The Policy Lass

People seem to want to debate policy options, which I encourage. There may be other topics not covered in existing threads. Also, this might be a place to suggest new topics for posts.

Have at it!

As readers will know, I copied some comments from CA comparing Jones to Mengele. I was later informed that Steve McIntyre moderated the comments, deleting them completely. I ask my readers the following question:

How should I deal with the deleted posts comments over at CA:

This post is all about the IOP’s submission and its misinterpretation in traditional media and on the net.

Here, for reference, is the IOP’s statement clarifying its position on global warming in order to counter the denialists’ misinterpretation:

Here, for reference, is the IOP’s submission.

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

Fair enough — the emails do look bad in places, but if all the emails had been released instead of a select few we would likely see the actions and ideas and views of scientistis trying to do their work in difficult times.  We would likely see views and behaviors that the hacker/leaker didn’t want us to see, hence the selective choice of only those emails that they believed support their case against the CRU and AGW.  The hacker/leaker was building a case and selected those emails that contained references to issues of interest to that case. Continue reading →…

The response to the hearings is predictable.

Traditional media:

The Daily Mail:

Giving evidence to a Science and Technology Committee inquiry, the Institute of Physics said: ‘Unless the disclosed emails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research and for the credibility of the scientific method.

‘The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.’

Last month, the Information Commissioner ruled the CRU had broken Freedom of Information rules by refusing to hand over raw data.

But yesterday Professor Jones – in his first public appearance since the scandal broke – denied manipulating the figures.

Looking pale and clasping his shaking hands in front of him, he told MPs: ‘I have obviously written some pretty awful emails.’

He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.

And he claimed it was not ‘standard practice’ to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

Of course, there is no mention of the IOP amending issuing a statement clarifying their submission to prevent denialists from misinterpreting it. Continue reading →…

Currently, the British Parliament House of Commons Science and Technology Committee is considering the issue of the controversy surrounding the CRU Email theft and has held a hearing today, March 1, 2010, to question key players in the matter.

My conclusion on what this does to the skeptics?

I think the image says it all. Continue reading →…

I’m at home with a sick child today and am listening to the Parliamentary Inquiry. Will post what I can when I have something below but my impression of the first panel after hearing the final panel?

Will re-listen to the inquiry and post my thoughts and select bits of transcripts.  Suffice to say a very informative and professional discussion with the final panel, Beddington, Slingo and Watson. In stark contrast to the first panel, IMNSHO and all the more reason to be very very skeptical of the so-called skeptics. What a dog and pony show. Continue reading →…