From the BBC
By Roger Harrabin, Environment analyst, BBC News
Phil Jones, the professor behind the “Climategate” affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.
He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics – a decision he says he regretted.
But Professor Jones said he had not cheated the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process.
He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.
But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.
These statements are likely to be welcomed by people sceptical of man-made climate change who have felt insulted to be labelled by government ministers as flat-earthers and deniers.
‘Bunker mentality’
Professor Jones agreed that scientists on both sides of the debate could suffer sometimes from a “bunker mentality”.
He said “sceptics” who doubted his climate record should compile their own dataset from material publicly available in the US.
“The major datasets mostly agree,” he said. “If some of our critics spent less time criticising us and prepared a dataset of their own, that would be much more constructive.”
His colleagues said that keeping a paper trail was not one of Professor Jones’ strong points. Professor Jones told BBC News: “There is some truth in that.
“We do have a trail of where the (weather) stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be,” he admitted.
=========================
h/t Andrew Montford, See more at the BBC here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The major datasets mostly agree”
How would he know?
When you’re talking about policy based on science that will influence trillions of dollars in economic value and several generations of human beings don’t you think that the “paper trail” should be bullet proof, Mr. Jones?
When the science has this big of an impact, you better believe an army of critics with microscopes need to crawl over every square inch of data. Why would you expect anything less?
““We do have a trail of where the (weather) stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be,” he admitted.”
You think? Would have been nice if they had the integrity to come out and make this claim years ago instead of trying to benefit from it.
OMG. He destroys Mann’s Hockey stick by admitting there was a MWP! This is huge! First time an alarmist has admitted that anything about AGW is not settled!
I’m sure Phil will feel much better now, having got that off his chest. He sounds the perfectly reasonable human being we expected him to be deep down.
Well done BBC. My goodness what a change in tone!
Hurrah!
Jones said ”“We do have a trail of where the (weather) stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be,” he admitted.”
Ya think?
I know a lot of people would like to see him punished but in this debate a public admission that he was wrong is probably better than anything else.
So the mantra now is, “Why doesn’t someone do their own research to prove us wrong!”
Which is of course silly since some people have tried it, and they’ve been either denied publication or pushed aside to all the fringe journals thanks to his own efforts at gatekeeping.
Interesting comments:
He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.
But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming.
and, a very modest:
“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
I think Frogs can fly and I’ll make a computer program prove it.
Mr Jones just trying to save his a$$
He didn’t call it the MWP an Anomaly! What did they do with the real Dr. Jones?
WOW!!!!
Did anyone else just hear the “bump-bump” of the Jones bus running right over the Hockey Stick?
The paper trail thing is a side-issue I believe. A system that does not allow external review and quality control will naturally allow this to happen.
“If some of our critics spent less time criticising us and prepared a dataset of their own, that would be much more constructive.”
Fine. It’s called surfacestations.org. And we’d love to look at your data, except that the dog ate it.
Steve M. has said for a long time that the measuring function is an accounting function and should be handled as such. He likens it to the CPI statistic.
Obviously, he’s very, very right.
Having the view that recent climate warming is most likely predominantly man-made is NOT the same as having data and evidence to prove that view. In my humble opinion, his view is nothing more than a gut feeling, and its not good science. Does anybody think he understands that?
OK.
That you Dr. Jones for finally being honest. I sincerely wish it didn’t have to come to this point where your life is in turmoil. Let this be a cautionary tale to others. Just be honest and open, and this kind of thing would be avoided.
@old construction worker
“I think Frogs can fly and I’ll make a computer program prove it..”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_frog
This is Jones’ revenge for Mann throwing him under the bus.
Let the cannibalism begin! If only Briffa starts speaking up now.
I repeat myself: Jones owes McIntyre an apology.
I think it’s a great day for climate science. I hope everyone on this blog doesn’t just get out the knives or go for cheap shots.
We should all be applauding.
Hats off to Phil Jones.
Hm. A “bunker mentality” is it?
Well, the guilty flee even when no man pursueth, right?
When bluff, bluster, and snake-oil is literally all you’ve got, the urge to hunker down and fling hand grenades blindly in every direction is understandable.
But, oh, to read a warmist use the word “bunker” after all those Downfall derivatives on YouTube….
Jones has the gall to think he speaks for scientists “on both sides of the debate”!
No, Jones, you have no affiliation with reputable scientists who have been exposing your chicanery for years, and who have been barred from data under your pretext it might have been untidy.
There is nowhere for this charlatan to hide.
Yes, Sonicfrog, I heard the ‘bump-bump’ and the admission of bunker mentality, that he was wrong etc…yes this is most significant. The momentum seems unstoppable now…and its cascading down. The Fairfax press in Australia can no longer ignore the impact, with 4 articles in the Saturday papers including this feature.
From the full Q&A:
N – When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.