Collide-a-scape

UPDATE: Skeptics are still grousing about RPJR, but he’s still taking it all in stride. And now, it appears that Steve McIntyre is with Roger on this one, much to the disappointment of Climate Audit fans.

Sometimes I think Roger Pielke Jr. is like Spock. His logic is often unassailable but it can leave people cold. In recent days, he’s infuriated many climate skeptics for insisting that those twin totems of Climategate– Mike’s Nature Trick & Hide the Decline– doth not rise to the level of scientific fraud. A hive of skeptics swarmed all over him, faster than you can say Algore.

I wondered if he would be able to withstand it, then I did a little checking and see here that he’s already endured their Trick & Decline venom. Sure the skeptic swarm was even angrier this time around, but Roger shrugged if off again. He did, however, oblige them a second follow-up post, (with a cherry on top).

Now some quick insidery context: people who have followed this controversial issue know that the divergence between tree ring data and the temperature readings was discussed in journal papers and thus certainly not a secret. The problem is that it was seemingly smoothed over for an IPCC presentation. Back in December, Roger lays down his gauntlet here:

Is the truncation of the divergence by the IPCC “scientific fraud”?

No.

Here is why. First, the IPCC is not engaged in research. It apparently violated its own terms of reference when it allowed scientists to re-process data from the peer reviewed literature. So the IPCC clearly violated its own norms. However, even in violating its own norms, because it is not a research organization, it is very hard to say that it engaged in scientific fraud.

But even if the IPCC was a research organization, the selective omission of data might be a questionable practice but hardly rises to any level of misconduct, which generally refers to fabrication, falsification or plagiarism. There is no evidence of that here. Just cherrypicking, perhaps egregious leading ultimately to misrepresentation, but nonetheless cherrypicking. It can appear unseemly when revealed (which is why it is not a good idea to do so in the first place), but misconduct? No.

Did it engage in any other kind of “fraud”? Well now we are into the area of semantics. As The authors of the IPCC TAR chapter under discussion clearly wanted to present information that (a) best positioned their work for inclusion in the SPM, and (b) avoided giving “skeptics” ammunition. So they stage managed the process to present a picture that they thought best conveyed the storyline that they wanted. Was this fraud? I see no evidence for such a claim. Again, misrepresentation but not fraud.

I suspect that others may have a different view, and perhaps some of this is more than semantic. But let me say this. If the IPCC finds itself in a situation where people are debating whether its activities are best characterized in terms of misrepresentation or fraud, then that is not a good place to be.

Late last week, when this debate erupted anew on Roger’s blog and elsewhere, skeptics hammered Roger for falling back on semantics: the meaning of academic misconduct. Yesterday, he tried putting the issue to rest, picking up where he left off in December:

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!

Roger goes on to reiterate that,

The actions by the IPCC scientists to “hide the decline” were a form of cherrypicking.

And his final (semantic) judgment, with a moral thrown in for the still unconvinced:

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.

End of story? I don’t think so. And that’s because some prominent skeptics like Steve McIntyre strongly believe that “Hide the Decline” has not been adequately addressed (if at all) in any investigations so far. Here’s McIntyre last month, after the Oxburgh report was released:

Without specifically mentioning the famous “trick …to hide the decline”, Oxburgh subsumes the “trick” as “regrettable” “neglect” by “IPCC and others”.

But watch the pea under Oxburgh’s thimble.

The Oxburgh Report regrettably neglected to highlight the fact that CRU scientists Briffa and Jones, together with Michael Mann, were the IPCC authors responsible for this “regrettable neglect” in the Third Assessment Report. They also regrettably neglected to report that CRU scientist Briffa was the IPCC author responsible for the corresponding section in AR4.

Oxburgh pretends that the fault lay with “IPCC and others”, but this pretence is itself a trick. CRU was up to its elbows in the relevant IPCC presentations that “regrettably” “neglected” to show the divergent data in their graphics.

It is also untrue that CRU authors, in their capacity as IPCC authors, “regrettably” “neglected” to show the divergent data in the IPCC graphics. The Climategate emails show that they did so intentionally – see for example IPCC and the Trick, which show awareness on the part of CRU scientists that showing the decline would “dilute the message” that IPCC wanted to send. The eventual IPCC figure, as reported here on a number of cases, gave a false rhetorical message of the veracity of the proxy reconstructions.

CA readers are also well aware that IPCC and Briffa were categorically asked by one AR4 reviewer (me) to disclose the divergent data. CRU’s Briffa refused, saying only that it would be “inappropriate” to show the data in the graphic. They didn’t “neglect” to show the divergent data from the Briffa reconstruction. This was a considered decision, carried out in AR4 despite pointed criticism.

Yes, the decline had been disclosed in the “peer reviewed literature”. Indeed, that was how I became aware of the trick – long before Climategate and why, as an AR4 peer reviewer, I asked that IPCC not use the trick once again in AR4.

IPCC presentations are how the climate science community speaks to the world. Climate scientists, including CRU scientists, have a far greater obligation of full, true and plain disclosure in IPCC reports than even the specialist literature. Oxburgh pretends that (partial) disclosure of adverse results by CRU in specialist literature is sufficient. It isn’t. There was a continuing obligation to disclose adverse results in IPCC graphics.

CRU scientists acted as IPCC authors. The complaint about the trick arose out of how CRU scientists carried out their duties as IPCC authors.

In this respect, the Oxburgh report is a feeble sleight-of-hand that in effect tries to make the public think that the “trick” was no more than “regrettable” “neglect” by the “IPCC and others” – nothing to do with CRU. In other words, Oxburgh is using a trick to hide the “trick”.

Roger’s most vociferous detractors in the blogosphere often accuse him of playing footsie with climate skeptics. Here’s a clearcut case where the two are locking horns. It’ll be interesting to see who prevails on this politically charged, high-octane issue.

In the super-charged, heavily politicized climate change debate, we journalists often find ourselves getting scorched from all sides: We suck, we’re biased, we’re stupid, we’re clueless, we’re a pack of conflict junkies, a blob of false-balance jello.

Yeah, we’ve heard it all. So what about it?

It’s all true. But not all the time. Which makes many people crazy delirious. To which I say, as I do to both teammates and opponents on a basketball court when I throw an errant pass or elbow: sorry, my bad.

Or I can assemble some colleagues who I hope will offer something more meaningful and contrite. And so, without further ado, here’s Charles Petit, science reporter and critic at the MIT-Knight Science Journalism Tracker website; Curtis Brainard, Editor of The Observatory, CJR’s online science and environment news desk; Bud Ward, a veteran environmental journalist and editor of the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media; and Stephen Leahy, a freelance environmental journalist, who has covered climate science for the past 16 years.

Essentially, I wanted them to opine on whether we’ve screwed up the big climate stories in recent months–and whether we’re still screwing up. (Please feel free to chime in.) It was a blind Q & A, conducted separately earlier today, and via email. Each person responded to the same two questions:

Q: Climate advocates and climate scientists alike have asserted (often bitterly) that the press has blown Climategate and the recent IPCC miscues way out of proportion. What do you think?

Charles Petit: I think some media have swayed toward berserk coverage, and many other media avenues have largely ignored the whole affair. If the IPCC cleans up its act – after all, its underlying message is solid – the end result might be fine. Besides, media exaggerate so many things – why DO we hear so much about non-events in the lives of celebrities? – it’s hard to pin any special incompetence on news outlets for their handling of this news.

Generalities are always dangerous too. The ways the Guardian and Telegraph handled it in the UK are poles apart. By which does one judge overall industry performance? While the UK coverage was obsessive, in the US, climategate was largely a creature of the internet, not mass media. In both countries, the primary rap for overblown reaction is not on media but on politicians (and others paid to know better) for their overreactions – which inevitably and properly had to be reported.

Finally, in media, most of the egregiously hysterical reactions to IPCC’s sloppy discipline and to the CRU’s emails was by opinion
columnists, not in the straight news reports. The East Anglia emails are a special case, of less significance than IPCC’s summary report errors. Reporters and their editors should know better than to take seriously what amounted to bar-talk among a few researchers furious at their relentless attackers – and venting to one another with meaningless, unrealized threats against their foes. Big whoop.

Curtis Brainard: Yes, the press absolutely blew Climategate and the recent IPCC controversies out of proportion. The British press led the way, leveling false accusations of data manipulation and scientific corruption where none existed,in the case of Climategate, and exaggerating the significance of minor errors, in the case of the IPCC report.

That is why I and other media critics called upon the American press to become more involved in these stories – not to fan the flames of hype, but rather to carry out more nuanced reporting and set the record straight. The leaked emails and IPCC were, after all, newsworthy and exposed notable flaws in the scientific process. Unfortunately, when the American media finally came around to the story, their coverage was not very constructive. Articles were poorly structured, poorly sourced, and failed to deliver a “bottom line” for readers in terms of climate science, on the one hand, and climate politics on the other. Displaying typical adoration for the conflict narrative, the headline became, “Skeptics attack scientists’ credibility, poke holes in climate research,” rather than, “Scientists respond to criticism, seek to correct minor flaws and improve their methods.”

So, yes, I agree with climate advocates and climate scientists’ criticism that the press blew the Climategate and IPCC controversies out of proportion. On the other hand, I think some of their criticisms went too far. Many in those communities tried to argue that leaked emails and minor errors in AR4 were non-events, and wanted journalists to ignore them completely. That attitude is evasive and irresponsible. The recent controversies should remind journalists that we do in fact need to be more skeptical about information that is presented to us and ask tougher questions our sources, especially the familiar ones. If reporters were more proactive in this regard, things like the leaked emails and the IPCC errors would not seem like such a big deal. Instead, however, they are ceding important stories to skeptics and pundits who manipulate and distort them.

Bud Ward: Generalizing about how “the press” or “the media” cover an issue is as fraught with problems as generalizations, in this case, about the hacked e-mails themselves. This story amounts to one of the rare “fast-breaking” science news stories, and in that sense many of the media missed the boat…early and often.  A fatal early flaw may have been the acceptance, without qualification, by many media outlets of the suffix “gate” as being suitable. We’ve become “gate” anxious in our society, but what happened with the hacked e-mails in no way measures up to the standards of Watergate that gave birth to this craze. The media’s early and unquestioning acceptance of that suffix in effect amounted to game-over-early in the battle for public opinion.

The A.P.’s December review of all the e-mails, and its conclusion that the science remained unscathed, was important and timely…and well-done, and The Economist’s March 20-26, 2010, cover story — “Spin, science and climate change” — are outstanding examples of the best coverage of this whole mess.  But they stand out as exceptions to the rule of generally mediocre coverage overall.

Stephen Leahy: Right off the top it was easy to see there was nothing in any of it from a substantive climate science point of view. The reason it got so much press in my opinion is that media eventually looks for contrarian stories to cover even if it’s a bit thin in terms of content. This varies tremendously with each publication; some actively torque quotes/info to fit their current theme of the month: ’scientists with feet of clay’. The entire episode says far more about media and how it operates, the lack of knowledgeable reporters and editors, etc. My interview with science historian Naomi Oreskes offers a similar perspective.

*****

Q: We have another mini-controversy enveloping climate science, in which Science magazine used a Photoshopped image of a polar bear to accompany a letter from 255 scientists (all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences), warning about the looming dangers of climate change. (The thrust of the letter assails “recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers.”) Again, some scientists are complaining that undue attention is being focused on the image and not the content of the letter. What do you make of all this?

Charles Petit: This is dumb, but a mere kerfuffle. It was a mistake to use that image not just because it is a montage, but perhaps even more because it is a lame cliche. It’s on the editors at Science – who have apologized for it, not the NAS signatories. These editors should have known better even had the photo been legitimate. A polar bear? Puh-lease. Science’s readers would have gotten more out of a Keeling Curve, even a hockey stick (amended of course to apply all the latest statistical fixes). The shouting about this phony image as a matter of genuine substance is as tiresome as the environmental activists who simply dismiss climate doubters as stooges of fossil energy interests and right wing thing tanks. There is some truth to that but we’ve heard it a million times already. My impression is that it is the list of signatures on the petition that got more news coverage in media and will, I’d hazard, have the greater impact. I hope so.

Curtis Brainard: I haven’t been following this story too closely, but I’ll make two observations. First, it is of course ridiculous that that people should focus on superficial images rather than substantive texts. But it is perhaps more ridiculous at this point that a sensible publication like Science would give people the opportunity to do so. They should know by now that even a real photo of a polar bear stranded on an ice floe, let alone this manufactured one, is likely distract attention from whatever runs next to it and cause needless controversy. When are journalists going to learn that polar bears and not the greatest poster children if your goal is generate concern for climate change?

Bud Ward: Another distraction from the major issue, the real story, of a changing climate and the what/how/and how much of what to do about it. No excuse for this kind of editorial clumsiness, though clearly not of the scientists’ making. This simply hands your adversaries the megaphone that they can use to bury what would/could have been the real story here. They handle such megaphones well, and have done so in this sorry case. Again, the real message gets buried, and the real science and real scientists are the worse off for it, let alone the public. This kind of editorial lapse is unacceptable, and it plays right into the hands of those wanting to continue distracting from the real issues at hand.

Stephen Leahy: Another red herring. This is like whinging about the colour of car that’s about to hit you. So a photo editor at Science used a ’shopped image as an illustration. Big deal and maybe bad judgement by some lowly editor. What’s that got to do with the content of the letter?

***Postscript***

For additional perspective and analysis on the polar bear photo episode, see Andrew Revkin here, Roger Pielke Jr. here and here, and Randy Olson here.

UPDATE: After finishing the Q & A, do check out the comment thread where Judith Curry is actively engaged with readers.

Last week, a single blog comment by Judith Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, outraged the proprietors and readers of Real Climate. Curry had mentioned the IPCC and the term “corruption” in the same sentence. I then discussed the brewing firestorm here, and that triggered a spirited exchange in the comment thread, of which Curry was an active participant.

As this exchange was playing out, I sensed that Curry was expanding on her recent controversial critique of climate scientists, while also putting forth a contrary view of the two recent probes that have exonerated scientists of wrongdoing in the affair known as Climategate.  So I asked her if I could follow up with a few questions to clarify some of her recent statements. She immediately accepted and what follows is a short Q & A, conducted via email, and reproduced in its entirety.

Q: In the media and within the climate science community, the Oxburgh report was perceived as a complete vindication of scientists associated with Climategate. Yet you wrote in a comment at Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog that, “the Oxburgh investigation has little credibility in my opinion.” Could you elaborate?

JC: There is a substantial level of public interest in investigating the issues raised by Climategate.  These issues include: wanting an assessment of the reliability and accuracy of the historical and paleo temperature records/reconstructions; wanting an assessment of whether the IPCC was corrupted and whether their conclusions are reliable and can be trusted as the basis for international carbon and energy policy; and whether there are some “bad apples” in the climate research community that need to be weeded out in the sense of not being in positions of responsibility as journal editor, IPCC lead author, administrator.

The Oxburgh investigation initiated by the UEA took on a very narrow slice of these overall concerns: whether or not the CRU records of temperature change had been deliberately biased or manipulated by UEA scientists. While the Oxburgh report is hardly a ringing endorsement of the CRU science, their main conclusion is that they do not find any evidence of scientific misconduct such as falsification of data.  The basis for this conclusion is examination of a selection of 11 research papers published by CRU (based upon a recommendation from the Royal Society, the exact provenance of this recommendation is unknown) and interviews with CRU scientists.

Criticisms of the Oxburgh report that have been made include:  bias of some of the members including the Chair, not examining the papers that are at the heart of the controversies, lack of consideration of the actual criticisms made by Steve McIntyre and others, and a short report with few specifics that implies a superficial investigation.  When I first read the report, I thought I was reading the executive summary and proceeded to look for the details;  well, there weren’t any. And I was concerned that the report explicitly did not address the key issues that had been raised by the skeptics. Upon reading Andrew Montford’s analysis, I learned:  “So we have an extraordinary coincidence – that both the UEA submission to the [UK Parliament's Science and Technology]  Select Committee and Lord Oxburgh’s panel independently came up with almost identical lists of papers to look at, and that they independently neglected key papers like Jones 1998 and Osborn and Briffa 2006.” I recall reading this statement from one of the blogs, which seems especially apt:  the fire department receives report of a fire in the kitchen; upon investigating the living room, they declare that there is no fire in the house.

So in summary, Jones, Briffa et al. can be relieved that they have been vindicated of charges of scientific misconduct.  Even with the deficiencies of the Oxburgh report, I don’t disagree with their conclusion about finding no evidence of scientific misconduct:  I haven’t seen any evidence of plagiarism or fabrication/falsification of data by the CRU scientists.  Sloppy record keeping, cherry picking of data, and inadequate statistical methods do not constitute scientific misconduct, but neither do they inspire confidence in the research product.  Further, the “bad apple” issue is still out there, but this is something that is impossible to assess objectively.  And the behavior of these scientists (sloppy record keeping, dismissal of skeptical critiques, and lack of transparency) has slowed down scientific progress in assessing and improving these very important data sets.  Therefore I have been proposing that we move away from the focus on individual behavior, and shifting focus to issues related to the IPCC assessment process, addressing issues related the availability of data and transparency of the methods, and to improving the temperature data and proxies.  Once these issues are addressed, the “bad apple” issue becomes mostly moot.

Q: In that same comment at Roger’s site, you also suggested that there was too much focus on Climategate, as opposed to “the principal issue that people care about: the IPCC and its implications for policy.” Then you seemed to go much further in criticism of the IPCC than you have previously, when you said:

The corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue. The assessment process should filter out erroneous papers and provide a broader assessment of uncertainty; instead, we have seen evidence of IPCC lead authors pushing their own research results and writing papers to support an established narrative.

Over at RealClimate, Gavin Schmidt shot back:

Anyone making accusations of corruption – especially in the light of the tsunami of baseless accusations against scientists that have been hitting the internet in the last few months – needs to be sure that they adequately document the evidence for their allegations.

Can you respond in full?

JC: As to whether the accusations against scientists are baseless or not, well I refer the reader back to the reply to my previous question; the jury is still out on many of the accusations.  Below is a slight elaboration on the statement I made at RealClimate; I make no attempt here at a thorough evaluation of the IPCC process and its apparent corruptions.  But I have seen and read enough on this topic to feel comfortable in making that statement at RealClimate.  And if such critiques aren’t made, then there will be no motivation to investigate these issues and improve the IPCC process.  These issues really need to be investigated and the IPCC process needs to be improved, and the investigation of the IPCC needs to be much more thorough than the UEA investigations.

Corruptions to the IPCC process that I have seen discussed include:
•    lead/contributing authors assessing their own work – (e.g. von Storch criticism in 2005), in some cases resulting in an overemphasis on their own papers written by themselves and their collaborators;
•    tailoring graphics and not adequately describing uncertainties ostensibly to simplify and not to “dilute the message” that IPCC wanted to send;
•    violations of publication (in press) deadlines for inclusions of papers in the IPCC report;
•    inadequacies in the review process whereby lead/contributing authors don’t respond fairly to adverse criticism; this inadequacy arises in part to the authors themselves having ultimate authority and in part to cursory performance by the Review Editors;
•    evasiveness and unresponsiveness by the IPCC regarding efforts to investigate alleged violations occurring in the review process;
•    IPCC Review Editors and authors using the IPCC to avoid accountability under national FOI legislation.

Regarding my accusations of process violations, Gavin Schmidt states:

Issues of process are of interest only insofar as they affect the science assessment. “Does it matter?” is the key question – and as far as I have seen, the answer is no for any purported issue that I have investigated.

The skeptics have argued (and I agree with them on this) that Chapter 2.3 in the IPCC WG1 Third Assessment Report and Chapter 6 in the IPCC WG1 Fourth Assessment Report, both of which address the paleoclimate proxy record, were not accurate assessments of the science and its uncertainties.  The “elephant in the room” is the 1000-year reconstructions involving Briffa, Mann and Jones, regarding which the CRU emails certainly provide much evidence relating to the authors’ conduct as IPCC authors that violate the IPCC process protocols. Process matters.  If the results of the assessment weren’t being questioned, process violations would be a non-issue. The failure of the various inquiries to seriously engage on this conduct results in a situation where the public is left with the impression that such behavior and conduct is condoned by IPCC and its scientists.

With respect to the torquing of the science by the IPCC, there are many small examples, but I describe here three broad issues:
1)  a senior leader at one of the big climate modeling institutions told me that climate modelers seem to be spending 80% of their time on the IPCC production runs, and 20% of their time developing better climate models.

2)  there is a huge rush of journal article submissions just before the IPCC deadlines; clearly many scientists are trying to get their latest research included in the IPCC.  There is the perception out there that best way to have a paper included in the IPCC is to support the established IPCC narrative.

3)  scientists involved in the IPCC are attempting to influence the research process (e.g. peer review in journals, not making key data and metadata available) to support the IPCC narrative  and using the IPCC platform to editorialize against and discredit critics (examples of these abound in the CRU emails).

Q: Speaking of RealClimate, I think it’s fair to say that they represent the views of a sizable and influential bloc of climate scientists. In a comment several days ago at this site, you said: “Over at RC, they are commenting that we shouldn’t open our minds to garbage, but I am afraid the jury is still out on many of the issues that warmists have such high confidence in.” What are some of those issues?

JC: To keep this short, I will only itemize some topics where I think the confidence levels in the IPCC are too high and uncertainties have been inadequately characterized: much of what is in the IPCC WG2 report (impacts), the 20th century external climate forcings, the historical surface temperature record prior to 1960, attribution of the 20th century climate variations (including the role of the multidecadal ocean oscillations), the impacts of land use change, sea level rise, paleoclimate reconstructions, uncertainties of climate models and lack of metrics for evaluating climate model performance.

Q: With respect to all the controversy kicked up by Climategate, you’ve also written this past week: “At the beginning, I tried to limit my personal exposure on this and was very leery of getting misquoted by the media.  When others failed to speak up, I felt that I needed to step up to the plate.” A number of scientists have stepped forward, as you have, such as Mike Hulme and Hans von Storch, and called for a rethinking about how climate science engages the public and especially its
critics.  Why so few?

JC: There is likely to be a range of reasons for this, but for an individual scientist it is probably some combination of the following:
• they feel threatened by what they saw happen to Phil Jones and Michael Mann, and want to “fly below the radar screen” so that nothing like that happens to them;
•  they don’t want to risk censure by their peers in straying from the established narrative; this is a very valid concern for young untenured scientists;
•  the norms of professional scientific behavior are to attack the scientific argument, not the behavior of an individual scientist
• they aren’t paying much attention to all of this, rarely check out the blogs, and don’t want to be distracted from their own research.
• some scientists that I have talked with do have strong feelings on this issue, but realize that a lot of homework would be needed on this and broader science policy issues to be an effective “pundit” on the subject.
• climategate has motivated numerous scientists to question more actively some of the high confidence (e.g. “very likely”)  conclusions of the IPCC;  these scientists will speak out in the context of their published papers.
•  the issues here cross over into the social sciences and politics, well outside the comfort zone of most physical scientists.

Hanging out in the blogosphere would provide some of the requisite skills and perspectives in engaging with the public and critics of climate research; very few climate researchers have been doing that.  There seems to be some sort of unwritten rule by the IPCC scientists and their defenders not to engage with critics/skeptics, since they think that such engagement legitimizes the skeptics.  Personally, I think that the almost total lack of “mainstream” climate scientists engaging with skeptics has resulted in a loss of the moral high ground in the public’s view, and has acted to increase the public credibility of the skeptics.  Further, this lack of meaningful engagement has inflamed the skeptics (particularly in the blogosphere) and they just keep pushing harder and digging deeper.

Some scientists are speaking out:  Gavin Schmidt and Richard Lindzen are saying, well, what you would expect them to say.  I and a few others (e.g. Von Storch, Hulme) are trying to provoke reflection by the climate community towards improving the situation and the credibility of climate research.  More voices and additional ideas on these issues would certainly be welcome.  I remind my fellow scientists that scientific integrity is about more than just following the rules and staying out of trouble; it also demands that we consider carefully when to speak up versus when to stay silent when concerns about scientific integrity are raised.

***Postscript*** In recent months, Judith Curry has engaged her peers, critics, and the public at well known web outlets, such as Climateprogress, Climateaudit, and Dot Earth, among others. Additionally, she has been a participant in lively comment threads over at Roger Pielke Jr.’s site, Bishop Hill, and most recently, here. I thank her for taking the time to answer my questions at this blog.

**UPDATE: In the comment thread, Judith Curry elaborates that the “main point of my post was to provoke a switch in the dialogue (away from the witch hunt) to the problems with IPCC process and how this might be improved…”

**UPDATE: In numerous comments below, Judith Curry expounds on many of the controversial issues that she has raised in recent months. Specifically, see here, here, here, and here.

How fascinating: a weekend banner headline over at Climate Depot had linked to Roger Pielke Jr.’s post on the Oxburgh report, which, as he quotes from an LA Times story, found the CRU climate scientists “squeaky clean.” Yet Marc Morano, who rarely misses a spin-worthy soundbite, must have not read the comments at Roger’s post. For if he did, he would have come across this:

Given their selection of CRU research publications to investigate (see Bishop Hill), the Oxbourgh investigation has little credibility in my opinion.

That would be from none other than Judith Curry, the respected Georgia Institute of Technology climate scientist, whose  outspoken commentary on Climategate has put her at odds with many of her colleagues. (See here, here, and here, for Curry’s most recent and widely circulated essays on the issue of climate science credibility.) Then again, maybe Morano read her comment and saw this was the next sentence:

However, I still think it unlikely that actual scientific malfeasance is present in any of these papers: there is no malfeasance associated with sloppy record keeping, making shaky assumptions, and using inappropriate statistical methods in a published scientific journal article.

Even still, that’s quite a backhanded compliment thrown in, for good measure. But I’m nearly certain Morano must have missed Curry’s comment altogether (which is oddly cross-posted at Bishop Hill), because it includes this explosively worded charge against the IPCC:

The corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue. The assessment process should filter out erroneous papers and provide a broader assessment of uncertainty; instead, we have seen evidence of IPCC lead authors pushing their own research results and writing papers to support an established narrative. I don’t see much hope for improving the IPCC process under its current leadership.

That’s such Morano chum! And from a leading climate scientist! I can tell you that the gaggle at Real Climate have already figured this out, if Morano hasn’t. Curry’s comment may be flying under his (and the media’s) radar, but it’s just starting to light up the comment thread over at RC. Even Gavin Schmidt has responded:

Anyone making accusations of corruption – especially in the light of the tsunami of baseless accusations against scientists that have been hitting the internet in the last few months – needs to be sure that they adequately document the evidence for their allegations. Absent that documentation, I see no reason to take them seriously. Casually throwing around such statements in comments on blog posts is not an appropriate course of action if they are meant to be credible.

It might well be that the media narrative on the Oxburgh report is already established and that Curry’s contrary assessment will gain no traction. (Climategate fatigue may be setting in, too.) Then again, if Andy Revkin or other journalists pick up on it, who will bear the wrath of the climate furies: the media or Curry? Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Judith Curry has gamely engaged her critics at RC over her recent IPCC and Oxburgh comments. After taking stock, Roger Pielke Jr. observes that Curry is getting “the Real Climate treatment for her troubles.”

There’s big news today that will reinforce the hardening belief among many climate scientists and climate advocates that there is nothing constructive to be learned from climategate. That would be a huge mistake.

Alas, perhaps the die is already cast. In the volatile climate change debate, journalism has come under increasing attack in the blogosphere since the Climategate story broke in late 2009. Call it the creeping Rommification of media criticism, in which individual journalists are harshly upbraided for their commentary or news coverage. Joe Romm, as anyone who has followed his blog knows, has practiced a highly personalized form of journalistic criticism. Over the years, Andy Revkin has been a frequent target of Romm’s broadsides.

I’ve long thought it curious that the scientists at Real Climate, an influential and well-respected lot, have never expressed public disapproval of Romm’s behavior. Romm has an impressive grasp of climate science and he’s plugged into beltway politics, but even his admirers, if they were given truth serum, would admit that his unrestrained attacks on well-meaning journalists further poisons the climate debate. Or maybe I’ve got that wrong and they would sooner admit that Romm’s heavy-handed posts are necessary to keep journalists in line.

I’m starting to think it’s the latter, for the gang at Real Climate has practically leapt off the sidelines in recent months to single out journalists, such as Fred Pearce and Tom Yulsman, for what Gavin Schmidt has termed the “pathologies of media reporting” on climate change. Now I think it’s perfectly acceptable for climate scientists to engage journalists in the blogosphere, and RC is way more polite and evenhanded than Romm. That said, of late I’ve noticed that they’ve been registering their approval and disapproval of media stories more frequently. But even in their approving appraisals, they can’t help hurling a few digs, such as this one directed at Revkin:

Those who do not appreciate this point can easily be misled by the cavillous arguments of others who have become adept at focusing on this or that that specific bit of data and using it to convince people that they have uncovered some fundamental flaw in the theory.

To put this in a larger context, one has to understand that climate scientists are not happy that Revkin–more than any other journalist–has explored the political and scientific fissures revealed by climategate. Now, has the story been hyped in the media and manipulated by Morano? Yes. Does this mean Revkin was wrong to delve into issues raised by Judith Curry and Mike Hulme? No, not even in the wake of the latest news. Still, you get the feeling from RC and climate advocates that any broader analysis of climategate is illegitimate because no crime was commited.

That’s certainly the message that George Monbiot has been receiving for months. Last week he wrote in his column that he’s “been assailed by climate scientists and environmentalists” since he started writing on the affair. For a taste of that ill will, check out this recent William Connolley post, in which he writes that “Monbiot is still rubbish.”  But one of Connolley’s readers, noting Monbiot’s long record of defending climate science, can’t help remaining puzzled:

But you still have to wonder that if you’ve “lost” moonbat errr Monbiot, what what wrong, and how can it be handled better. Was Monbiot just swayed by the right-wing blogology & noise?

Connolley’s response to the comment is notable because it demonstrates the “tribalist” atttitude described by Judith Curry, which at the end of the day, may well be the most damning thing one can say about climategate. Which isn’t saying much, obviously. But the trouble is, that tribalist mindset is what keeps climate scientists from acknowledging “what went wrong.”  Anyway, here’s the response by Connolley to his puzzled commenter:

Well, that is a good point. I think the answer is that Monbiot isn’t really “‘on our side’” at all, because in the end he is oon his own side. I don’t think that is unreasonable – it isn’t indended as a criticism – but I do criticise the people who say “Monbiot is one of you and even he says X so X must be true”. Monbiot has his own interests – writing stories, mostly – and as others have said, being a journo givees him a very different perspective on FOI. And of course he knows nothing about the doing of science.

So Curry’s point remains quite relevant, no matter what the latest panel says about climategate. Connolley’s main problem with Monbiot is that he’s not “on our side.” This entrenched, tribalist attitude may be what’s driving Real Climate’s sudden emergence as a press critic. They are kinder and gentler than Romm, but they’re still doing what he does: dividing journalists into two teams: their side and the opposition’s. Is that really the best way to advance the climate debate?

It’s ironic that Connolley accuses Monbiot of knowing nothing about science. I’d say the same could be said of Connolley with respect to journalism. We’re not supposed to take sides.

UPDATE: At his site, William Connolley says I’ve misconstrued his meaning; he also has some worthwhile observations on my post.

UPDATE: Nothing but “bupkis”–for the second time–Michael Tobis gloats, re: the the latest report exonerating climate scientists. Andy Revkin, over at Dot Earth, has a useful overview and larger perspective.

I do feel bad for Phil Jones, the scientist caught in the maw of climategate. It’s obviously taken an enormous personal toll on him. But he appears to still be in the same bunker that got him in trouble in the first place. He comes off fairly defensive in this interview with Olive Heffernan in Nature. Here’s just one of the passages that is bound to raise eyebrows:

But he fears that the aftermath of the climategate affair is undermining the integrity of the scientific review process. “I don’t think we should be taking much notice of what’s on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process,” says Jones.

That’s probably not a smart thing to say, given he’s the guy who wrote this (in one of those infamous emails) to Michael Mann:

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Here’s the kicker in Olive’s interview:

It is now essential for climate researchers to stand up for their science, he says. “[I'd] like to see the climate science community supporting the climate science more. Lots of them are trying but they’re being drowned out.”

By who? Those very same bloggers, I presume.

One of the more amusing (and popular) voices in the the enviro/peak oil doom-o-sphere is James Howard Kunstler, perhaps best known for his book, The Geography of Nowhere. Once a week, he issues a rambling missive on all issues related to society’s imminent collapse from his profanely titled blog, Clusterfuck Nation. People seem to eat it up. This week, his curmudgeonly schtick is about the biggest climate story of the year (pre-Copenhagen):

Against a greater welter and flow of incoherence jerking the nation this way and that way en route to collapse comes “ClimateGate,” the latest excuse for screaming knuckleheads to defend what has already been lost.

Chalk Kunstler up as someone who definitely thinks it’s a piddling story. But that’s mainly because he believes the train to societal ruination has already left the station:

My guess is that the undertow of entropy is now too great to provoke any meaningful unified change in behavior.  The collapse of the US economy is too close to the horizon, and the so-called developing nations will have problems equally severe.  In the meantime, it is unlikely that any of the major players will burn less coal and oil, or not cheat on each other even if they pledge to burn less.  People who are not knuckleheads will make the practical arrangements that they can. These will, by definition, be localized, small-scale, and non-global communities, doing what they would have to do anyway.

Practical arrangements? I don’t even have a key to get into the local community garden. Fuckin a, I’m stocking up on Coco Krispies, Yoo-hoo’s, and devil dogs. That’s what I was fed as a kid (okay, ring dings, too) and I’m still standing. That seems the perfect diet to survive a post-apocalypse landscape, no?

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: Michael Tobis is among the most thoughtful climate bloggers out there. To really appreciate him, you have to see how his arguments unfold in the comment threads of his posts.

His latest post and related thread is a perfect example. I am certain some of his most loyal readers are utterly dismayed by it. Which is why I find Tobis so fascinating. So in this latest thread he gets into an eye-opening exchange on science bias with one regular reader, who seems to be trying to steer Michael back to a politically correct (climate advocate) position for political reasons:

But I do encourage you to clarify your thoughts as much as possible. You never know when someone will quote you to the effect that you think there is a strong case Mann and Jones suffered from “unconscious bias”, which is a possible, even plausible, interpretation of what you said. So please fix or clarify that, before Morano gets hold of it.

Tobis doesn’t oblige:

I think that walking on eggshells to avoid giving ammunition to the bad guys is a corrupting influence. In the end plays into their hands more than inadvertently giving them the juicy quotes to beat you up with.

In that very same comment, Tobis also offers this gem about the CRU hacker affair:

Scientific speech and political speech are very different beasts. The current situation tangles them up. I am trying to figure out how to disentangle them. I am not sure how.

That’s what I love about his blog. Sure, he’s got his convictions on climate change (especially what he regards as the moral imperative to act), which he is unafraid to convey. But he also struggles with the complexities of the science and the best way to communicate them, which he often articulates with refreshing candor.

Many of the people he admires are shrugging off “climategate” (yes, I don’t like the term either) as “a tempest in a teapot” or an “artificial” scandal. Not Tobis. He recognizes it’s much more than that, and to his credit, he’s trying to figure out how to engage it.

UPDATE 1: In an update to his own post, Tobis says I have misunderstood the meaning of his post.

UPDATE 2: In a comment below, Tom Yulsman takes up the gist of Michael’s post more thoroughly than I have, and is inclined to agree that I’m reading too much into Michael’s words.

There’s an interesting Q & A with Roger Pielke Sr. over at Pajamas media. The interviewer tried asking several times if the case for AGW was shot because of Climategate. He didn’t get the answer he wanted.

Judging by the comments, Dr. Pielke did not give the audience what they wanted to hear, either.

The current issue of Nature carries an editorial on the CRU email controversy. Here’s one passage that I agree with:

Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

End of story? Not quite, as I’ve suggested here and here. More specifically, we don’t know the who (stole the emails), why, and how.  So far, press coverage and endless blog chatter has largely focused on divining the significance (or lack thereof) of what’s been revealed. That game will run its course in due time, unless there are more disclosures and developments, which there are bound to be.

But back to the Nature editorial. Roger Pielke Jr. says

it is just seething in anger.

To borrow my favorite philosopher’s favorite weasel term, I’m going to be charitable and say it is quite a spirited defense of the embattled climate scientists. (Hey, cut me some slack.) On the other hand, this larger observation from Roger seems spot on:

One consequence of the emails will be to open up new fault lines within the scientific community as issues that have percolated below the surface emerge now that the ground has shifted. Nature and the broader scientific community needs to tread carefully in taking sides on issues that there is a wide diversity of opinion on within its own community as well as among the broader public. Nature would do well to distinguish a defense of science from a defense of a few individual scientists.

If there is a sunnier flip side to both Roger’s anticipated “consequence” of “new fault lines” and the indignant posture in the Nature editorial, then perhaps it is best expressed in this WSJ op-ed by Mike Hulme, who writes:

If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing. It will enable science to function in the effective way it must do in public policy deliberations.