Following the post on WUWT:
Ask and ye shall receive NOAA
Posted on June 18, 2011 by Anthony Watts
A while back, I highlighted this, and now comments are open to the public and I’m sure there will be many readers who would like to contribute.
NOAA seeks public comments on scientific integrity policy
I sent them the following email (to: integrity.noaa@noaa.gov)
Dear Sirs,First let me congratulate you on your endeavour to set scientific standards. This is a much needed area and I congratulate you on the work so far done.
However I have two general criticism which I cannot find addressed. First let me explain my background. I have an MBA and a BSc in Physics and electronics. I used to work in the renewable industry installing meteorological stations and was a member of the Scottish Green Party. But I became increasingly concerned with the overt lies being told to the public regarding the creation of jobs. At that point I still accepted the “global warming” thesis, but again, I began to have my doubts as increasingly bizarre and alarmists claimed kept coming to light. Eventually when I decided to examine these claims, I realised that I had been entirely mistaken regarding the confidence of these claims – perhaps even entirely wrong.
I HAD CERTAINLY BEEN MISLED BY THE “SCIENCE”.
Having followed this issue and even researched some aspects in depth, I can understand how well intentioned people might have found themselves in this position. The climate is a hard master: it only tells us about once a decade if we are wrong. It then expects us to get on with the job of following the “advice” without further evidence as to whether we have understood that “advice” until a decade or more later. Finally, when the climate finally reveals the truth it is almost inevitable that we have in some way misunderstood the nuance and have been following the wrong track for decades. In such a situation, it was almost inevitable that climate “science” would misjudge the evidence and political pressure would be asserted encouraging those involved to go beyond the little evidence the climate had to offer.
So, I sincerely believe that even if everyone in climate science had acted with the utmost integrity, it was likely that some form of groupthink – some self-reinforcing consensus – would develop: based not one what the data actually showed (as it changes so little), but on what the “consensus” was as to what it did show. Once the consensus starts, those with power tend to be those who accept the consensus, which again tends to reinforce the consensus and ostracise those who are not part of the consensus. This self reinforcing hierarchy of groupthink being detached from real evidence due to the slowness of the climate to provide anything new eventually looks in on itself for evidence until as we have seen for the last decade, the “consensus” is that it is warming irrespective of the fact that this last decade has not shown a warming trend.
This is the real danger of climate science. Individual integrity is important, but collective integrity is far far important if we are to prevent similar “lemming like” behaviour in the future.
In that regard I would suggest the following:
1. That you learn lessons from the Western political systems when you consider areas like climate science. In our systems of democracy, we accept dissent. Unlike other countries, where the ruling party can effectively oust those not in power from any position where they can ever gain power, in our system of democracy, we continue to allow a public hearing and even provide government money to minority groups to ensure that there is an equity in the forum of public debate. In that respect, it is worth highlighting the many overt campaigns to silence “sceptics”, indeed, we even saw in the climategate emails active attempts to prevent any publication of “opposition party” work.
2. I believe that in contentious areas like climate (i.e. areas where data is slow to obtain), that there must be a division of the subject as follows:
a) Scientific measurement – those involved in this area should be set specific targets for accuracy and reliability of their measurements AND SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM ENGAGING IN ANY SPECULATION AS TO THE MEANING OF THAT DATA. Bodies should be set up whose sole aim is to provide measurement and no scientific interpretation.
b) Those who intent is to engage in scientific “speculation” (as in testing of hypothesis and model building) should be prohibited from collecting the data.
c) None of the above should be allowed to make any political statements or make comments on policy. Instead, there should be another group (if necessary at public expense) whose job it is to advise on policy, to make interpretations on the models etc.
The reason I propose the above is so that:
1. We must ensure the utmost reliability and lack of bias by those collecting the data. That way we remove any taint that the data may be adjusted to fit the personal hypothesis of those involved or worse still the overt political stance of those involved. More importantly, that someone is responsible for ensuring the highest quality of data. E.g. I am still horrified that so little interest has been displayed in the numerous examples of stations on tarmac or near heat sources. I cannot believe that if an institution were tasked with providing accurate temperature measurement – and only providing accurate temperature measurement – that it would allow such a situation to continue.
2. That by creating an impartial provider of the data, we give “parity of access” to the data to all those interested in the climate irrespective of which models or theories they favour, and we do so ensuring that all accept the reliability of the data and not as now, that many suspect those producing the data have allowed their own interpretation to sway how that data is “calculated”.
3. We must also ensure that those speaking on a subject are clear as to standards they use. Those speaking as “scientists” should use a standard of utmost integrity and certainty. However that would prevent necessary interpretation of the science for the policy arena. So, we MUST HAVE SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE PEOPLE TO INTERPRET THE MEANING OF THE SCIENCE. But those doing so must by necessity use a lower standard of “proof”, that is necessary in the policy arena but poisonous to science so it must be clear when someone speaks whether they do so with the certainty of science or “on the balance of probabilities” in order to make the science accessible for policy. You cannot have someone simultaneously saying: “I am a scientists” and then e.g. making statements like the following to the press:
Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.”Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Yes, someone has to provide the public with an interpretation of the science, and put it in a way that can be understood by the scientifically illiterate, but by doing so they inevitably become politicised. We can never again accept in such an important area a situation where the same people are responsible for collecting the data, interpreting the data, for politicising the data, for overseeing the funding of those doing research, for blocking the publication of opposition.
IT IS A ONE PARTY STATE!
Individually it is entirely possible that all involved acted with the utmost integrity (although the evidence suggests otherwise), but collectively the result is a one party state which brooks no opposition and which has no doubt over egged the scientific basis for their theories at the expense of potentially better avenues of research and as a result potentially cost $billions in wasted effort.
regards,
Mike haseler BSc MBA.
However I have two general criticism which I cannot find addressed. First let me explain my background. I have an MBA and a BSc in Physics and electronics. I used to work in the renewable industry installing meteorological stations and was a member of the Scottish Green Party. But I became increasingly concerned with the overt lies being told to the public regarding the creation of jobs. At that point I still accepted the “global warming” thesis, but again, I began to have my doubts as increasingly bizarre and alarmists claimed kept coming to light. Eventually when I decided to examine these claims, I realised that I had been entirely mistaken regarding the confidence of these claims – perhaps even entirely wrong.
I HAD CERTAINLY BEEN MISLED BY THE “SCIENCE”.
Having followed this issue and even researched some aspects in depth, I can understand how well intentioned people might have found themselves in this position. The climate is a hard master: it only tells us about once a decade if we are wrong. It then expects us to get on with the job of following the “advice” without further evidence as to whether we have understood that “advice” until a decade or more later. Finally, when the climate finally reveals the truth it is almost inevitable that we have in some way misunderstood the nuance and have been following the wrong track for decades. In such a situation, it was almost inevitable that climate “science” would misjudge the evidence and political pressure would be asserted encouraging those involved to go beyond the little evidence the climate had to offer.
So, I sincerely believe that even if everyone in climate science had acted with the utmost integrity, it was likely that some form of groupthink – some self-reinforcing consensus – would develop: based not one what the data actually showed (as it changes so little), but on what the “consensus” was as to what it did show. Once the consensus starts, those with power tend to be those who accept the consensus, which again tends to reinforce the consensus and ostracise those who are not part of the consensus. This self reinforcing hierarchy of groupthink being detached from real evidence due to the slowness of the climate to provide anything new eventually looks in on itself for evidence until as we have seen for the last decade, the “consensus” is that it is warming irrespective of the fact that this last decade has not shown a warming trend.
This is the real danger of climate science. Individual integrity is important, but collective integrity is far far important if we are to prevent similar “lemming like” behaviour in the future.
In that regard I would suggest the following:
1. That you learn lessons from the Western political systems when you consider areas like climate science. In our systems of democracy, we accept dissent. Unlike other countries, where the ruling party can effectively oust those not in power from any position where they can ever gain power, in our system of democracy, we continue to allow a public hearing and even provide government money to minority groups to ensure that there is an equity in the forum of public debate. In that respect, it is worth highlighting the many overt campaigns to silence “sceptics”, indeed, we even saw in the climategate emails active attempts to prevent any publication of “opposition party” work.
2. I believe that in contentious areas like climate (i.e. areas where data is slow to obtain), that there must be a division of the subject as follows:
a) Scientific measurement – those involved in this area should be set specific targets for accuracy and reliability of their measurements AND SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM ENGAGING IN ANY SPECULATION AS TO THE MEANING OF THAT DATA. Bodies should be set up whose sole aim is to provide measurement and no scientific interpretation.
b) Those who intent is to engage in scientific “speculation” (as in testing of hypothesis and model building) should be prohibited from collecting the data.
c) None of the above should be allowed to make any political statements or make comments on policy. Instead, there should be another group (if necessary at public expense) whose job it is to advise on policy, to make interpretations on the models etc.
The reason I propose the above is so that:
1. We must ensure the utmost reliability and lack of bias by those collecting the data. That way we remove any taint that the data may be adjusted to fit the personal hypothesis of those involved or worse still the overt political stance of those involved. More importantly, that someone is responsible for ensuring the highest quality of data. E.g. I am still horrified that so little interest has been displayed in the numerous examples of stations on tarmac or near heat sources. I cannot believe that if an institution were tasked with providing accurate temperature measurement – and only providing accurate temperature measurement – that it would allow such a situation to continue.
2. That by creating an impartial provider of the data, we give “parity of access” to the data to all those interested in the climate irrespective of which models or theories they favour, and we do so ensuring that all accept the reliability of the data and not as now, that many suspect those producing the data have allowed their own interpretation to sway how that data is “calculated”.
3. We must also ensure that those speaking on a subject are clear as to standards they use. Those speaking as “scientists” should use a standard of utmost integrity and certainty. However that would prevent necessary interpretation of the science for the policy arena. So, we MUST HAVE SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE PEOPLE TO INTERPRET THE MEANING OF THE SCIENCE. But those doing so must by necessity use a lower standard of “proof”, that is necessary in the policy arena but poisonous to science so it must be clear when someone speaks whether they do so with the certainty of science or “on the balance of probabilities” in order to make the science accessible for policy. You cannot have someone simultaneously saying: “I am a scientists” and then e.g. making statements like the following to the press:
Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.”Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Yes, someone has to provide the public with an interpretation of the science, and put it in a way that can be understood by the scientifically illiterate, but by doing so they inevitably become politicised. We can never again accept in such an important area a situation where the same people are responsible for collecting the data, interpreting the data, for politicising the data, for overseeing the funding of those doing research, for blocking the publication of opposition.
IT IS A ONE PARTY STATE!
Individually it is entirely possible that all involved acted with the utmost integrity (although the evidence suggests otherwise), but collectively the result is a one party state which brooks no opposition and which has no doubt over egged the scientific basis for their theories at the expense of potentially better avenues of research and as a result potentially cost $billions in wasted effort.
regards,
Mike haseler BSc MBA.
Pingback: 18 June, 2011 22:48 | Cranky Old Crow
well said
Yes, good submission Mike, the analogy to one party state politics is particularly apposite.
If only some of your suggestions would be listened to. Sadly, I have a suspicion that the whole ‘science is settled’ bunk, and all the rubbish that has been said in the meantime (to the detriment of the reputation of science in general) is not a bug for some but a feature, and in some people’s interest to maintain. So, I am not expecting a change to the political climate (pardon the pun) on subject of climate change-warming-disruption-thingamy any time soon. But I do hope all the scoundrals are finally caught and get their come uppance. I agree with you that the very existance of the movement is amazing, given the weak factual foundations on which it stands.