The House of Commons Science and Technology committee is having an inquiry into the ClimateGate affair. Hearings start on Monday (although if a general election is called over the weekend then they’re off). The submissions are here. I haven’t read them all, but here is a sampling of two that comment on Phil Jones.
Hans von Storch and Dr. Myles R. Allen
The fact that we disagree with Professors Jones, Mann and others on some matters, such as proxy-based reconstructions, has no bearing on our respect for Professor Jones’ analysis of the instrumental temperature record.
That is a huge endorsement.
3.1 I have no reason to believe that most of the scientists involved in the CRU affair (and this a group reaching beyond the UK) did anything but act in good faith, doing their duty to science, bureaucracy and the public as they saw it and as they were funded to do. It is important, however, for you check my observation, that most climate change since the late 1980s has been government- and grant- funded with the clearly stated objective that it must support a decarbonisation agenda for the energy sector.
3.2 Scientific research as advocacy for an agenda (a coalition of interests, not a conspiracy,) was presented to the public and governments as protection of the planet. This cause of environmental protection had from the start natural allies in the EU Commission, United Nation and World Bank. CRU, working for the UK government and hence the IPCC, was expected to support the hypothesis of man-made, dangerous warming caused by carbon dioxide, a hypothesis it had helped to formulate in the late 1980s and which became “true” in international law with the adoption of the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change.
She goes on.
It is at least arguable that the real culprit is the theme- and project-based research funding system put in place in the 1980s and subsequently strengthened and tightened in the name of “policy relevance”. This system, in making research funding conditional on demonstrating such relevance, has encouraged close ties with central Government bureaucracy. Some university research units have almost become wholly-owned subsidiaries of Government Departments. Their survival, and the livelihoods of their employees, depends on delivering what policy makers think they want. It becomes hazardous to speak truth to power.
This problem associated with government funding is often neglected. I think it is a real problem. To the extent that this has happened (we don’t know that yet) Phil Jones is as much a victim of circumstance simply responding to the incentives that were put in place than a villain – none of these individuals needed to defend Jones.
I’m not sure Sinclair. Sure, the incentives provided by Government funding were very strong. But the emails showed he deliberately and consistently tried to hijack the agenda by preventing the publication of alternative views etc. The Nuremberg defence would suggest that even if he was under (implicit) orders by virtue of the funding agreement to arrive at conclusions supporting the orthodoxy, he must also take responsibility for his own actions.
Samuel J
27 Feb 10 at 12:44 pm
I posted this in the open thread but it is more relevant here.
Well, it seems that the Institute of Physics disagrees with those here and elsewhere that think that the conduct disclosed via the release of the Climategate emails is unexceptional:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
dover_beach
27 Feb 10 at 12:58 pm
New York Times, 1989:
U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend.
C.L.
27 Feb 10 at 2:07 pm
I have to agree with Samuel. Phil Jones can’t take the Nuremberg defense out of the draw and claim he was under orders. In any event , who was he exactly taking orders from, Gavin Schmidt? Mick Mann?
I don’t quite get what Van Storch is doing here. If he disagrees with the temp reconstruction such as Biffra’s blatant dishonesty that was backed by Jones, why is he supporting Jones?
I have a few theories here. Van Storch would like to see Jones back at his desk so he can be served cold and slow like.
The other one is that Jones is now so discredited and radioactive that it doesn’t matter if he comes out supporting Jones and it would make Storch look magnanimous.
One other possibility is that Storch is trying to save his own profession and sees Jones demise as a red light.
Storch should man up a little here.
JC
27 Feb 10 at 2:41 pm
that most climate change since the late 1980s has been government- and grant- funded with the clearly stated objective that it must support a decarbonisation agenda for the energy sector.
.
If you tell scientists what they’re finding need to be it’s not science. Where the money to do it comes from isn’t the problem. It’s that the money dictates the results. Similar thing happen if, say, Roache conducts a study about the effectiveness of Berocca.
Adrien
27 Feb 10 at 4:43 pm
I don’t think we’re in Nuremburg defense territory just yet. I do agree that Jones has to take responsibility for his actions – but at the same time it’s important to recognise the poor incentive structures that are in place. Without changing those structures we’ll just see more scandals like this.
Sinclair Davidson
27 Feb 10 at 6:27 pm
I don’t think the Nuremberg defense is available to Jones, he was one of the leaders issuing the orders, not one of those simply doing his duty.
But, I agree, the institutional structures involved in climate science are the problem. One of these being, apart from those already mentioned, the inordinately large pool of funds devoted to climate research compared to other areas of science.
dover_beach
27 Feb 10 at 6:32 pm
Read Steve McIntyre’s submission – available in pdf with charts at his site climateaudit.org.
They mockingly called him Mr Fraudit.
Projection much!
pete m
27 Feb 10 at 11:14 pm
I’m not sure Storch is really being so supportive as he only seems to respect Jones’ ability to read a thermometer,
Yes Sinclair, it is all about the incentives. Nasty tobacco and oil companies with paltry contributions are wrecking the world in their battle against the good and honest scientists working for the govt. It is the source of the money that is the corrupting thing, not the actual money.
Yesterday Robin Williams had some AGW scientist on and they were talking about the scientists versus the right and how good the models are etc etc. When you hear it described like that you know the person is full of shit.
pedro
28 Feb 10 at 8:17 am
“If you tell scientists what they’re finding need to be it’s not science.”
…do you know how universities give out funding to anyone?
Semi Regular Libertarian
28 Feb 10 at 10:59 am
I don’t think the Nuremberg defense is available to Jones, he was one of the leaders issuing the orders, not one of those simply doing his duty.
.
His first duty is as a scientist. A lot of the crowd who don’t see political interference as a problem because it’s all for the good cause of the environment fail to understand that when this sort of stuff happens it’ll write off good scientific cautions as crying wolf.
Adrien
28 Feb 10 at 12:02 pm
…do you know how universities give out funding to anyone
.
direct institutional funding is a small slice of the research pie. Much more comes from large organisations; mostly Federal government in Australia such as NHMRC; and in the US it’s the NSF and others. Funding sources tend to be more diverse in America than other places; you’ve got a lot of different departments such as defense putting direct dollars in, as well as a raft of non-profits, philanthropic organisations, and of course corporations.
.
But anyway back to your original question: scientists are not typically under orders to get this result or that result. At most, they may feel that their pet theory or approach needs to produce good results in order to keep getting the money and sometimes that may lead to suspicions of data tweaking. But research funding is usually agnostic about what the outcome will be.
daddy dave
28 Feb 10 at 11:03 pm