George Monbiot should resign

[aubreymeyer]

Dear Oliver . . .

Well as usual, its no secret and so please also be in no doubt, we disagree [see below].

I reject your attempt to vindicate George Monbiot in his call for the resignation of Phil Jones of CRU UEA.

I also reject as naive and self-righteous your comment that, "these UEA emails reveal the scientists as partisan, petty and putting their particular prejudices above the integrity of science and the search for truth. The damage they have done is incalculable. George is merely the messenger who has pointed out what should be obvious to all of us,"

Wow - its sounds as though you've discovered girlie-magazines. What appears not to be obvious to you and him and many others in this increasingly ludicrous affair is this: -

There are two features of data-management, especially in this global context, that by definition require 'selection' and 'smoothing' [averaging]for detecting signal within noise. Anyone who has actually made an attempt to manage data on this scale knows this and that it raises genuine difficulties in the data-gathering and treatment for all and any of the people who become involved in doing this: -

1. globally averaging 'anything' - let-alone global temperature - is a monumental challenge [where do you get the data, how do get the data, to what height, what depth, what resolution do you go in a multi-medium bio/geo/cryo/oceano-sphere etc over which you have limited access?]

2. long-term trend-behaviour, that again involves averaging, but over some period of time that again by definition requires 'selection' and 'smoothing' [do you select 10 years, 100 or a 1,000,000].

If you look at the comparison of the temperature data sets up now on the Hadley Centre websites comparing HADCRU NOAAA and GISS [1800-2008] they are not identical - they are indepedently done by each institution - but the fit between all three is in broad terms as good as identical: - they all demonstrate a constantly rising trend-average over the period. The idea that Phil Jones manipulated any of this is risible - he didn't need to, the signal is so strong.

Not true for contrarian objectors however. For them, if they even bother to look at the data sets, they will and do say its a fraud. The truth here is that whatever is selected and however it is treated, all of this can be judged ignorantly and even maliciously after-the-fact by third parties as involving 'bias' by virtue of what they will choose to say has been deselected. Then in the light of how they have reselected and resmoothed the trends, they will claim to reveal a truth which their 'opponents' have concealed. So they will pick a high point from, the past and a low point from the present, draw a straight line and then say 'look temperature is falling' - to do be doing this is that to which the columnist Mr Monbiot should be directing effort. To be defending these people in any measure is if anything to be even more culpable.

In general what I am saying is that as the effort to actually do the relevant numbers is made [both pro and retrospective], the tendency to be opinionated and self-righteous recedes. For prospective, the effort resolves when the numbers add up to their stated outcome.

Please note this of course is true the other way around and when they don't.

So I also completely reject your point, "The entire strength of those who call for action on climate change, and that includes, you, me and George, relies on the integrity and disinterested nature of the science on which our views are based."

Rubbish. This may be true for you and George Monbiot, but it specifically is not true for me. The entire strength of the case for C&C rests on the fact that I made an effort *not to rely* on the supposedly honest and disinterested efforts of the scientists or anyone else. This was precisely because it was clear to GCI and myself since the original publication by IPCC in 1994 of the output of the Berne model, that the effort was deficient on the matter of what had been left out of the model [feedback effects] and the contradictions that would ensue. It took me a while to figure out how to deal with that, but I did: - http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIEAC10nov09.pdf

I appreciate that you would like to make peace between us and so say things like you did at the Campaign Against Climate Change event least weekend but one: - "We all owe Aubrey a debt of gratitude etc" - but there are issues that are wholly unresolved between us.

Some journalists [yes, probably foolish enough to] ask me what I think about this and this is what I send them: -

Regarding your question - a colleague [a seasoned science-journalist] suggested that the Jones 'story' had died until the moment when George Monbiot called for Jones resignation, whereupon the whole thing blew-up because the contrarian press could crescendo demonstrating Phil Jones scalp alongside George Monbiot with the knife in his hands. George is not a complete fool and I am perfect sure he knew this would happen.

At a distance I have known this man - George Monbiot - over many years and realized that he has words, political opinions and erratic changes of mind aplenty, but he has little competence or any consistency with numbers-based thinking.

As to his 'regret' I don't buy it. It is shamelessly soaked with crocodile tears. He knew exactly what the effect of his demand would be and I do say that it was a critical factor in achieving two things [1] the contrarian chorus that exploded with the seemingly irresistible demand for Jones' resignation and [2] the exaltation by them of George Monbiot [of all people] since they could cite him as their chorus master - George becomes Judge, Jury even executioner over at mostan unpleasant but irrelevat trifle [and then has a little weep - shame].

GCI/C&C has argued numerate C&C - yes as equity-for-survival - since the early 1990s. It hasn't changed since then though it has attracted some support as you have noticed - some info current and archive here: - http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIEAC10nov09.pdf ]

A decade ago George Monbiot took up the cause of C&C and in 2000, as darling of the SWRP and truly playing the demagogue to them, he made blistering equity-for-equity's-sake arguments at their meetings, which is not the same thing. For some reason he once asked me to contribute to his platform, which I did with C&C as equity-for-survival [and to what could be called 'polite applause' - fair enough].

Then with the fervour of a sophomore he started publishing books with much rhetorical C&C advocacy. To be blunt it was largely opinion, little analysis and no methodological 'counting'. [As with music, C&C is primarily about integral structure and counting; it is not about trying to generate 'dialogue' between bits of shrapnel in an explosion].

However, I finally lost all patience with Monbiot a year-or-so ago when as this long-time 'advocate' of C&C, he suddenly turned on it in the Guardian in favour of another better idea - yours I believe - the UNFCCC must engineer a coalition of the world's central banks auctioning all the fossil fuel production permits to the global fossil fuel producers with an annual rent of trillions of USD that they/he and his friends would then redistribute to the worlds deserving causes! [Never mind Peter Pan, even the Chinese People's Liberation Army [the world's biggest employer] would have been embarrased].

Suddenly, in this new and winning context, his description of C&C was not only clumsy and inaccurate [fair enough it had always been that] and awash with self-recrimination and crocodile tears for changing trains [again fair enough, he can cry at his party if he wants to], C&C was presented as a parody to make way for his great new idea [actually once again fair enough - people will do what they do] . . . . but . . . .

. . . . when I asked the Guardian newspaper for a right of reply they refused and pushed me on to their 'legal-department'. When I said that C&C had been really stupidy summarised and parodied by GM and that I was being denied a right of reply, the lawyer tried to be helpful but in the end could only suggest writing a letter. I did this but this was also refused.

The point is this: - during this period with the lawyer, Monbiot got wind of the exchange and starting blogging angry questions at me publicly. These I declined to answer saying that the matter might become sub-judice, whereupon he launched his real attack: - his response [public] to me was to threaten to expose me in the Guardian for trying to stifle 'free-speech' . . . .

[!] . . . it was that bit that truly took the biscuit!

Now, the row that has generated over the theft of Phil Jones emails and data and the re/treatments of this data borders on bathos, but the successful call by the columnist George Monbiot for the resignation of Mr Jones actually goes the full mile. He's right there - yes, actually within the borders and in the laager at full-blown bathos.

So it is breath-taking to see Monbiot now hunting scalps and knowingly whipping up support from the contrarian lobby to do this over a matter which my comments attempt to put in a clearer context.

He has now said he 'feels so alone' for having done what he did. But this again is willful manipulation as the average of his status has suddely risen within the contrarian lobby and its press to near celebrity, just as he knew it would.

Bottom line - if the grounds for Jones's resignation are accepted as 'real' [I don't accept them as 'real'] then at the very least Monbiot should face Camus' dictum i.e. face the same judgment and resign as well.

Kind regards

Aubrey Meyer
GCI
57 Howard Road
LONDON E17 4SH
Ph 0208 520 4742