FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Books, dissertations, abstract

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 26 | 27 || 29 | 30 |   ...   | 33 |

«Edited and Annotated by John Costella The Lavoisier Group March 2010 About the Author John Costella was born in East Melbourne in 1966. After being ...»

-- [ Page 28 ] --

Let the lawyers figure this out, but be sure that, like Ben is doing now, you disclose the maximum reasonable amount of information so that competent scientists can do replication work, but short of publishing undocumented personalized programs etc. The end of the email Ben attached shows their intent—to discredit papers so they have no “evidentiary value in public policy”—what you resort to when you can’t win the intellectual battle scientifically at the IPCC or the National Academy of Sciences.

The most disturbing aspect of this commentary is that Schneider completely understands the enormous public policy ramifications of this research—yet still expresses such remarkably naive sentiments. He still thinks enormous public policy decisions should be based on the results from undocumented and unchecked personal computer programs.

Good luck with this, and expect more of it as we get closer to international climate policy actions. We are witnessing the “contrarian Battle of the Bulge” now, and expect that all weapons will be used.

PS Please do not copy or forward this email.

The need for confidentiality is becoming more apparent to the co-conspirators. Do they sense a dissenter or a whistle-blower in the ranks?

January 29, 2009: email 1233249393

Phil Jones writes to Ben Santer about some delightfully unexpected news:

I heard during the International Detection and Attribution Group meeting that I’ve been made an American Geophysical Union Fellow. I will likely have to go to Toronto to the Spring American Geophysical Union meeting to collect it. I hope I don’t see a certain person (McIntyre) there! I have to get out of a keynote talk I’m due to give in Finland the same day!

January 30, 2009: email 1233326033

Geoff Smith writes to Ben Santer:

Dear Dr. Santer, I’m pleased to see that the requested data is now available on line. Thank you for your efforts to make these materials available.

My “dog in this fight” is good science and replicability. I note the following


The American Physical Society on line statement reads (in part):

“The success and credibility of science are anchored in the willingness of

scientists to:

1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others. This requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials.

2. Abandon or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental or observational evidence.” Also I note the National Academy of Sciences booklet “On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research” (2nd edition) states “After publication, scientists expect that data and other research materials will be shared with qualified colleagues upon request. Indeed, a number of federal agencies, journals, and professional societies have established policies requiring the sharing of research materials. Sometimes these materials are too voluminous, unwieldy, or costly to share freely and quickly. But in those fields in which sharing is possible, a scientist who is unwilling to share research materials with qualified colleagues runs the risk of not being trusted or respected. In a profession where so much depends on interpersonal interactions, the professional isolation that can follow a loss of trust can damage a scientist’s work.” I know that the 3rd edition is expected soon, but I cannot imagine this position will be weakened.

Indeed, with electronic storage of data increasing dramatically, I expect that most of the exceptions are likely to be dropped.

I understand that science is considered by some to be a “blood sport” and that there are serious rivalries and disputes. Nevertheless, the principles above are vital to the continuation of good science, wherever the results may lead.

Again, I thank you for making the data available, and I wish you success in your future research.

Kind regards, Geoff Smith I couldn’t express it better myself.

Ben Santer’s reply:

Dear Mr. Smith, Please do not lecture me on “good science and replicability”. Mr. McIntyre had access to all of the primary model and observational data necessary to replicate our results. Full replication of our results would have required Mr. McIntyre to invest time and effort. He was unwilling to do that.

Santer is still labouring under the misunderstanding that his research remains “private”.

Mr. McIntyre could easily have examined the appropriateness of the Douglass and co-workers statistical test and our statistical test with randomly-generated data (as we did in our paper). Mr. McIntyre chose not to do that.

Santer’s arrogance extends to dictating that McIntyre must do only as Santer and his co-workers did. It does not seem to occur to him that the principles of statistics are not the exclusive domain of his small group of colleagues.

He preferred to portray himself as a victim of evil Government-funded scientists. A good conspiracy theory always sells well.

Ironic, given that Tom Wigley has described themselves in precisely those terms.

Mr. Smith, you chose to take the extreme step of writing to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Department Of Energy management to complain about my “unresponsiveness” and my failure to provide data to Mr. McIntyre.

Let us see if Santer has decided to become more “responsive”.

Your email to George Miller and Anna Palmisano was highly critical of my behaviour in this matter. Your criticism was entirely unjustified, and damaging to my professional reputation. I therefore see no point in establishing a dialogue with you. Please do not communicate with me in the future. I do not give you permission to distribute this email or post it on Mr. McIntyre’s blog.

Now where have we seen the phrase “Please do not communicate with me in the future” before? In his reply to Steve McIntyre on November 10, 2008. There’s not much chance of “the open exchange of data, procedures and materials” with Ben Santer.

February 2, 2009: email 1233586975

Geoff Smith writes to Phil Jones, trying to clarify the situation:

Dear Prof. Jones, (provides reference to the paper in question) As you are a co-author of the referenced paper, you may be interested to know of developments (in case you have not heard already).

You will be aware that intermediate data … had been requested from the first author, Dr. Santer. A refusal has been posted online, but in the mean time the data is now available at (link).

Perhaps you had this data already, but other co-authors have reportedly claimed (earlier) they did not have the data. A typical reported response to a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request was, “I have examined my files and have no data from climate models used in the paper referred to, and no correspondence regarding said data.” No one disputes Dr. Santer’s claim that the “primary model data” is publicly available, but there is a strong case to be made that intermediate results, e.g., collation of such data and the relevant computer programs should be made available in studies such as this one, since there is an important possibility of errors in trying to replicate such a collation. The archiving of such intermediate results is required for econometrics journals, among others.

It is further reported online that the posting of the data was not pursuant to an FOIA order, but posted voluntarily (although likely at the request of the funding agency, the Department of Energy, Office of Science). I hope other scientists will take this type of voluntary action. You may have heard that Professor Hardaker, the Chief Executive Officer of the Royal Meteorological Society, which publishes the International Journal of Climatology, has confirmed that the issue of data archiving will be on the agenda for the next meeting of the Society’s Scientific Publishing Committee. There is a need for journals as well as funding agencies, and publishing scientists themselves, to establish and enforce good data and computer program archiving policies. A more precise definition of “recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings” is probably overdue.

I hope the Hadley Centre will take a lead in this issue. From time to time I’ll look at the progress on archiving, but in the mean time, no reply is necessary.

–  –  –

Jones writes to Ben Santer:

Is this the Smith who has emailed? … I’m not on a Royal Meteorological Society committee at the moment, but I could try and contact Paul Hardaker if you think it might be useful. I possibly need to explain what is “raw” and what is “intermediate”.

I wasn’t going to give this guy Smith the satisfaction of a reply!

Instead of improving their data and computer program archiving standards, Jones is only interested in influencing the committee that will revise the minimum requirements.

Santer replies:

Yes, this is the same Geoff Smith who wrote to me. Do you know who he is? From his comments about the Royal Meteorological Society, he seems to be a Brit.

… I think it would be useful to raise these issues with Paul Hardaker.

Agreement has been reached that the best way forward is to influence the Royal Meteorological Society.

March 19, 2009: email 1237496573 Phil Jones writes to Paul Hardaker, the Chief Executive Officer of the Royal

Meteorological Society (RMS):

This email came overnight—from Tom Peterson, who works at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina.

–  –  –

“Phil Jones, the director of the Hadley Climate Center in the United Kingdom.” We all know that this is not my job. The paper being referred to appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year. The paper is (cites reference).

The paper clearly states where I work—the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. There is no mention of the Hadley Centre!

There is also no about-face as stated on the web page.

I am sending you this as it gives a good example of the sort of people you are dealing with when you might be considering changes to data policies at the RMS.

So the RMS should refrain from improving its policies because someone in the United States erroneously associated Jones with the wrong United Kingdom climate science institution? It is hardly surprising that people mistakenly confuse the two organizations, because they work closely together, as evidenced by the joint development of climatic data sets such as “HADCRUT3”.

There are probably wider issues due to climate change becoming more mainstream in the more popular media that the RMS might like to consider.

I just think you should be aware of some of the background. The Climatic Research Unit has had numerous Freedom Of Information requests since the beginning of 2007. The Met(eorological) Office, the University of Reading, the National Climatic Data Center and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies have had as well—many related to IPCC involvement.

I know the world changes and the way we do things changes, but these requests and these sorts of simple mistakes should not have an influence on the way things have been adequately dealt with for over a century.

Ah, reminiscing to the “good old days” when the old boys’ club wasn’t accountable to anyone.

Ben Santer is still not going to let anyone have access to his data and methods:

If the RMS is going to require authors to make all data available—raw data plus results from all intermediate calculations—I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.

Phil Jones:

I don’t know whether they even had a meeting yet—but I did say I would send something to their Chief Executive.

Jones clearly believes that he holds some sway over Hardaker.

I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained about him to the RMS Chief Executive. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from the RMS.

The same tactics, yet again.

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 26 | 27 || 29 | 30 |   ...   | 33 |

Similar works:

«Netatmo Gebrauchsanweisung Version 1 / S eptember 2012 In Ihrer Netatmo iPhone/iPad/AndroidApplication ist eine interaktive Version dieser Gebrauchsanweisung vorhanden. Sie ist ebenfalls erhältlich unter http://my.netatmo.com unter Ihrem persönlichem Konto. Tipps und Fehlerbehebung Wie funktioniert das alles? Wie funktioniert das alles? Das Außenmodul (das Kleine) sendet unter Verwendung von Radiosignalen kabellos seine Messungen an das Innenmodul (das Große). Das Innenmodul sendet seine...»

«Arnold, Karl-Heinz; Lindner-Müller, Carola Assessment and development of social competence: introduction to the special issue Journal for educational research online 4 (2012) 1, S. 7-19 urn:nbn:de:0111-opus-70490 in Kooperation mit / in cooperation with: http://www.waxmann.com Nutzungsbedingungen / conditions of use Gewährt wird ein nicht exklusives, nicht übertragbares, persönliches und beschränktes Recht auf Nutzung dieses Dokuments. Dieses Dokument ist ausschließlich für den...»

«CURRICULUM VITAE PROF. DR. SABINE STRASSER Universität Bern Institut für Sozialanthropologie | Lerchenweg 46 | CH-3000 Bern 9 Tel +41 (0)31 631 89 68 sabine_strasser E-mail sabine.strasser@anthro.unibe.ch Homepage Born Wernstein/Inn, Austria Citizenship Austria Languages German, English, Turkish, French (basic) Kiswahili (basic) CONTENT Fields of Specialization 2 Current Position 2 Professional Experience 2 Grants and Awards 3 Professional Affiliations and Scientific Boards 3 National and...»

«Die Perfektion des Home-Entertainments DVC 300 und DVC 600 Mit den DVC-Systemen von MacroSystem werden Sie auf höchstem Niveau unterhalten. Alles was Sie für Ihr Entertainment benötigen, finden Sie in nur einem Gerät vereint: Digitale Fernsehund Radio-Empfänger, Pay-TV-Box, Festplattenund DVD-/CD-Rekorder, DVDund CD-Player sowie ein Film-, Fotound Musikarchiv. Zusätzlich können Sie komfortabel im Internet surfen oder auf Ihr PC-Netzwerk zugreifen. Das einzigartige Bedienkonzept macht die...»

«Montageanleitung Genius Hx® Inhalt 1. Allgemeine Informationen 2. Sicherheitshinweise 3. Warnhinweise. 4. Was tun wenn’s brennt? 5. Eigenschaften des Genius Hx® 6. Montageort und Projektierung 7. Installation des Rauchwarn elders m 8. Diebstahl- und Entnahmeschutz (Zubehör) 9. Betriebs- und Warnsignale 10. Funktionen des Prüftasters 11. Eigenschaften Sockel 12. Wartung und Pflege 13. Entsorgungshinweis 14. Technische Daten. 15....»

«Gold und die Folgen Auswirkungen des Goldbergbaus auf Sozialgefüge und Umwelt im Amazonasraum Hrsg. Armin Mathis, Regine Rehaag bu ntstnft e.V KATALYSE cJlJf:, ~.~ {/' (f Institut für angewandte Umweltforschung Impressum Herausgeber Annin Mathis, Regine Rehaag Übersetzung Annin Mathis, Regine Rehaag Lektorat Inka Schneider Umschlagfoto Annin Mathis Karte Matthias Alisch Belichtung Typographik, Köln © Vollsblatt Verlag, Köln 1994 Ptinted in Gennany ISBN 3-926949-28-7 Inhaltsverzeichnis...»

«Monitoring and Evaluating Programs and Projects Using GIS How to use GIS to support M&E systems for sustainable programs and projects Robert Catherman Director of Safe Water Development MEDRIX™ January 2013 Edition E.2.8 Edition E.2.8 Monitoring and Evaluating Programs and Projects Using GIS How to use GIS to support M&E systems for sustainable programs and projects Robert Catherman Director of Safe Water Development MEDRIX™ January, 2013. Edition E.2.8 Preface The purpose of this handbook...»

«Der Franzosische Barock Den artikel stattfanden zu den online Vergangenheit beim migration und machte mit die Kind, wobei es speziell verflochten wird. Der neue Sanktion, die einem geratene Meistertitel aus Hamburg mit der Euro verloren haben, sah der schnellste online Herbst Wachs-Double kostet. Einem kommen der indische Milliarde statt und gibt der Verstorbenen keine Kunden falsch zu stellen. Verwalteten Strafraum Ursache Der Französische Barock sanken auf Cena vom delegierten Mitch(...»


«effektiven Verbraucherschutz abgeleitet199, so dass auch aus dem Blickwinkel des Gemeinschaftsrechts mit einem weiteren Voranschreiten der Entwicklung des kollektiven Rechtschutzes und nicht mit einer Erweiterung der individuellen Verbraucheransprüche zu rechnen ist. Auch der EuGH betont in seiner Rechtsprechung gerade die Bedeutung der Verbände für die Gewährleistung effektiven Rechtsschutzes der Verbraucher200. III. Alternativen kollektiver Schadensersatzansprüche im UWG Um zu...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.book.dislib.info - Free e-library - Books, dissertations, abstract

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.