Is the game up for the climate junk scientists?

I posted a while back about the failure of climate scientists to archive their data or to release it on request - a scandal which has been carefully documented by Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit blog.  Another post on the same subject developed a very interesting comments thread with contributions from McIntyre and Maxine Clarke, the executive editor of Nature - one of the journals who have failed to enforce their own policies on data availability.

Over this weekend there have been a couple of developments which suggest that change is afoot. The first was a comment left by the eminent climate scientists, Hans von Storch and Eduardo Zorita, on Nature's Climate Feedback blog

Another important aspect [of McIntyre's contributions to the climate debate was] his insistence on free availability of data, for independent tests of (not only) important findings published in the literature. It is indeed a scandal that such important data sets, and their processing prior to analysis, is not open to independent scrutiny. The reluctance of institutions and journals to support such requests is disappointing.

[My emphasis] 

For two such prominent scientists leave comments of this kind on this particular blog can only be seen as a pretty stern criticism of Nature's stance on the issue, and we should certainly applaud their integrity in doing so, particularly as they seem to disagree with many of McIntyre's scientific arguments.

The second development looks to me as if it could be dynamite though. In a story entitled "Lies, all lies, but who do you tell?" the Sunday Times Science Correspondent Anjana Ahuja does a pretty good job of covering the issue of replication of scientific papers, and gives us the reactions of the management at Nature.

[Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature] is considering whether some studies, especially ones that make headlines, should be replicated before going to press.

Science operates on an assumption of honesty – raw data are rarely scrutinised by either institutions or journals, and academics are encouraged to work independently. Rogue researchers feed off this culture of trust: busy superiors and colleagues often sign off research papers and grant applications without reading them. Fame ensues and grants and citations roll in.

And so it becomes hard to “out” a suspect. Do you snitch to your head of department, for example? To your vice-chancellor? Might he or she wish to conceal an issue that could make the institution look culpable? If the person moves and you divulge your suspicions to his new employer, can you be sued?

If Nature actually go through with this and enforce the policy of replication before publication, it will be a big step forward for the integrity of science in general and of climate science in particular, although I'm sure it won't be the end of the story. For a start one might well ask the question of "who will do the replication?" Someone in the same closed clique is not going to give us the same assurance as someone who is of a diametrically different opinion. And it should also be pointed out that the new policy does not absolve scientists of the duty to make their data and code available. Different researchers may bring different criticisms to bear, and while it is obviously impractical to demand that everyone should have a shot at a paper pre-publication, it remains vital that they are able to do so after the event.

But all this notwithstanding it looks as though there may have been a welcome shift in the position of Nature on the issue. I'm sure everyone who cares about science, whether believers in global warming or not, will recognise that this can only help the search for the truth. Let's hope that this embarrasses the other culprits into making similar changes.

And while we're about it, we might also note that pretty much the whole story has been played out on blogs. Well done the blogosphere. 

Is this a first?

I'm sure it can't be, but I can't think of another occasion on which an MP, let alone a shadow minister, has left comments on a blog. Regardless of whether it's a first or not, congratulations are due to Nearly Legal for getting a visit and a comment from Oliver Heald, who is apparently the shadow Constitutional Affairs bod.

Politicians have got into blogs in a small, and decidedly unsuccessful way so far. This could be because blogging is about crazed loners sounding off their dangerous ideas on subjects on which they are completely unqualified to comment. And of course we all know that politicians are the archetypal crazed loners, remarkable only for the dangerousness of their ideas and their extraordinary ignorance. When they make their opinions public, our understandable reaction is a bored "Tell us something we don't know".

So perhaps Oliver Heald has the right idea. (A politician with the right idea? Whatever next?) The way forward could be for the political classes to comment on other people's blogs rather than writing their own. It makes them look as if they are responding to people's concerns rather than articulating their own prejudices. It might make them appear as if they are servants - public servants - rather than a bunch of greedy charlatans on the make.

It's a neat trick really. It's almost a pity to have seen through it.
 

Bloggers4Labour

Bloggers4Labour is asking if we shouldn't give education vouchers a try. I can't help but think of the old Churchill quote:

You can rely on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted every other option.

Perhaps it's going too far to suggest that one can rely on Labour to do the right thing eventually, but I'm pleased that B4L is brave enough to ask the question. Not sure he's in the right party to get any action on this though.

Gordon Brown's plans

So what's Bogey the Fungusman got planned for us? The BBC has the lowdown:

[H]e said he wanted to strengthen Britain's constitution and give more power to MPs.

More power?! This is madness! Power needs to be taken away from politicians and given back to individuals. 

"One of my first acts as prime minister would be to restore power to Parliament in order to build the trust of the British people in our democracy. Government must be more open and more accountable to Parliament - for example in decisions about peace and war, in public appointments and in a new ministerial code of conduct."

So instead of the Prime Minister handing out sinecures and positions on quangos to party loyalists, he tells the lobby fodder in Parliament who he wants to appoint, and they rubber stamp it.

Great. 

Mr Brown also suggested Britain could get its first written constitution, saying: "we need a constitution that is clear about the rights and responsibilities of being a citizen in Britain today."

You would have thought that he'd have noticed a few other things wrong with the country? Might it have crossed his mind that these should get priority? Perhaps it has, but focusing on the constitution just looks like an admission that he doesn't know how to fix any of them. His ideological foundations in socialism has failed. He's tried throwing money at problems and this has failed too. He is completely clueless about what else might work.

And I hate to think what a constitution written by Brown might look like. Fairness and equality blah; multi- this, poly- that and post-endogenous- the other. It's hard to see him as Thomas Jefferson isn't it?

Order 39 again?

I chanced across a thread at Tim Worstall's just now. It was something to do with an article John Pilger wrote about Iraq and oil. Tim seems to have come off rather the worse of it, and frankly I haven't the inclination to read the whole thing. However one thing Pilger wrote did grab my attention:

Under a law written by American and British officials, the Iraqi puppet regime is about to hand over the extraction of the largest concentration of oil on earth to Anglo-American companies.

Firstly, isn't there an Iraqi government now? Don't they write the laws? Or can the occupying armies still write laws if they like?

If not, then is this handover happening under a law written before the Iraqi government was put in place? Like Order 39, the decree made by Paul Bremer, which Michael Meacher misrepresented as requiring wholesale privatisation of the oil, the factories and the mines to benefit rapacious western capitalists? (It turned out that Order 39 related to Foreign Direct Investment rather than privatisation, and specifically excluded the extractive industries). 

Just asking. 

Why you should carry a truncheon and why it's legal to do so

Firstly a caveat. I'm no sort of a lawyer and I'm not qualified to comment on this kind of thing. The wise course of action would probably be to shut up, but I'm a blogger so wise courses are not par for the course. I'm relaying something I came across on a forum for criminal solicitors called, um, criminalsolicitor.net, which must rank as one of the most interesting threads I've read.

It was started by a solicitor whose client was accused of carrying an ASP - apparently a kind of extending truncheon. He had been seen with it by police, who had responded when he telephoned them after a bin had been thrown through his window and he had been verbally threatened. While he was acquitted, the exposition of the relevant law was fascinating. (Of course, whether it is a correct exposition is another matter).

Some of the positions made on the thread are:

• Common Law, and its declaration in the Bill of Rights of 1689 allowed ordinary citizens to carry weapons.
• For the law-abiding citizen at least, this position was not changed by the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which was only intended to prevent criminals from carrying weapons. This is confirmed by the Hansard record on the Parliamentary debate of the time.  There is also a clue in the title of the Act.
• The PCA 1953 did not repeal the Bill of Rights explicitly. Subsequent case law has shown that the BoR, as a constitutional act, cannot be repealed implicitly.
• PCA 1953 did, however, reverse the burden on proof, requiring the accused to show prove their innocence using one of the available defences of "lawful authority" or "reasonable excuse". It is argued that "lawful authority" refers to the common law right to carry a weapon which is declared in the Bill of Rights.
  
• Most defences under PCA 1953 have used "reasonable excuse". Case law has shown that carrying a weapon on the offchance of attack is not reasonable. If you are threatened, however, it is.
• The "lawful authority" argument has been untested by the courts, apart from some non-binding comments in a "reasonable excuse" case which argued that it referred to police and military carrying of weapons.
  
• The term "lawful authority" is not defined in the act. This being the case, the question is asked "Where does a policeman derive his lawful authority to carry a truncheon?". There is no legislation conferring this authority. It is argued that the only place it can come from is the Bill of Rights/common law and the duty to preserve the peace - ie the same place as everyone else. Again this seems to be confirmed by the Hansard record in which it is explained that it refers to the common law duty to preserve the peace.
  

So, if they are right, ordinary citizens are allowed to carry arms. Indeed one of the commenters claimed to do so as a matter of course. He said that he'd never had any trouble with the police either.

I can't help but think back to the guidance on self-defence issued by the Home Office a couple of years ago which was a masterpiece of obfuscation. If they'd said it's alright to carry a truncheon for your defence, all would have been clear. 

But is it right? 

We didn't mean it!!

Roger Pielke Senior has an amusing post aboutthe rising sense of panic among environmentalists over the conclusions the IPCC is reaching about how to deal with the alleged impending climate catastrophe. He quotes a news release from an organisation called commondreams.org...

Environmental groups are [...] deeply concerned that the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers on climate mitigation, released earlier today, includes a recommendation for large- scale expansion of biofuels from monocultures, including from GM crops, even though monoculture expansion is a driving force behind the destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks and reservoirs, thus accelerating climate change. The IPCC also recommend the expansion of large-scale agroforestry monoculture plantations. These plantations, which will include GM trees, are similarly linked to ecosystem destruction. Monoculture expansion is a major threat to the livelihoods and food sovereignty of communities many of which are already bearing the brunt of climate change disasters caused largely by the fossil fuel emissions of industrialised countries.

(My emphasis) 

GM as well as nuclear? What can I say, other than bwaaahaahaahaahaaha...!

Father of climate science is a heretic

Reid Bryson is a climatologist. In fact he's been credited with the invention of climatology as an academic subject. It has been suggested that he is the most widely cited climatologist there is.

And what has he got to say about global warming?

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. [...] Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

Education as it is and as it might be

The papers have been full of stories of the senile dementia of the British school system. The Labour government's latest triumph is a £46million school which doesn't even come equipped with a playground - a decision which is hard to reconcile with any favourable impressions of the DfES. Can they have forgotten the playground? One should always favour the cock-up theories over conspiracy theories. But no, it turns out to have been a potentially decisive blow in the fight against school bullies. Funny, punishing the innocent never struck me as a way of discouraging the guilty, but perhaps I lack any of the post-modern nuance of the NuLab crony.

Meanwhile the BBC reports that school headteachers are warning over exam meltdown:

Exam reforms being introduced next year will cause chaos and lead to a fall in standards, head teachers have warned.

and over at the Telegraph, James Le Fanu reports on Professor Alan Smithers' views on schools which are that they

have been turned into exam factories at the expense of cultivating the inquisitive mind.

It's all so very depressing.  As far as anyone can tell, state education wil continue to decline and the political parties will continue to do nothing about it. When it comes to education politicians are a bunch of know nothing, learn nothing, do nothing wasters. None of the parties have a clue what to do - they are like rabbits in the headlights, transfixed by the fear of being different.

Which is a pity when there are plenty of answers out there. Take a look at this video of the thoroughly admirable and extremely subversive ideas of John Taylor Gatto (H/T Sometimes It's Peaceful). Then ask yourself if you'd rather your children attended one of his classes or was subjected to the delights of one of Tony Blair's City Technology Colleges.

New in the blogroll

I haven't added anyone to the blogroll for quite a whle. Not because I haven't come across anything interesting, but because I'm too bone idle. A few new ones added today.

Escaping the courts

Via PJC Journal, the ruling of Lord Justice Sedley in the case of UMBS Online Ltd. v. the Serious Organised Crime Agency and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

In setting up the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the state has set out to create an Alsatia – a region of executive action free of judicial oversight. Although the statutory powers can intrude heavily, and sometimes ruinously, into civil rights and obligations, the supervisory role which the court would otherwise have is limited by its primary obligation to give effect to Parliament’s clearly expressed intentions.

PJC journal makes an apt comparison to the setting up of the Gestapo. 

Search

The clever people at Squarespace have added search functionality to the system, so you can now trawl the blog for my previous pearls of wisdom. Link is in the navigation bar.

Ye gods..

From the Times of India:

The Pakistan cricket team’s ‘descent’ into praying rather than playing because of the infiltration of an other-worldly proselytising sect of Islam called the Tableeghi Jamaat (TJ) worried their murdered coach Bob Woolmer so much he was writing a book titled 'Inshallah', TOI has learnt.

 H/T Amit Varma

Tessa Jowell

Please go back to money laundering.

Quid pro quo

Via the comments at Laban's place, the returning officer for Birmingham who oversaw the election frauds there last time round, is now head of the asylum and immigration service.

This is what is called democratic accountability.