date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:37:03 -0500 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: [Fwd: CCNet SPECIAL: NAS CLIMATE PANEL: INDEPENDENT EXPERTS to: Keith Briffa yes, I do, Peck sent something. have a good morning! Gabi Keith Briffa wrote: > Gabi > I believe you have all these now - but may send another (minor edits) > version later > Keith > At 17:08 25/02/2006, you wrote: > >> I see what you are saying (look below). >> Does not look like the perfect place to show up borderline prepared >> due to the IPCC >> panic, sigh. >> Keith, would you mind swinging the last millennium section+figures by >> so I can make >> sure we don't step on your turf? I think we are ok, but it would be >> good to check. >> I can send you ours on monday. >> >> Gabi >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: CCNet SPECIAL: NAS CLIMATE PANEL: INDEPENDENT EXPERTS OR >> KANGAROO COURT? >> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:30:43 -0000 >> From: Peiser, Benny >> >> To: cambridge-conference >> >> >> >> >> >> CCNet SPECIAL - 25 February 2006 >> NAS CLIMATE PANEL: INDEPENDENT EXPERTS OR KANGAROO COURT? >> >> >> >> >> If the House of Commerce Committee would like to have additional >> information >> regarding the state of scientific knowledge in the area of research >> being >> conducted by Drs Mann, Hughes, and Bradley, the National Academy of >> Sciences >> would be willing to create an independent expert panel (according to our >> standard rigorous study process) to assess the state of scientific >> knowledge >> in this area. >> --Ralph J Cicerone, NAS President, 15 July 2005 >> >> >> >> It appeared that the issue was not going to go away by itself. We >> thought this >> was an appropriate way to get an assessment of the science. >> --David Goldston, NAS science committee chief of staff, 10 >> February 2006 >> >> >> >> Larry Neal, deputy staff director for Mr. Barton's committee, said in >> a statement >> that because "combating climate change is a breathtakingly expensive >> prospect," >> it deserved closer study, and that the academy was "unlikely" to >> address all of >> Mr. Barton's concerns. Mr. Barton has already sought a separate >> analysis of the >> hockey stick led by statistician Edward Wegman of George Mason >> University, people >> familiar with the matter said. >> --Anatonio Regalado, The Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2006 >> >> >> We are writing to protest three of the appointments to the Panel >> because of bias, >> lack of objectivity and/or conflict of interest and to protest the >> failure of the >> Panel as presently constituted to meet policies of the National >> Academy of Sciences >> (NAS) regarding committee composition and balance. >> --Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, 17 February 2006 >> >> >> >> I'd say NAS is on a path to make a hash of it. I am getting sick of >> watching government >> violate its own procedures so that it may reach predetermined >> conclusions for the good >> of the people. Procedures are there to protect the process. How can >> there be a good >> outcome without a good process? >> --John G. Bell, Climate Audit, 24 February 2006 >> >> >> >> I have no doubt that there are members of Barton's staff who are >> watching all this. If >> it turns out to be a Kangaroo Court, I'll bet NAS will be called to >> task by some politicians. >> I think this is an excellent opportunity to get some facts out on the >> table, and I am >> hopeful about the outcome. >> --jae, Climate Audit, 25 February >> >> >> >> (1) NAS SCHEDULE >> Steve McIntyre, 24 February 2006 >> >> (2) LETTER TO NAS ON PANEL COMPOSITION AND BALANCE >> Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, 17 February 2006 >> >> (3) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES TO REFEREE CLIMATE-CHANGE FIGHT >> Anatonio Regalado, The Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2006 >> >> (4) CCNet AND CLIMATE CHANGE COVERAGE >> Geological Society of India >> >> >> ============= >> (1) NAS SCHEDULE >> >> Steve McIntyre, 24 February 2006 >> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=551 >> >> Here's the appearance schedule. There are 10 presentations. Hughes >> and Mann each get a separate speaking slot while Ross and I are >> combined into one. It's a pretty blue-chip set of speakers. >> >> We get the last speaking spot on Thursday at the end of a long day, >> just before cocktails. Hughes and Mann get to wrap with two spots on >> Friday, Mann getting the last word. >> >> NAS has added a new member to the panel. (BTW three of the panel are >> either current or past UCAR trustees: North, Turekian and Dickinson, >> added to the two UCAR employees - Otto-Bliesen and Nychka.) It is a >> statistician, Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State, who has a >> lengthy resume with many interesting-looking papers. Bloomfield is a >> coauthor with Nychka in several publications. He is cited in two >> pers. comms. in Briffa et al [Holocene 2002] where Briffa describes >> how they went about estimating confidence intervals for their MXD >> reconstruction - you know, the one where they chop off the period >> after 1960. Out of all the statisticians in the world, why would they >> pick one who consulted on confidence intervals for one of the Hockey >> Team studies? >> >> Needless to say, they've paid no attention so far to any of our >> suggestions or comments on composition and balance. I wonder how they >> actually go about considering panel composition and balance. Anyway, >> it should be interesting. >> >> Schedule >> Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the past >> 1,000-2,000 Years: Synthesis of Current Understanding and Challenges >> for the Future >> >> Meeting #1 Open Session Agenda >> March 2-3, 2006 >> The National Academy of Sciences Building >> 2100 C St. N.W., Washington, D.C. >> >> Thursday March 2, 2006 (Lecture Room) >> >> 8:30 A.M. Continental breakfast >> 9:00 A.M. Welcome and introductions >> 9:15 A.M. Invited Speaker: Henry Pollack (Michigan) >> 10:00 A.M. Invited Speaker: Daniel Schrag (Harvard) >> 10:45 A.M. Break >> 11:00 A.M. Invited Speaker: Richard Alley (Penn State) >> 11:45 A.M. Invited Speaker: Jürg Luterbacher (Bern) >> 12:30 P.M. Lunch >> 1:30 P.M. Invited Speaker: Rosanne D'Arrigo (Lamont) >> 2:15 P.M. Invited Speaker: Gabriele Hegerl (Duke) >> 3:00 P.M. Break >> 3:15 P.M. Invited Speaker: Hans von Storch (GKSS) >> 4:00 P.M. Invited Speaker: Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (Guelph) >> 4:45 P.M. Break >> 5:00 P.M. Open discussion >> 5:30 P.M. Reception >> >> Friday March 3, 2006 (Lecture Room) >> 8:30 A.M. Continental breakfast >> 9:00 A.M. Invited Speaker: Malcolm Hughes (Arizona) >> 9:45 A.M. Invited Speaker: Michael Mann (Penn State) >> 10:30 A.M. Wrap-up / discussion >> 11:00 A.M. Adjourn to closed session >> >> =========== >> (2) LETTER TO NAS ON PANEL COMPOSITION AND BALANCE >> >> Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, 17 February 2006 >> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=534 >> >> The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has presumably been criticized >> in the past for the >> composition of panels (from the evidence of the mere existence of the >> 1997 law on committee >> balance and composition). This law and resulting policies provide for >> a comment period on >> proposed committees. Ross and I have exercised our rights under this >> policy and today sent >> the following letter to NAS. >> >> ------ >> We are writing to protest three of the appointments to the Panel >> because of bias, lack of >> objectivity and/or conflict of interest and to protest the failure of >> the Panel as presently >> constituted to meet policies of the National Academy of Sciences >> (NAS) regarding committee >> composition and balance. We have suggested several alternatives whose >> appointment would at >> least partly mitigate these problems. >> >> Dr. Otto-Bliesner >> >> The "Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of >> Interest for Committees Used >> in the Development of Reports", a policy statement of the National >> Academy of Science (NAS) >> issued in compliance with section 15 of the federal Advisory >> Committee Act, provides explicit >> statements about the issues of bias, lack of objectivity and conflict >> of interest. It states, >> with respect to conflict of interest: >> >> It is essential that the work of committees of the institution >> used in the development >> of reports not be compromised by any significant conflict of >> interest. For this purpose, >> the term "conflict of interest" means any financial or other >> interest which conflicts with >> the service of the individual because it (1) could significantly >> impair the individual's >> objectivity or (2) could create an unfair competitive advantage >> for any person or >> organization. Except for those situations in which the >> institution determines that a >> conflict of interest is unavoidable and promptly and publicly >> discloses the conflict of >> interest, no individual can be appointed to serve (or continue to >> serve) on a committee of >> the institution used in the development of reports if the >> individual has a conflict of >> interest that is relevant to the functions to be performed. [bold >> in original] >> >> and, with respect to bias and lack of objectivity: >> >> Finally, it is essential that the work of committees that are >> used by the institution in >> the development of reports not be compromised by issues of bias >> and lack of objectivity. ... >> Questions of lack of objectivity and bias ordinarily relate to >> views stated or positions >> taken that are largely intellectually motivated or that arise >> from the close identification >> or association of an individual with a particular point of view >> or the positions or >> perspectives of a particular group >> >> The Panel is obviously going to have to consider our various >> criticisms of Mann et al. and will >> undoubtedly hear reference to a national Media Advisory by UCAR in >> May 2005 declaring that UCAR >> employee Caspar Ammann had shown that our various criticisms were >> "unfounded". This press release >> has been relied upon in material presented to the U.S. Congress by >> Sir John Houghton of IPCC, >> by Dr Mann and by the European Geophysical Union. Ammann has advised >> one of us that he has used >> these two unpublished articles in his annual employment review at UCAR. >> >> One of the proposed panellists, Dr Otto-Bliesner, has not only been a >> frequent coauthor and >> presenter with Ammann, but is Ammann's immediate supervisor at UCAR >> (see >> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/paleo/images/Bette1.jpg). >> As such, she has presumably >> considered Ammann's articles on our work in the course of carrying >> out Ammann's annual review. >> We presume that she would have been involved in preparing and/or >> approving the UCAR press >> release on Ammann's work last May. In addition, last year, she >> co-authored an article with >> Bradley (of Mann, Bradley and Hughes) and served on a committee with >> him. It appears to us >> that her association with Ammann rises to a conflict of interest >> within NAS policy, but, in >> the alternative, her associations with Ammann and Bradley certainly >> rise to bias and lack of >> objectivity. While she is undoubtedly a meritorious person, the field >> of candidates is not so >> limited that her participation in the panel is necessary to its >> functioning and indeed her >> continued participation might well diminish the actual and/or >> perceived ability of the panel >> to provide objective advice. For example, *** would be an equally >> competent alternate without >> the accompanying problems of bias, lack of objectivity and conflict >> of interest. >> >> Dr. Nychka >> >> Another proposed panellist, Dr Nychka, also a UCAR employee, is >> listed at Ammann's webpage as >> presently collaborating not only with Ammann, but with Mann >> (see >> http://www.assessment.ucar.edu/paleo/past_stationarity.html). >> This ongoing collaboration >> certainly creates the appearance of a "close identification or >> association of an individual >> with a particular point of view or the positions or perspectives of a >> particular group". Again, >> while Nychka is undoubtedly a meritorious person, the field of >> candidates is not so limited >> that he is irreplaceable on the panel and indeed his continued >> participation might well >> diminish both the actual ability and the perceived ability of the >> panel to provide objective >> advice. >> >> Dr. Cuffey >> >> We are also concerned about apparent bias and lack of objectivity in >> a third proposed panellist, >> Dr Cuffey, who in a newspaper op-ed recently wrote: >> >> Mounting evidence has forced an end to any serious scientific >> debate on whether humans are >> causing global warming. This is an event of historical >> significance, but one obscured from >> public view by the arcane technical literature and the noise >> generated by perpetual >> partisans. (see >> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/10/09/ING5FF2U031.DTL&type=printable >> ) >> >> The panel is being asked to consider the "historical significance" of >> present climate change. A >> panellist who has a priori dismissed questions on the matter, some of >> which are necessarily >> quite technical, as being "arcane" and "noise generated by perpetual >> partisans" can be >> "reasonably perceived to be unwilling, to consider other perspectives >> or relevant evidence to >> the contrary" as defined in NAS policy. >> >> Lack of Appropriate Expertise on Proposed Panel >> >> NAS policies require NAS committees to achieve standards of >> composition and balance. The >> brochure "Ensuring Independent, Objective Advice" advertises that NAS >> committees provide" >> >> "An appropriate range of expertise for the task. The committee >> must include experts with >> the specific expertise and experience needed to address the >> study's statement of task. >> One of the strengths of the National Academies is the tradition >> of bringing together >> recognized experts from diverse disciplines and backgrounds who >> might not otherwise >> collaborate. These diverse groups are encouraged to conceive new >> ways of thinking about a >> problem." >> >> The NAS policy statement "Policy On Committee Composition And Balance >> And Conflicts Of Interest" >> states: >> >> For example, if a particular study requires the expertise of >> microbiologists, epidemiologists, >> statistical experts, and others with broader public health >> expertise, the significant >> omission of any required discipline from the committee might >> seriously compromise the >> quality of the committee's analysis and judgments, even though it >> is clear to all that the >> committee is composed of highly qualified and distinguished >> individuals. Even within a >> particular discipline, there may be very important differences >> and distinctions within the >> field, or regarding the particular subject matter to be >> addressed, that require careful >> consideration in the committee composition and appointment >> process.... >> >> In our opinion, the committee as presently composed fails to comply >> with this policy on several >> counts: >> >> 1. Without implying that any of the panellists are not "qualified and >> distinguished individuals" >> within the meaning of NAS policy, to our knowledge, none of the >> panellists would be regarded >> as experts in assessing statistical significance in multivariate >> models using highly >> autocorrelated time series, a central topics in the debate. While >> the panellists have all >> published articles that pertain to, or use, climate statistics, >> the issues currently being >> disputed call for specialist input. NAS policy requires attention >> to "important differences >> and distinctions within the field". We suggest that *** or *** >> would be qualified candidates >> in this respect. >> >> 2. To our knowledge, none of the panellists would be regarded as >> experts in the area of >> replication policy. The entire topic of replicability has been one >> of the most prominent >> aspects of disputes surrounding millennial paleoclimate studies. >> Indeed, it was only after >> Dr Mann was quoted on the front page of the Wall Street Journal as >> saying that he would not >> be "intimidated" into disclosing his algorithm that millennial >> reconstructions attracted the >> interest of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and, >> subsequently, the House Science >> Committee and National Academy of Science. Expertise in this area >> requires familiarity with >> journal policies, statistical methods, software evaluation, and >> the current literature on >> replication experiments. We suggest that *** would be a qualified >> candidate in this respect. >> >> 3. The issue of disclosure adequacy and possible omission of material >> results has also been one >> of the most prominent aspects of the debate. Last summer, the >> House Energy and Commerce >> Committee sent questions to Drs Mann, Bradley and Hughes regarding >> the omission of material >> results, such as the cross-validation R2 statistic and the impact >> of bristlecone pines. The >> President of the National Academy of Science wrote to the House >> Energy and Commerce Committee >> stating that a congressional committee was an inappropriate forum >> for the investigation of >> such matters and that a NAS expert panel would be more >> appropriate. We presume that the >> present panel has been composed at least in part in response to >> this initiative by the >> President of NAS. However, the panel as presently composed lacks >> any obvious expertise in >> this area. We suggest that NAS consider one or more of the members >> of the commission chaired >> by Kenneth Ryan on Integrity and Misconduct in Research as >> panellists. >> >> We further refer to the following NAS policy: >> >> A balance of perspectives. Having the right expertise is not >> sufficient for success. It is >> also essential to evaluate the overall composition of the >> committee in terms of different >> experiences and perspectives. The goal is to ensure that the >> relevant points of view are, >> in the National Academies' judgment, reasonably balanced so that >> the committee can carry >> out its charge objectively and credibly. >> >> and elsewhere: >> >> For some studies, for example, it may be important to have an >> "industrial" perspective or >> an "environmental" perspective. This is not because such >> individuals are "representatives" >> of industrial or environmental interests, because no one is >> appointed by the institution to >> a study committee to represent a particular point of view or >> special interest. Rather it is >> because such individuals, through their particular knowledge and >> experience, are often >> vital to achieving an informed, comprehensive, and authoritative >> understanding and analysis >> of the specific problems and potential solutions to be considered >> by the committee. >> >> Aside from the particular expertise of *** and ***, our own >> criticisms of paleoclimate practices >> and policies are very much influenced by our own experiences in >> handling economic and business >> data. Analysis of time series data is a common issue for economics >> and paleoclimatology. Many >> issues studied by econometricians are highly pertinent to >> paleoclimate applications and yet >> come from points of view that are different, and different in ways >> that the panel will find >> constructive to consider. In our view, econometrics has superior >> methodologies to paleoclimatology >> in addressing problems of spurious inference and data mining in the >> presence of strong >> autocorrelation and integrated processes. Paleoclimatologists, >> including even some of the >> panelists, have applied some econometric methods, but that is no >> substitute for the "point of >> view" or for up-to-date specialization. >> >> Stephen McIntyre >> Ross McKitrick >> >> ========== >> (3) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES TO REFEREE CLIMATE-CHANGE FIGHT >> >> The Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2006 >> http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113953482702870250-lL0PQujuK91SekAUig_yMlPDBuY_20070209.html?mod=public_home_us_inside_today >> >> >> Scientists' Group Agrees To Congressional Request to Study >> Temperature-History Charting >> >> By ANTONIO REGALADO >> >> The Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2006 >> >> Seeking to resolve a scientific dispute that has taken on a rancorous >> political edge, the >> National Academy of Sciences said it had agreed to a request from >> Congress to assess how well >> researchers understand the history of temperatures on earth. >> >> The study by the academy, an independent advisory body based in >> Washington, will focus on the >> "hockey stick," a chart of past temperatures that critics say is >> inaccurate. The graph gets its >> name because of the sudden, blade-like rise of recent temperatures >> compared with past epochs. >> >> The controversy took a sharp political turn in July when Rep. Joe >> Barton (R., Texas), head of >> the House Energy and Commerce Committee, launched a probe into the >> work of three climate >> specialists who generated the graph, including Michael Mann, now a >> professor at Pennsylvania >> State University. >> >> Mr. Barton's inquiry drew a rebuke from several scientific societies >> as well as fellow Republican >> Sherwood Boehlert of New York, chairman of the House Committee on >> Science, who called it a >> blatant effort to intimidate global-warming researchers. >> >> After Mr. Barton didn't respond to an offer to jointly bring the >> issue to the National Academy, >> Mr. Boehlert independently asked for a review in November, science >> committee chief of staff >> David Goldston said. "It appeared that the issue was not going to go >> away by itself. We thought >> this was an appropriate way to get an assessment of the science," Mr. >> Goldston said in an >> interview. >> >> Larry Neal, deputy staff director for Mr. Barton's committee, said in >> a statement that because >> "combating climate change is a breathtakingly expensive prospect," it >> deserved closer study, >> and that the academy was "unlikely" to address all of Mr. Barton's >> concerns. >> >> Mr. Barton has already sought a separate analysis of the hockey stick >> led by statistician Edward >> Wegman of George Mason University, people familiar with the matter >> said. Dr. Wegman couldn't be >> reached yesterday. >> >> Using records stored in ice, tree rings, and coral reefs, scientists >> including Dr. Mann have >> estimated that current air temperatures exceed any in the past 1,000 >> years. Such findings are >> not only evidence for man-made global warming, but also underlie >> predictions of future temperature >> rises. >> >> An 11-member academy panel will now study the accuracy and importance >> of such research, in >> particular the work of Dr. Mann, whose hockey-stick graph was >> included in a report issued by >> the United Nations in 2001. An academy spokesman said the report >> would be completed in about >> four months. >> >> Dr. Mann's critics, including two amateur Canadian climate >> researchers, say his work contains >> serious inaccuracies. Dr. Mann has denied that, but the debate has >> prompted several climate >> researchers to take a fresh look at temperature reconstructions. >> >> While some recent publications have found fault with the hockey stick >> and similar studies, >> others have sought to rebut critics. >> >> The debate comes as many scientists express growing alarm over the >> warming trend. The planet >> has warmed more than one degree over the past century, and recent >> heating is widely blamed on >> greenhouse gases emitted by the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. >> >> More than 150 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, an >> international agreement to slash >> gas emissions by 2012. The U.S. hasn't signed the treaty, which the >> Bush administration has >> said is ineffective and would slow economic growth. >> >> Write to Antonio Regalado at >> antonio.regalado@wsj.com >> >> Copyright 2006, The Wall Street Journal >> >> >> ======= LETTERS ======= >> >> (4) CCNet AND CLIMATE CHANGE COVERAGE >> >> Geological Society of India >> >> >> Dr. Peiser, >> >> A few months ago I sent you a short note of appreciation of the >> excellent and balanced way in >> which you are covering recent developments on subjects like climate >> change, asteroid impacts, >> mass extinction etc. In a recent issue (CCNet, 33/6, 20th February >> 2006) I find a criticism >> leveled against you for not giving publicity to views that are not in >> agreement with your own. >> This is an unfair criticism. You have been very impartial in setting >> out all views. We could >> not have obtained a clear picture on different view points in any >> other Journal. We all owe you >> a deep debt of gratitude for the excellent service you are rendering >> the cause of science. >> >> B P Radhakrishna, President, Geological Society of India >> >> ---------------- >> CCNet is a scholarly electronic network edited by Benny Peiser. To >> subscribe >> or unsubscribe, send an e-mail to >> listserver@livjm.ac.uk >> ("subscribe cambridge-conference" / "unsubscribe cambridge-conference"). >> Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and >> educational use only. >> The attached information may not be copied or reproduced for any >> other purposes >> without prior permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER: The >> opinions, >> beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in >> other CCNet >> contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and >> viewpoints >> of the editor. >> http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Gabriele Hegerl >> Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, >> Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >> Box 90227 >> Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 >> email: hegerl@duke.edu, >> http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html > > > -- > Professor Keith Briffa, > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html