet at least, they are done consciously to deceive, and thus are fraud. So I'm curious what you think about them.
All the best,
w.
-60-Willis
Thanks ... Answers:
Fudge, Fudge, Fudge, Fudge
It seems that you are using the term "fraud" as a strong word to express your umbrage at the behavior of certain climate scientists, whereas I am using the term "fraud" in a technical sense to refer to sanctionable behavior according to scientific misconduct policies.
Based on what I know about these issues that you raise (which may be incomplete of course) I find no actionable offense from the standpoint of scientific misconduct. Such issues can of course be debated, but you have yet to make a case of fraud under such criteria.
Thanks!
Roger, thanks for your reply. If Mann lying about whether he calculated the R^2 is not fraud but only a "fudge" in the world of climate science, I hope that you understand when the public draws the obvious conclusion that all climate scientists are frauds and liars.
Because if all you say when one of your peers flat out lies is "oh, fudge", people won't take you seriously.
I don't get it. How is flat out lying about what you have done in science not fraud? How is that possibly "fudging"?
And Thompson has taken our taxpayer's money. He has gone out and found information that contradicts the climate consensus. As a result, rather than archiving the data he hides it ... and this hiding of taxpayer funded data is simply "fudging"?
You say "... I am using the term "fraud" in a technical sense to refer to sanctionable behavior according to scientific misconduct policies."
But the very "scientific misconduct policy" you cite above ( http://ori.hhs.gov/policies/fed_research_misconduct.shtml ) in support of your claim about fraud DOESN'T EVEN MENTION THE WORD FRAUD except in passing, which seems like ... well ... it seems like you are engaged in a little bit of "fudging" here yourself.
So exactly which "scientific misconduct policies" are you referring to, the ones that refer to fraud? I want to see the critical definition, the policy that you are claiming says lying about what you have done in your scientific study isn't fraud, it's just fudging ... but I doubt very much whether such a policy exists.
Your move, bring out the "scientific misconduct policies" that you say define "fraud" and distinguish it from "fudging" so we can all see the difference, and we can all see the definition that says lying through your teeth really isn't anything but a little fudge ...
w.
PS - the definition of scientific fraud (not misconduct but fraud) at Cal Poly http://rgp.calpoly.edu/policyFraud.html includes:
"Falsification of Data This ranges from outright fabrication of data to deceptive selective reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data."
Despite that clear statement that selective reporting and omission is fraud, you specifically say that selective reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data is not fraud.
In particular, Michael Mann's hiding of the 1400 data in his "CENSORED" folder is certainly "selective reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data" ... which you claim is just "fudging" but which the Cal Poly Office of Research Integrity clearly defines as fraud. As is Thompsons "omission of conflicting data" by not archiving it. Both of those are clearly within the Cal Poly definition of fraud.
So no, Roger, your definition of fraud is not borne out by the "scientific misconduct policies" I have found. And I am not just "using the term "fraud" as a strong word to express your umbrage at the behavior of certain climate scientists" as you claim. I am using the word as it is defined in scientific misconduct policies.
So I await your citation of the scientific misconduct policy that says that lying and concealing conflicting data isn't fraud, just "fudging" ...
Post a Comment