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
“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.
Professor Jones is quoted as saying:
“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.”
This kind of thinking might work in politics. During the Sixties, it was popular to say that hippies offer no alternative to the culture that they reject. Maybe that charge has some political resonance. But science does not work that way.
In science, one party puts forth a hypothesis along with the confirming results of some experiments. Critics may criticize the experiments, may present their own experimental results that disconfirm the hypothesis, or may use other means to criticize the hypothesis. It does not work to say that the critic must have his own competing hypothesis before proceeding with criticism. Reasoning or evidence that destroys a hypothesis stands on its own and cannot be criticized for failing to offer a replacement hypothesis. In fact, some of science’s greatest achievements have involved killing hypotheses without offering replacements. Phlogiston and Ether come to mind.
I can buy this explanation. Good documentation is hard to do. That he should of been a lead author in any study is a mystery.
“But Professor Jones said he had not cheated the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process.”
Uh-huh. And I don’t get hungry after not eating for a while. To be honest with you, Dr. Jones, I would trust a thief with my wallet full of $100 bills before I would trust you. At least the thief can only steal what I have on me; you want to steal my money for years on in.
tornadomark writes:
“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!”
Bravo! You get the prize for emphasizing the most important thing that was said in this interview. Yes, for the first time someone from the Hockey Stick circle has admitted that something about AGW is not settled science. Al Gore’s head just exploded. (Just kidding. Al Gore would not understand.)
Good for Prof. Jones!
I applaud him for being “Mann” enough to admit his mistake. 🙂
Hopefully, as has seem to be happening lately, we can get past this tribalism, and construct a “robust” agreement on GW.
Prof. Jones, imo, has started the ball rolling, let all of us pro/con’s alike take this offer and do what is right for ALL of the Earth!
““sceptics” who doubted his climate record should compile their own dataset from material publicly available in the US.”
I have done just that. you are gonna love this, especially where I run through some 80 years of raw temperature graphs in an animation, correlated with the average of the yearly mean temperature.
It sure is amazing how complex Nature is.
A body that does not organize and document its data and findings should not be relied upon for advising international policy makers. These FOI requests should be able to be fulfilled with the press of a button. Instead they accuse sceptics of hounding them for data.
NASA wouldn’t launch a mars explorer with 1 million lines of unprovable, undocumented spaghetti code; and this climate change nonsense will cost a helluva lot more than that! These people are amateurs at best.
You can rely on me to do my job correctly – why can’t I rely on you? Why must we double-check your work and treat everything you do with such a heavy dose of cynicism? If you had to produce something that actually worked, you would have been laughed out of business long ago.
There is a whole lot of backing and filling going on here. Trying to fit under the Sir Muir wings are we?
So does this mean they recognize growing grapes in London, naming streets after wines, might after all have been a sign that the MWP was real? Else how would the grapes grow … hmmm.
The scam is circling the drain.
It has to be some kind of “motivation” behind this.
Did he receive a note from Russel saying ” sorry Phil, but we won’t be able to solve this problem as we’ve planed ?
I can be wrong, but I think that this interview will send a very “warm” shock wave around the globe, and a lot of its energy will be absorbed by Mann and IPCC.
I have to admit that I like it.
“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?”
EXACTLY!! And they should be thankful we do, not try and ignore us. That’s the big crime here.
They could never hide the medieval warming period.
There are Vikings that were buried (interred) in the permafrost in Greenland.
The permafrost was not disturbed since it froze.
It was not frozen when they were buried.
I would call that warmer then today, a lot warmer.
The Fate of Greenland’s Vikings
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland
February 28, 2000 by Dale Mackenzie Brown
They were interred hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution.
Note for realclimate/CRU people that say the medieval warming period is based on anecdotal evidence. An artifact is something you can hold in you hand, like say, a skeleton that you chipped out of the permafrost. An anecdote is some kind of hearsay that only exists in the minds of people, like say, human induced global warming.
Also, the medieval warming period was global.
Note for realclimate/CRU people that say the medieval warming period was a local event. Do you know how absurd that sounds, Greenland alone really hot for 300 years, all on it’s own. Did they ban the jet stream or the gulfstream or did space aliens use a really big magnifying glass on Greenland. 300 years, seriously, a local event?
Trying to hide the medieval warming period was a bridge to far.
For those of you old enough to remember, Mr. Jones’ comments reminds me of 1970, when Flip Wilson won a Grammy Award for his comedy album The Devil Made Me Buy This Dress.
‘“sceptics” . . . should compile their own dataset from material publicly available in the US’
There are several data sets already in the literature that predated the IPCC’s self-serving “science.” Rhodes Fairbridge’s work reconstructing the Holocene sea levels is major among them. Modern sea levels have not come close to established sea levels of the MWP. One need not limit themselves to geophysical sciences. Anthropology, botany, and literature all provide plenty of evidence that it was warmer then than now.
History — well documented and discussed here on WUWT — shows that the proponents of the IPCC’s global warming agenda recognized as early as 1995 that the MWP posed a serious problem for them. It was out of that concern that the CRU and others deliberately worked to massage science to diminish the importance of the MWP. The discussion now cannot be limited to comparing one data set to another. It must be evaluated in the context of the deliberate effort to disparage a long-standing understanding of the climate in Europe only 1000 years ago.
Hmm. I enjoy how (non)specific climate scientists can be. “He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.” In other words, we kinda think that maybe about half of the warming is manmade–or maybe not.
“He said many people had been made sceptical about climate change by the snow in the northern hemisphere – but they didn’t realise that the satellite record from the University of Alabama in Huntsville showed that January had been the warmest month since records began in 1979. ”
WOW, a whole 40 years!!! Right when we were coming out of the era these guys were warning us was of a coming ice age. OF COURSE IT’S “Warmer”, oops, no it’s not. It’s less cold, I’ll betcha the summers in Alabama are just as hot today as they were in the previous 100 years.
Well I don’t buy it. This was his job and he knew full well the magnitude of any pronouncements or conclusions by him and his team. Being a sloppy scientist is ok if you are doing experiments in your basement, it is not acceptable when you run one of the most important scientific teams in the world with trillions of dollars at stake. If an employee of any company acted as he has he would have been fired post haste.
The emails show us that they talked openly of destroying data, subverting lawful requests for information and did everything in their power to silence scientists and “peers” who disagreed with them. Jones, Mann, all of them had a duty to the public to provide open and transparent information not biased, agenda driven results. They failed.
I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to cut him any slack. He has compromised his responsibilities and tarnished science as a respected discipline.
It is interesting to read the explanation for hiding the decline (in the Q&A section of the BBC site): ‘The 1999 WMO report wanted just the three curves, without the split between the proxy part of the reconstruction and the last few years of instrumental data that brought the series up to the end of 1999.’
…so it was actually the WMO report’s fault…
It is not hard to find papers reporting a MWP in the southern hemisphere…e.g. Mauquoy et al, Quaternary Research Volume 61, Issue 2, March 2004, Pages 148-158…..which begins “A ca. 1400-yr record from a raised bog in Isla Grande, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina, registers climate fluctuations, including a Medieval Warm Period, although evidence for the ‘Little Ice Age’ is less clear.”
I am mentioning this because Jones says ‘For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.’ (also in the Q&A section of the BBC site).
I guess it was the “bunker mentality” that “forced” him to “hide the decline”. Yeah, not his fault, it’s that darn BM.
Probably caught it from Pachy.
Here’s the link to the Q&A: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Fantastic. Jones admits there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995, and admits non statistically significant global cooling since 2002.
And he straight up admitted to deleting emails to avoid a FOIA request.
I think he’s still “full of it” on the “hide the decline” answer. I don’t see where one of the lines was completely tree ring data – there are three, and his email says:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH [Northern Hemisphere] land North of 20’N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for
1999 for NH combined is +0.44C with respect to 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.”
Anyway, this is a pretty remarkable interview. I imagine the “warmists” are pooping their pants right now.
marchesarosa (17:20:27) :
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!
_____________________________________________________________________________
Don’t bank on it. He is surfing the wave of the current AGW backlash, throwing the tiniest bits of what ALMOST sound like a change in his position. However, it’s strictly a CYA show designed to deflect away some of the heat from the backlash while trying to appeal to human emotion, rather than reason.
How ironic; a scientist banking on feelings to maintain his scientific position (and job), rather than using thinking and ironclad data.
“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.””
In other words……I’m not very good at the basic aspects of my job! But I’m honest!!! (just don’t read those emails!!)
We’d love to compile some data sets, Phil. Can you direct us to some temperature readings that haven’t been truncated, discarded, or homogenized by you, NASA, NOAA or the Kiwis? Thanks for the help, Phil.
It would be good to see the language change too. I don’t really think presenting climate science as a two sided debate is really helpful, and has led to this tribal mentality.
Open source, transparent process. Community driven.
It seemed to work for Linux
For all the grant funding funneled thru UEA, they should expect a top flight organized operation. I won’t write about the Psychological stuff he is exposing in this comment section above.
OK. Which stations are good ones, Jones?
And we should use U.S. data? So the U.K.’s data at that CRU place is no good? May as well shut that down, then. What’s the UEA’s refund policy?
…his data was not well “organized”? smile…. neither was his programmer supervision organized…
What about the Harry_Read_Me file….? when is someone going to put
that into their “dig here” pile?
And the CRU pillage/leakage… whatever… supposedly included 1K
emails and 3K other files. What has become of those “other files?” What are they? ….Lady in Red
Isn’t he defending his work by asking his critics to prove a negative? That’s not cricket.
It is obvious that Prof. Jones is not a student of history, or he would realize that Greenland got its name from the Vikings who landed there…why, because it was GREEN!!!, and it was warm enough to grow crops and raise livestock…so it was likely that it was considerably warmer than it is now… Yes, I am being a bit smart about this, but it doesn’t take having a Phd to be able to read historical information and draw a conclusion. Of course I am not a peer reviewed person, or getting research grants from oil companies, but this “spin” that is put on all weather events and data by the AGW group is just plain wrong.
Essentially, apart from Jones admitting the obvious, that the science is not, in fact, settled, he also admits he just isn’t a very good scientist.
It really wasn’t Phil’s fault. Like record snows and everything else, his problem was caused by global warming. I can’t wait to see how Real Climate spins this.
“should compile their own dataset from material publicly available in the US”
Professor Jones still does not seem to understand that HE is responsible for providing the dataset on which his scientific conclusions are based.
“…but they didn’t realise that the satellite record from the University of Alabama in Huntsville showed that January had been the warmest month since records began in 1979.”
anybody surprised that the interview ends with another untrue statement ?
january wasn’t the warmest month, it was just the warmest january since 1979.
precision
this is an error that is not supposed to occur by a professional record keeper of world temperature data.
anyways, having a record of 30 years, chances of a record month during a calendar year would be around 12/30 or 40%, assuming random data
nothing spectacular. and chances of a record month in an el nino enhanced year would be even higher.
Phil Jones said…….“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.”
———————————————————–
Good grief! The guy still doesn’t get it!
Good science is supposed to be reproducable using the data and methodology of the scientist who claims to have produced a result…. If he was serious he would allow other interested parties to use his data and methods to reproduce his scientific findings and confirming its validity.
He is just too stupid for words. How do people like him end up heading organizations that develop science for policy makers……….Oh, I just answered my own question then, didn’t I…… 🙁
Off topic, CREW jet stream map, pacific, and west coast NA 3.5 days out, really strange jet stream, artic to equator??
All that Jones did or didn’t do is still uncovered.
Even so, I will speculate a little about this interview.
He may be telling the truth and the whole truth. Or not.
What do we know?
We know he stalled on the FOIA,
He impeded the publication of studies that did not please his cabal of Climate Scientists.
And we know some original data was lost or destroyed or adjusted until it is seems useless.
(My old accounting professor used the term “lost, stolen, strayed, or otherwise disappeared” for data that somehow could not be produced for audit.)
What appears likely but is not proved:
He deliberately damaged and perhaps ruined careers.
He tinkered with data and nudged it to produce desired results.
He may have selected favorable data and ignored unfavorable.
The published computer programs are a mess. And the database was equally so.
So far this is consistent with the classic 3 step defense:
(1) admit what cannot be denied,
(2) reveal minor items that cannot lead to serious difficulties,
(3) absolutely deny anything else occurred or should be investigated.
Before the CRU emails came out Jones had defended the citadel by:
appeals to authority, smearing critics, pretending to misunderstand communications, being too busy, claiming material was propriety, and insisting outsiders could never understand anyway.
Those defenses held for several years. They are laughed at now.
The IPCC continues to use the similar defenses. To date I believe they only admit that GlacierGate was a mistake, yet hardly more than a misprint.
Otherwise IPCC stonewalls by saying in effect ” We have made no material errors and never will.”
Why not follow why almost every Ice Age has become progressively colder.
One closer to the sun in the past and past and past…
Two our rotation of the planet was faster which had an effect on growth as different speed means different energy our planet was giving off.
Funny how from a pile of chemicals 4 billion years ago, the progressing of increased species as the timeline increases.
Species where much bigger when the planets energy was rotating faster.
Timeline future…much more diversified species but smaller due to less rotational energy.
The current measurement of temperatures at this timeline really is insignificant when compared to the past.
Bunker mentally my a**. He never has been shot at until he committed a”hide the decline”. The guys like Mosher, Fuller, Watts and McIntyre,Spencer, and many others were the ones that had to jump in the bunkers and wait out the barrages until they could counter -attack with the truth. Now all we see are the impotent responses,not robust responses to their deceptions.
OK, a little extreme, but to below Cabo, any info, because it looks strange to me anyway
So because he’s a sloppy scientist, we should cut him some slack, and just believe him anyway. This is the worst excuse so far of all the ones he’s come up with. Throw the bum out.
A possible scenario:
[To Mr Jones with apologies to the Matrix and M & M]
M & M : You (Mr Jones) must see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.
(In his left hand, M & M shows Mr Jones a blue pill.)
M & M: You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
(M & M show Mr Jones a red pill is shown in his other hand)
M & M: You take the red pill and you stay with Climate Audit and I show you how deep the data hole goes.
(Long pause; Mr Jones begins to reach for the blue pill)
M & M: OOPs, Mr Jones . . . . bad choice.
John
When you can graze cattle and grow crops in Southern Greenland again and the Viking graves there are no longer in perma frost. THEN the temperature will equal the MWP. How many tree rings and proxy data scources to you need to deny this historically documented fact.
Anand Rajan KD (17:36:33) : I repeat myself: Jones owes McIntyre an apology.
Fully endorsed, Anand.
Jones seems to be trying to make people feel sorry for his situation. Every time he now appears on TV/Radio/Paper I just go back and read the emails.
He made his untidy bed he now has to lay on it.
Forget about science the only thing he has on his mind right now is staying out of jail.
So they changed their story from “the dog ate the data” to “the dog ate the data, pooped it out, and it’s a bit of a mess”?
Sounds like he is going down the track of incompetancy as a defense…
“If some of our critics spent less time criticising us and prepared a dataset of their own, that would be much more constructive.”
Translation : Stop finding all our errors and give us something of yours that we can have the media pick apart for us!
Simple case of people trying to be bigger than they are capable of. Just think, if he spent 10% of his time documenting the data, subsequent work, etc., and allowed access he could be THE authorative figure in climate change, in whatever direction it takes us. What these people fail to realise that if you do your job with integrity, you keep your integrity whether the results validate your theory or not. Invalidating a theory is equally important as validating one. Both results are useful.
Mr. Jones appears to adopt a position that he did not knowingly compromise his scientific principles for the sake of advocating CACGW. This leads him to an adversarial dialog with those still seeking full disclosure of his data, methodology and code. Adversarial is OK, but full cooperation right now would go a long way to mitigate his public image.
It is in his best interest to fully engage in broad cooperation . . . who is advising him? He needs new advisors.
John
I bet he feels a lot better having got some of this off his chest. As I have stated to friends on many occasions ‘never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence’
Dr Jones knew his data were a mess, and that’s the last thing he wanted anyone to find out about. He probably felt ill-at-ease about hiding the MWP but kept his doubts privately for ‘the cause’. Now everyone knows it, and he has admitted it, he probably feels a weight off his shoulders. Nobody wants to show a guest a toilet that hasn’t been cleaned. Nobody likes stating absolute truths about something they aren’t 100% sure of.
Re: Richard Wakefield (Feb 12 17:52),
that was excellent Richard, well done. Now email it to all the pollies in your juristiction.
This is a day to be put in history. I wonder if anyone see how big is it? The MWP concession actully puts the Hockey StiX to the trash.
I will sleep better tonight.
So if its is not clear that the MWP was warmer than now (or not) …. then how can it be a certainty that the current period of warming is man-made ….. how can it be said that the ‘science is settled’.
This man has a DUTY to stand up to politicians and say “THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED”
– honesty is not enough … you have to also be courageous.
“If some of our critics spent less time criticising us and prepared a dataset of their own, that would be much more constructive.” – Phil Jones
“Art may imitate life, its imitation of climate needs to be considered quite carefully” – Gavin Schmidt
__________________________________________________________________
“Nine times out of ten, in the arts as in life, there is actually no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed.” – H L Mencken
We have a number of recent analysis detailing the strong likelihood that the actual warming is less and cannot be attributed to AGW.
Such as this
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/why-the-epa-is-wrong-about-recent-warming/
Jones et al are hiding from it to avoid facing and accepting what they have done.
With the actual warming and science of determining the human contribution so challenged it’s preposterous for Jones to stand by the view that “recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.”
It’s not science. It’s wishful presumption gone wild.
He can’t state with any certainty what the warming has been or how likely it is man-made. Let alone most likely.
Jones’ claim that he had not cheated the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process is insulting since he is continuing to thwart the scientific process by ignoring, disparaging and misrepresenting the extensive scientific refutations. His continued pitch to discount the skeptics and their work is more of the same from Jones et al.
The data that is available in electronic form is not raw. It has already been adjusted and “corrected.” And there is really only one global data set (derived from thermometers) and of course it agrees with itself.
Thanks for throwing Mann in front of the bus but all it proves is that this man has no integrity, no integrity at all.
When I read the mails about the FOI requests I already came to that conclusion.
Ideology over science!
Hmmmm.
Pardon me!? We skeptics should assemble our own data?
WE ARE NOT PAID TO DO THAT. YOU ARE DR. JONES!
What in God’s name is the matter with this man that he could make such an asinine suggestion like that?
The major datasets may agree, but a scientist without his data is no scientist at all. He’s a soothsayer.
Gong!
Assuming you believe the incompetence argument. I don’t for a second. It’s blatantly obvious that obfuscation of the facts was the goal all along.
‘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.’
What utter b—y rot. These words need to be measured against those he wrote in the infamous emails. He demonstrated arrogant hubris in large quantities then. How can you believe anything from this man? I for one simply cannot trust him. I couldn’t care less about what happens to him but I do care about getting thing right. It can’t happen with the likes of him anywhere near the process of sorting the science.
Mick
Wow! Good job Richard Wakefield.
Now let’s see which science journalists run with this. Will the BBC follow up and connect the dots? How will our friends at RealClimate, ClimateProgress, etc., frame his comments? What Steve McIntyre has suggested has proven to be exactly the case. Jones’ defense is sloppiness coupled with overwhelming arrogance. That is hardly a defense.
Arrogant till the end
Hummm, Lessseee here….
Jones isn’t known for being a good file clerk – or keeping good records, or documenting findings.
Solution:
A classified under “Opportunities”
Needed
One file clerk/data entry person
a dedicated, loyal and underpaid grad student
I can’t understand why a couple of million dollars can’t buy those two things to keep Dr Phil on the up and up.
Sorry Phil it still doesn’t wash….
Mike Bentley
Andrew30 (17:57:43) : [on annecdotal evidence] “… An anecdote is some kind of hearsay that only exists in the minds of people, like say, human induced global warming. …”
Not really. An annecdote can be perfectly real – i.e. not hearsay – and still not be more than “annecdotal.” Bacon (Francis, that is) railed against “empiricalists” because they tended to rely on annecdotal evidence. The significance of a real event in isolation is uncertain. The event is true, but the significance can’t be fully determined.
You might say that one black swan falsifies the assertion that all swans are white. However, asserting on the basis of a single black swan that an entire class of black swans exists is relying on annecdotal evidence – you saw just one. Noting one black swan is an annecdote; noting a flock of them is seeing evidence of a population.
Suddenly so freaking clean that maybe there was a MWP and the records were kind of messy. Then why hide the decline and duck FOIs. This is supposed to be a leading researcher in climate ‘science’ who still is so sure of his numbers, if he could find them, that he would bet our pocketbooks and freedoms on his calculations. Cognitive dissonance is a polite way of describing criminal negligence.
Given the nature and significance of these revelations, it might be interesting to speculate what caused the soul baring by Prof. Jones.
One hypothesis is that Prof. Jones has learned who released the emails and files, why and what else is about to come out. Something had to trigger this amazing set of admissions.
To keep a record of all his data, code, and documents, including revisions, all he needed was a source control system. These have been around almost as long as computers, and are free. Never mind for a record, just for backup.
He is also claiming here that they did all this work and didn’t have a basic backup system. That has to either be a lie, or be on purpose. Most likely they had a backup, and then deleted things (along with emails that might have been damning).
You could not make this up!
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5130&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co2sceptics%2Fnews+%28CO2sceptics+News+Blog%29
The data is available?
Is that the data already massaged, corrected, fudged, or is that the raw, unpolluted data that is available?
It makes a difference.
[snip]
He said “sceptics” who doubted his climate record should compile their own dataset from material publicly available in the US.
Yes, Phil, that is what I have been doing. And what I am finding in an “edited” area are huge gaps. Gaps that exist in the “official” records found at NCDC, but for the most part, do not exist in local print media of the times in question.
That, in of itself, is a huge problem, and that is why I agree with this statement:
some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.
It was never well-organinzed, and therefore as a basis to make a major dataset, flawed from the beginning.
Everything based on those flawed datasets are open to criticism.
And last, but not least, the MWP debate cannot be settled before the question of exaclty how much uncertainty exists in the ‘official’ dataset is made clear.
I’m going to hazard a guess that somewhere, in a dusty corner, lie untold boxes and crates stuffed with original station data papers.
I see a few things wrong with Mr. Jones statements but I will focus on this one. Science is not based in fact, it is based in theory and theory is proven until someone disproves it. So if you are not willing to make your data available for others to test your theory, you are violating one of the basic tenants of science. It is a search for the truth, not a search for the truth as you see it…
Duster (20:19:22) :
Andrew30 (17:57:43) : [on annecdotal evidence] “… An anecdote is some kind of hearsay that only exists in the minds of people…”
Perhaps you misunderstood my use of the term ‘hearsay’. I used it to mean something that was heard and then said (hear -> say). I did not say it could not be real. I appended the words ‘kind of’ to imply that the subject ‘human induces global warming’ of the piece was not strictly only ‘hearsay’ but a ‘kind of hearsay’ which is what an anecdote is once repeated by someone other than the original observer.
I am sorry if I caused any misunderstanding, you may have though the word ‘unreal’ when you read the phrase ‘kind of hearsay’ since the subject that followed the phrase was ‘human induces global warming’.
It is common to sub-consciously associate ‘human induces global warming’ with ‘unreal’, so no fault on your part.
🙂
Tough luck Phil. Nearly got away with it, eh?
NucEngineer (20:35:29) :
The latter (raw unadjusted) is not 100% available.
In general, I believe raw data, and research results gathered at public expense should be freely available to the same public at large unless that research were classified for national security issues.
If there is a substantial public (taxpayer) cost associated with keeping this data available then I think it would be in line with what I call the principle of fair taxation for voluntary use of government services to charge a fair fee for accessing this data.
”””NucEngineer (20:35:29) :
The data is available?
Is that the data already massaged, corrected, fudged, or is that the raw, unpolluted data that is available?
It makes a difference.””””
Nuc,
Jones nuked the data? Well umm, not looking good for him.
On a Personal Note: Hey, I was in the nuclear engineering field for 30 years.
Nuc’s unite.
John
””””Bernie (20:27:51) :
Given the nature and significance of these revelations, it might be interesting to speculate what caused the soul baring by Prof. Jones.
One hypothesis is that Prof. Jones has learned who released the emails and files, why and what else is about to come out. Something had to trigger this amazing set of admissions.””””’
Bernie,
Interesting speculation you brought out. Certainly, we could also speculate that there are communications going on the background between the Team and there is some effort by them to take mini steps forward from the dark place they are in.
Some see in the Jones interview that the “every man for himself” principle is starting to play out. But I do not see that . . . . yet.
John
Well, now I know what to tell the IRS about why my numbers do not match the 1099’s they have on file, I just have poor record keeping abilities. I’m sure that will get me off the hook.
Pants on the ground. Pants on the ground. Looking like a fool wit yo pants on the ground!
Jones from BBC Interview:
H – If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D.
I – Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?
No – see again my answer to D.
So since he thinks solar and volcanic forcing can’t explain a warming trend, it must be human caused?
Good grief, dig a little deeper Jones! The world is (check that, was) counting on you.
Wasn’t he the one who said he selfishly hoped all the disaster predictions would come to pass, to prove their point?
I can’t figure our well the nuance of the “bunker mentality.”
Does this trace back to a bunker in golf yards?
Anyone teach me please.
tokyoboy (21:36:05) :
I can’t figure our well the nuance of the “bunker mentality.”
Does this trace back to a bunker in golf yards?
Anyone teach me please.
Try Hitler’s Bunker
So he thinks his critics should compile their own dataset, presumably he will lobby the Governments of the world to provide a similar amount of money that he and his shonky scientist mates received.
Diminished Capacity seems a better defense.
I did the work under the influence of drink.
Oh Fudge.
Another major player just made a decision that the science is ”not settled”:
AZ Gov. Jan Brewer has issued an executive order saying that her state will suspend its participation in the 7-State Western Regional Climate Action Initiative or any similar program that could raise costs.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521142
Excerpt from the BBC article:
> “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.”
Hmmm. Excerpt from the 1120593115.txt email.
(This email is truncated on the http://www.eastangliaemails.com site. I got my copy from a Swedish site via wikileaks.)
========================================================
From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
…
IPCC, me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
========================================================
Vilmos
The problem is that even if you have measured something as having a trend line you made assumptions as to the cause of the trend line and politicized them. TO be honest ‘skeptics’ do not disagree that the world has warmed since the little ice age… that is why we call it the little ice age, because it was cold. nor is it shocking that the temperatures would in general be moving higher from that. Nor do we truly dispute that some glaciers are melting faster ( as they lose mass they should melt faster ( fun experiment for those of you who live in a place with snow, make a pile and see if the pile takes as long as the rest of the snow around the pile to melt come a sunny day, bet you the pile if you made it big enough lasted a lot longer then the stuff you didn’t pile together ) ) ergo a glacier that has been melting for the last 150 years should be melting faster now then it did say 30 years ago. Stop throwing out UHI or believing you have accounted for it 100%. Admit the non linear nature of CO2 absorption. Look for other causes to the increase in temperature. Stop being political. Then I will treat you as a respectable scientist instead of a political hack with scientific credentials and a political axe to grind.
tokyoboy – Try a web search for the term. It is based upon the meanings of a military bunker, such as a war room, bomb shelter, or machine gun nest.
So predictable…
”””’tokyoboy (21:36:05) : I can’t figure our well the nuance of the “bunker mentality.” Does this trace back to a bunker in golf yards?
Anyone teach me please.”””’
Tokyoboy,
A bunker is a reinforced structure usually underground that is build for the purpose of keeping military leaders or gov’t officials safe from military bombardment by artillery or aircraft. So a bunker mentality would be the state of mind of those in the bunker while it is being severely attacked. One cannot imagine their state of mind.
BUT, I think your reference to a bunker on a golf course can be extended to the current climategate and climate science situation. I like it the more I think about it. Let’s expand on it. What is the state of mind of a person whose ball finds the bunker . . . the beginning of a stressed situation? Then, difficulty of extracting oneself from the bunker without losing the match. Repeated failure and having the ball roll back into the bunker or go into another bunker. Etc, etc. Looks fruitful.
Personal note: I am headed for Tokyo from Taipei on Mon Feb 14 for 3 to 4 days. I go there every 2 to 3 months on business.
John
It a seige mentality that correlates to a desparate defence and being ‘holed up’ in a bunker
Unburden your soul, Phil. You’ll feel better. It is a pity, for you and for us, that this is what it took. . . but history won’t generally remember. The important thing is getting to the right answer. . . .the path is only embarrassing from time to time to individuals in the moment.
Dare I believe that our Dr. Jones has had a ‘road to Damascus ‘ experience?
I don’t think anyone has the complete story of the saga about Jones. IMO there is already plenty of evidence to charge him with fraud and let the courts decide whether he is guilty or not.
John Whitman (22:07:57) :
Thank you so much, my mentor.
I’m pleased to hear you are a frequent visitor to Tokyo.
Please note it’s now fairly cold, under 10 degC, and will be so for coming days, as long as our Met Office is credible.
I wish you a good trip from Taipei, but BTW, 14 Feb is Sunday….. [snip too personal a communication?]
But don’t forget to give credit to his sources:
Phil Jones :’If some of our critics…prepared a data set of their own, that would be much more constructive.’
Just letting you know, Professor Jones, that some of your critics have prepared data sets which are more constructive. Here down under, Willis Eschenbach and Ken Stewart have examined Darwin and Mackay long term station data and and found temperature adjustments are adding a warming bias. 🙂
<blockquote.“If some of our critics spent less time criticising us and prepared a dataset of their own, that would be much more constructive.”
Clearly, Jones doesn’t understand the scientific process and real peer review.
How did people like him wind up with PhDs?
Hats off to him? No way! He still doesn’t get it!
Naw, they burned them to keep warm during this unusually mild winter.
Bernie:
Something had to trigger this amazing set of admissions.
Perhaps he cut a deal? Turned “state’s evidence”?
Richard Wakefield (17:52:17) :
““sceptics” who doubted his climate record should compile their own dataset from material publicly available in the US.”
I have done just that. you are gonna love this, especially where I run through some 80 years of raw temperature graphs in an animation, correlated with the average of the yearly mean temperature.
It sure is amazing how complex Nature is.
—————
It sure is amazing how good that slide-show is! Thank you.
It warrants a thread of its own, IMO.
It looks like Harrabin found the “UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW”.
The first questions to ask when looking at the questions is why the BBC is allowed the interview, why Roger Harrabin and why those dates and timeframes? Given the bias of the BBC, one should be suspicious. A leopard does not change its spots.
Is the time frame cherry picked for some reason? Examine Questions A and D.
A. Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
D – Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.
his answer is…
This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.
So what Prof Jones says is that although the three timeframes have similar rising temperature rates, the third one has to be Anthropogenic because it should have cooled because of the volcanic eruptions and the lack of solar activity. He does not allow for any other reason.
Was the timeframe 1860-1880, 1910-1940 selected to eliminate discussion of the large volcanic eruptions Krakatau of 1883, Mt Pelee 1902, and Santa Maria 1902, so that Prof Jones could use the 1975-1998 period to put forward his new thesis that the earth should have cooled but didn’t and therefore it must be manmade?
I leave it to others to examine the other questions and why they were asked and defined, rather than be sidelined by the answers.
Phil Jones said
“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.”
This is obviously a clear invitation for sceptics to share some of his research funds instead of having to find the money out of their own resources 🙂
I for one would like a share to examine the historic instrumental records in more detail, that I carry here.
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
In his official capacity Phil Jones has been involved in many joint research projects which have been systematically reducing the temperatures recorded by the historic instrumental sets. These sets certainly need ‘interpreting’ but the adjustments made are sometimes astonishing and then appear to contradict the actual observational records-such as crops/tree lines/effects on everyday life etc.
This is the end result of one such project that Phil Jones carried out, which even after ‘homogenisation; still showed a suprising result. This is carried on my web site above and the intro coments are mine;
“Article: Improved Understanding of Past Climatic Variability from Early Daily European Instrumental Sources. Author: Camuffo D and P D Jones
Phil Jones of CRU was apparently fascinated by the temperature data sets preceding the 1850 cut off point that he chose in 1993. He subsequently identified seven as being of particular interest and in 2002- together with Dr D Camuffo- wrote a fascinating book on early (pre 1850) climate as measured by seven data sets.(behind a pay wall)
http://www.isac.cnr.it/~microcl/climatologia/improve.php
The link to the book/dvd is towards the bottom of the article. The caveats expressed about the longer data sets are worth reading. In it he mentions:
“The actual warming rate has been proven to be at such a slow rate that temperature changes, over years (i.e. 0.006°C/yr) and even decades (i.e. 0.06°C/decade), are in most cases smaller than the instrumental resolution and can hardly be directly detected.”
So can I be first in the queue for a share of the funding that Phil Jones gets please.
Tonyb
‘Most likely predominantly’ leaves an awful lot of space for future wiggle room. If ‘most likely’ = 75% , and ‘predmoinantly = 75%, the you only get to 56% in combination….or 44% of wiggle room. Just another 7% and he’ drop into ‘denialism’! (not a word I normally use)
And its not ‘the lack of a paper trail’ that is worrying. Its the fact that Harry_read_me shows that he had all this data,, but mostly hadn’t a frigging clue where it came from or what it was supposed to mean. There was no ‘data dictionary’, nor seemingly agreed standards for reporting. As a Data Custodian the CRU was unfit for purpose.
Do not send Jones out to Tesco’s with your shopping list. He’ll lose it on the way. Try to remember if it was tea or coffee that you asked for. Return with a brown goo made from Ovaltine and camomile extract. And give it to your sister by ‘genuine mistake’
I apologize if someone already noticed that Jones and the groundhog that emerges from its burrow in February have both the same name: PHIL. Some times life imitates Arts. 🙂
BBC interview?
The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing
We can’t explain it, so it must be man made, we have no other ideas
Damage limitation anyone?
Come off it, where is the data? i.e. the original, raw, non-value added, not adjusted, non homogenised data?
A ‘bunker mentality’ as a metaphor means that you are stuck in a defensive position and getting hammered. You have no possible offense and have to sit and take it. You trust no one. You are scared.
It is not a golf course bunker/sandtrap.
Statement by the Met Office in response to questions about data inconsistency.
It is inevitable that available archive versions for some stations will differ between data held by National Met Services, including the Met Office, and those in the archive prepared by the Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia. Indeed, explicit wording to this effect was required in the letters sent to gain permission to release data under the purview of each NMS.
Most of these data recovery and digitisation efforts occurred in the days before widespread computer networks, designated world data centres etc. Therefore such vagaries as the choice of record version (there are often several paper records for the same station that may differ), choice of stored data accuracy, exact location details, and length of record digitised are bound to differ for at least some stations. Further, either the NMS and/or CRU may have applied adjustments to the data. Differences between the archives cannot be used in any meaningful or quantifiably defensible sense to infer the absolute quality of either the CRU archive or records held by others.
yep, he’s shifting but still a long way to go.
Now, about this public data we are supposed to be analyzing in our own time… perhaps you could point us to it?
How about all the political implications of what you have just said, Phil me old mucker? Are you going to join Richard North in bringing down IPCC, cap and trade, green taxes?
A long way to go.
“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!”
The HS shows a MWP.
When Dr Michael Mann wrote about the HS in a British meteorological journal I have he talked about the MWP and LIA. Ok, that account doesn’t fit the myth but it’s, I’m sorry, the truth.
“Hmm. I enjoy how (non)specific climate scientists can be. “He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.” In other words, we kinda think that maybe about half of the warming is manmade–or maybe not.”
Yes.
No one has claimed all the warming is man made.
Blimey, myths abound here today..
“Given the nature and significance of these revelations, it might be interesting to speculate what caused the soul baring by Prof. Jones.”
The death threats?
“And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.”
Perhaps he might start by looking up some of the papers referred to here: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhgyKEL_HML73L-PWs8SGqmGN44FlA
vilmous
Australians are ‘very, very na’. Whatever does he mean?
Let’s face it. Jones, likes many “scientist” sold their souls for a piece of gold, paid for by politicians to promote political agendas to reward a few at the expense of the consumer/taxpayer.
“‘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.”
Uhh… Well… Ahem… Isn’t this exactly the thing that should distinguish the amateur from the professional researcher?
The professional i supposed to document all trails so that the results can stand up against scrutiny!
What he is in fact saying is that their data collections aren’t reliable at all!
Baffling.
And; the MWP-admittal is immensly important. Without the hockey stick they truly have some explaining to do, because then the models are all proven to lack reconstructional worth and therefore also predictional worth.
Interesting how people who have retired to their bunker when forced to admit their fault of “bunker mentality”, consider the outside as a bunker too, and charge its inhabitants with having a bunker mentality.
Goldfish see the glass wall of their bowl as imprisoning the rest of the World.
Peter Stroud>> Thank’s for that link!
Please explain to me how come when this has been published:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php&rurl=translate.google.com
…and at the same time these CRU/Penn State jokers are allowed to trumpet out the message that the MWP probably wasn’n warmer than CWP?
Because as I read it, an overwhelming amount of studies show that the WMP indeed was warmer..!?
The “untidiness” excuse is merely a desperate attempt to grasp a lifeline thrown by some of his colleagues; the leaked CRU emails confirm that the withholding of evidence was deliberate and intentional — he threatened to destroy it rather than divulge it, for heaven’s sake!
What I thought was great was the way he said the evidence for the Medieval Warm Period was all in the northern hemisphere – even though this is untrue. But let us assume it is true and look at what evidence he has that it does not exist and where does it come from.
Why the Northern Hemisphere of course.
So tree rings from Siberia can prove there was not Medieval Warm Period in Australia.
“The major datasets mostly agree,”
Is this why? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/12/noaa-drops-another-13-of-stations-from-ghcn-database/
“Richard Wakefield (17:52:17) :
”
Nicely done, but you need
-a learned guy with a british accent to read it
-some dramatic opera choirs for the “but then something interesting happens”
moments (and get more of these, i like them)
-some real life photo shoots in between the statistics
Somebody should remix your video
If Jones is innocent of manipulating data, as he proclaims, we must remember the tweaking, manipulating, adjusting, and downright torturing of data that has been shown on WUWT to have taken place around the world before CRU got hold of it.
Harrabin:
If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
Jones:
The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D.
There is perfectly good explanation, and it is not to do either with the solar or volcanic forcing :
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf
Re: Richard Wakefield (Feb 12 17:52),
What an excellent and interesting piece of work.
It would be good to see it as a posting in its own right.
””’old construction worker (00:55:49) : Let’s face it. Jones, likes many “scientist” sold their souls for a piece of gold, paid for by politicians to promote political agendas to reward a few at the expense of the consumer/taxpayer.”””
I like to use the words “compromised their profession”. For a professed scientist to compromise science is a profound act.
John
The life stolen from taxpayers and others as a result of his actions is a crime to begin with. He sat by and allowed his work to be sold around the world for the purpose of trashing peoples lives, their country, and the memory of their ancestors who fought and died for a place they believed in. He took food off the table of a wage earner, and time that could have been spent with family and children, to pay for what is now in the trillions for a fake ‘climate’ industry. He substantiated that he didn’t have all of the records needed, and that the MWP data isn’t such that an entire population should be demonized around the clock, robbed, and enslaved. His next problem is the media bought what he said in the worst possible way and turned it into a political machine. Will he call the NY Times and Washington Post and tell them to back off man made climate change? Finally, businesses have already been robbed by cap and trade scammers, shaking down honest people who believed the constant propaganda that the hockey stick proved we were killing ourselves and our fellow man. Will Jones call the NRDC and tell them to stop?
“Richard Wakefield (17:52:17) :
”
Oh, another suggestion: To give the viewer a hook start with a riddle like: Why haven’t max temperatures not increased?
Before the animation tell the viewer to look at the 30 degree line that is reached through all the years but never crossed.
Afterwards explain the answer: The planet cannot get hotter because it can’t sustain a higher temperature (too much radiation going outward, Stefan-Boltzmann law, 4th power of temperature)
Show 2 y axisses: 1 with the temperature and the second with the according radiative flux of a blackbody. This helps to show the limiting nature of high temperatures.
Phil Jones says;
“He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics – a decision he says he regretted.”
That’s not what is implied in one of your e-mails Dr Jones. Liar liar, pants on fire!
Baa Humbug (19:24:01) :
Re: Richard Wakefield (Feb 12 17:52),
“that was excellent Richard, well done. ”
I agree. Very well done.!
Needs to be shown in every class room.
Dr. Robert (18:22:46) :
Here’s the link to the Q&A: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
___________________________________________
Thanks for this, I laughed long and hard. I particularly like:
“B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level ….. [blah, blah, waffle, waffle]”
as in
Q: Do you agree that this is a duck
A: Yes, but only just. The genetic makeup is very close to an Aardvark.
Heh, heh, heh, heh. You’ve got to love him, if only for the entertainment value. 😀
“debreuil (20:27:59) :
To keep a record of all his data, code, and documents, including revisions, all he needed was a source control system. These have been around almost as long as computers, and are free.”
To be more precise, revision control systems started to conquer the market in around 1990, and some are darn expensive (IBM’s Clearcase). The CRU would have had the money, though.
He assumes it must be man-made CO2 because he can’t think of anything else. In the past ‘conclusions’ were drawn about what caused what with some hilarious results. The scientific method, particularly in relations to climate science, means you should be able to make predictions and forecasts using your hypothesis. If they fail miserably and continue to fail then you have a problem.
Tokyoboy : Bunker Mentality – Just like in Neon Genesis Evangelion when the city goes in hiding while the Angels attack 😉
A boy is caught with his hands in the cookie jar. Quietly and humble he’s explaining mommy what went on: “The other boys on the street led me to do it”.
Mommy is listening patiently. However a bit of fear is heard in the boy’s voice: “What will happen when daddy returns from work?”
THE BIG LIE:
“He strongly defended references in his emails to using a ‘trick’ to ‘hide the decline’ in temperatures. These phrases had been deliberately taken out of context and ‘spun’ by sceptics keen to derail the Copenhagen climate conference, he said. And he denied any attempt to influence climate data: ‘I have no agenda,’ he said. “
Well done Phil Jones. You are on the right track, although there is a long road ahead of you.
Less well done BBC, for the sentence ” people demanding to see raw data behind records showing an unprecedented warming in the late 20th Century”
Hello! You just wrote that Phil Jones admitted that there were 2 periods of similar warming, and that the temperature of the Medieval Warm period isn’t settled…
A particularly interesting detail of Jones’s exchange with Harrabin was when, in response to the question “Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming experienced from 1975-1998 …”, he replies “This area is slightly outside my area of expertise”. In other words, he (and the CRU) are not really climateologists at all: they’re collectors, processors and publishers of temperature data. And, as Jones now admits, they haven’t even done that very well: the data was “not well organised” and he was not good at keeping a paper trail.
So, if the effect of natural forces is outside his area of expertise, what value can be put on his unsurprisingly vague support (referring to IPCC chapter 9) for the AGW hypothesis? None, I suggest.
Indeed, on the basis of his comments, it could be argued that there is no such discipline as climatology.
Well this is interesting. Hansen’s original hypothesis of CAGW (Science, 1981) predicts:
– CO2 warming effect from 1975 to 2010 of around 0.5C (given actual fossil fuel consumption most closely mirrors his ‘fast growth’ scenario)
– CO2 warming overwhelms other sources of climate variability by the year 2000 (as measured by a 2 standard deviation temp range)
– therefore, from 2000, there should be an unambiguous statistically significant warming trend caused by CO2 irrespective of what the other climate factors do
This model of CAGW has been comprehensively falsified now, confirmed by Phil Jones own admissions
– no statistically significant warming from 1995 onwards
– no warming trend from 2000 onwards
Hansen’s original model published in 1981 was less alarmist in its projections than subsequent hypotheses
The mark of a decent scientist is someone who ‘fesses up when the observed facts falsify his hypothesis, and honestly strives for an explanation as to the reason why. Has Hansen bothered doing this??
Jones: “I’m not a bad man – just a bad wizard.”
sceptics” . . . should compile their own dataset from material publicly available in the US’’
Surely Prof Jones you could help us with one small intact data set, say the Chineese Jones Wang data showing urban heat island effect was minimal.
“John Whitman (22:07:57) :
”””’tokyoboy (21:36:05) : I can’t figure our well the nuance of the “bunker mentality.” Does this trace back to a bunker in golf yards?
Anyone teach me please.”””’
Tokyoboy,
A bunker is a reinforced structure usually underground that is build for the purpose of keeping military leaders….”
Reminds me of the golf professional who advertised his lessons with
‘I could have got Hitler out of that bunker!’
cheers David
Really poor questioning with no follow up and no direct reference to the voluminous contradictory emails and still Jones comes off as the lying a**hole he is. Criminal. [Literally!]
Al Gore’s Brother: yeah of course. As soon as there are fiefdoms in science, it’ll be the “tenants” that get shafted. 😉
E – How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
Jones
I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
Doesn`t the IPCC rely on Jones and Wang`s dodgy china study showing little warming from UHI.
Vukcevic (01:17:01) :
There is perfectly good explanation, and it is not to do either with the solar or volcanic forcing :
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf
That looks a great piece of work and adds yet another level of complexity to the way that Climate works.
Now that Phil is admitting errors and other IPCC Members are admitting the IPCC is not doing a good job either, the walls of AGW are definitely crumbling.
Could his reason for starting to come clean be the upcoming Investigations and the loss of his mate Dr Cambell from the Panel?
Ron de Haan (20:29:55) :
You could not make this up!
_____________________________________________________
Here is the link to the original article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/12/gordon-brown-climate-change-fundraising
I don’t know why you’re surprised Ron. We all know that Gordon Brown has lost his grip on reality. That was quite clear even before he claimed to have “saved the world” (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5319124.ece)
“Mr Brown will co-chair the United Nations High Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing with Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi.
The group aims to raise $30bn (£19bn) over the next three years – rising to $100bn annually by 2020 – to help poor countries limit their contribution to global warming and adapt to its effects.”
“This can’t all be done from taxpayer revenues” he said.
No kidding Gordon. The UK public sector debt was £740.6 billion as of December 2009 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206).
Gordon’s answer to the UK’s financial crisis? Give away billions of pounds that we don’t have to help the “poor countries” adapt to the effects of a phenomenon that remains purely hypothetical. (I don’t know whether to laugh or cry)
The one thing that seems to have escaped his notice is that thanks to his “financial prudence” the UK has become one of the “poor countries” to which he so patronisingly refers.
You’re right Ron; you could not make this up.
A little OT, but The Daily Telegraph’s “Warmista” columnist Geoffrey Lean, is slowly retreating from the “Science is Settled” position, into the “Well, if it’s only a 1% risk that your children will die in a plane crash, would you risk it?” one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/7223753/Do-we-want-to-ignore-climate-change-and-risk-losing-all-this.html
The 100+ comments so far, are virtually entirely deriding his position.
Last week (Or the week before?) he was trying to say that the decline being hidden was just an academic one about a few Siberian trees.
Result? A similar battering dished out by the readers.
Here’s the best one of the lot!
“Hello Sir
My name is Jason Lmamo. I am writing to your good self to introduce myself and to share a tiny problem which with your support we could resolve in a mutually profitable manner. And help save the planet.
At present a Nigerian Government Agency has deposited ten million US dollars in the Bank of Ecological Means and Measures in Lagos.
Unfortunately due to a security clause mistake in the Bank regulations, funds cannot be withdrawn by a Nigerian citizen without correlation by an overseas accredited third party. The account is now frozen unless such a foreign guarantee can be provided.
This is where, with your help and valued assistance, releasing these funds for Carbon Trading purposes will bring great benefit.
We know of your credentials in these matters and to ask for evidence of your probity would be an insult to your good name. This is why you were chosen for such a special task.
All we require is that you provide us with your Bank account details, number and not forgetting sort code, then the funds will be transferred to your Bank where impedance of access is no problem.
We will then ask for the moneys, less a ten percent handling fee for all the trouble you have been put to, to be deposited in the Jason Lmamo account at the Carbon Bank of Nigeria set up by no less than Mr Gore for such purposes.
Obviously your name speaks for itself and whilst the paltry commission will take second place to your endeavours in helping Mr Gore and others, we felt a gesture was only polite.
Jason Lmamo.
Substitute Jason Lmamo with Copenhagen and you’re there.”
Sounds like the Professor is trying to tell us that he is a little pregnant.
“But Professor Jones said he had not cheated the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process.”
“And I am Marie of Roumania.”
————
Peter Hearnden (00:32:50) :
“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!”
The HS shows a MWP.
When Dr Michael Mann wrote about the HS in a British meteorological journal I have he talked about the MWP and LIA. Ok, that account doesn’t fit the myth but it’s, I’m sorry, the truth.
“Talked about it” is irrelevant; just look at the shape of the graph. “Talked about it” includes dismissing it. But he couldn’t not “talk about it,” as it’s common knowledge. He just tried to “hide the incline.”
Last Sunday’s UK Observer reported that Phil Jones contemplated suicide, but that it was only the love of his family that pulled him through.
This is immensely sad. Perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Clearly he has been devastated by what has happened recently. Bearing in mind some of his comments in this interview, he may be in the process of re-evaluating his world view.
Many, including myself, regard this belief in catastrophic climate change as a kind of religion. It’s never easy when you find yourself questioning your own religious beliefs (though I’m not religious myself). We live in interesting times….
Chris
I wonder if he would use the:
“Im not very good at keeping records-prove me wrong” attitude with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs….and how much ice that cuts with HMRC?
He would be hauled in front of a judge for failing to keep proper accounts and tax evasion.
Al Gates Weather (AGW):
Gates: >>> “”The climate getting worse means many years that crops won’t grow from too much rain or not enough, leading to starvation and certainly unrest.”
…-
“Microsoft co-founder Gates tackling climate change
LONG BEACH, California (AFP) – Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has broken from philanthropic work fighting poverty and disease to take on another threat to the world’s poor — climate change.
“Energy and climate are extremely important to these people,” Gates told Friday a TED Conference audience packed with influential figures including the founders of Google and climate champion Al Gore.
“The climate getting worse means many years that crops won’t grow from too much rain or not enough, leading to starvation and certainly unrest.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2450529/posts
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi
“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.”
Sorry Congress. Ration and Tax has been CANCELED!
Chris Wright (04:13:30) :
Last Sunday’s UK Observer reported that Phil Jones contemplated suicide, but that it was only the love of his family that pulled him through.
This is immensely sad. Perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Clearly he has been devastated by what has happened recently. Bearing in mind some of his comments in this interview, he may be in the process of re-evaluating his world view.
Yes. Many of us have been there; the mind covers all the possibilities. But you may well be right about his “world view.” What is more useful in the long run is to change one’s ‘self view’ in relation to the world. I have found that this can take decades; probably the rest of life. Keeps me young. There is only change. There are no things, only processes.
A court of law, however, would not pat him on the back.
Richard Wakefield (17:52:17)>>
Very nice work with the animations! 🙂 Goes well in line with what John Christy is have been saying, right?
I fully accept the logic in saying; It hasn’t become warmer, merely less cold.
However, as I’ve understood the AGW theory, isn’t this actually in line with what they’re saying also?
Because the GHG:s slow down escaping heat, then wouldn’t this effect be most noticed during the coldest hours of each day (night)?
I guess there can be a multitude of other explanations for the Tmin rising but Tmax being static, such as increased cloud cover for example.
But still, aren’t the anomaly charts just a simpler way of showing what You have shown here?
Still… The correct thing to say is that it has become less cold and definitely not more warm.
Richard Wakefield (17:52:17) :
Excellent! Everyone should have a look at Richard’s work.
I believe the term ‘Bunker Mentality’ is a thinly veiled reference to Adolph Hitler’s state of mind during the fall of Berlin in World War II.
When we investigate embezzlement and fraud, people keep deliberately sloppy records and also delete information. This is in hopes of it being more difficult to catch them. Jones is out on the street and afraid of the people he trashed as shown by his messages. Without secret records and control, he is disarmed and helpless.
I think he has in his head a way to look at the Mid warm period and say it clearly shows not so cool.
Thanks to everyone for the comments, and suggestions. Working on part 2 which will look at the same data in a different way. Very interesting so far. I’d be interested in the radiative bit on the upper limit and add it to part 2, I think it is very relevant as to why the planet cannot “cook”.
Patrik, the point of this is to show that the simple anomaly graphs are too simple, they hide the details of what is actually going on with the physical world. Detail is important (at least to me, maybe not to Mann et al).
Notice I did not state what the cause of this trend is. Interesting that Jones is admitting that the warming from humans can only be shown, in their mind, from 1950 onwards. Since it is clear in their own graphs that 1945-1975 “cooled”, and we are not “warming” since 1998, that leaves only 30 years of warming by humans. Didn’t he say something about short times frames statistically insignificant? He has just destroyed AGW.
I did a plot on the change in CO2 from year to year (there is only reliable data from 1955 onwards) plotted against the change in max, nim and mean temp for each year on a scatter plot. The correlation coreficient is 0.14. Thus no correlation.
Thanks again guys, I should have Part 2 up by next weekend.
“Last Sunday’s UK Observer reported that Phil Jones contemplated suicide, but that it was only the love of his family that pulled him through.”
In an odd way, this is cheering news!
(That’s what Phil Jones wrote about the death of the skeptical scientist John Daly.)
Allan M (05:21:23) :
“There are no things, only processes.
After reading through even more comments on the Ravetz thread, I reckon that means that ‘sustainability’ is bollocks. But then the Marxists have the perfect solution, ho ho.
Yup. Wakefield’s video is definitely worth seeing:
It certainly opened my eyes!
The part I liked: First question labeled ‘A’”
A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
And the response:
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Without the MWP debate, this answer is jaw dropping — So what exactly was going on here?
“If some of our critics spent less time criticising us and prepared a dataset of their own, that would be much more constructive.”
Prof. Jones please!
We asked you the data because you was payed with public money for this job.
What are asking skepticals have to???
Data are property of both!!!!
You ever refuse to!
Prof. Jones please!
In (H) Jones answers “The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar…”
Yes true… but only for TSI….Not ‘other’ factors such as the magnetic field of the sun… UV etc.
The sunspots are a symptom of underlying factors occurring deep inside the Sun, a bit like the spots of say measles being an outward sign of an underlying ‘disease’ in the body ..
Sunspots too are a symptom… of the suns magnetic field… e.g. strong field = more spots, and the reverse is true, no one knows what ’causes’ the sunspot cycle (or more accurately the suns magnetic cycle) and why their are somtimes ‘grand maximums and minimums.
It is the suns magnetic field that could well be the ’cause’ of global warming /(and cooling in particular !) during a ‘grand solar minimum’ by letting in cosmic rays from the background Galaxy, they, making/seeding cloud cover, (which being white) increases the Earths albedo reflecting away sunlight, thus cooling Earth
The fact is that ‘low spot activity’ on the Sun and cool periods on Earth has been noticed by astronomers for a very long time, (even William Herschel discoverer of Uranus) said in 1803 that “when there are few spots on the sun the price of wheat goes up” )
The best example being the ‘Maunder’ period on the sun, and the little ice age on Earth.
Dr. Jones suggested that all his work be re-done by the skeptics.
Is that even possible? Is there enough raw data that is known to be original and unaltered?
Doing the analysis is not trivial. The manpower to do it properly would be quite significant. Where does Dr. Jones suggest the funding come from? Perhaps UEA? If funding was provided by the oil or coal companies, it would have no credibility because bias would be assumed. Interesting that funding from governments and enviro groups is not deemed (by the MSM) to cause bias. The peer review process should address the bias, but that’s not working well is it?
CRU should be able to trace the origin of every bit of data they used. The fact that they can’t indicates the analysis needs to be done over. That’s pretty obvious. Getting the CRU to admit incompetence will be a real watershed, but it will likely take legal action to get there.
We need to be careful here. Do not quote from Harrabins story as fact. For example:
“most likely predominantly man-made.” was NOT what Jones said, that was in the article by Harrabin NOT the Q&A.
If you read a bit more of Professor Jones’ ‘admission’ – he talks about the weather last month – but points out that the satellite records at University of Alabama in Huntsville show January 2010 to be the warmest January ‘since records began in 1979…’
I fell about laughing…
From Orwell, apply to Phil Jones:
“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…”
Professor Jones craves and receives a constant stream of sympathy here in UK. He gets loads of public taxpayers money to do his job as do many global warmists and complains that he has been working heroically in a litter bin which doubles for an office constantly harassed by sceptics. Well stroll on! He could go and get an honest job hedge laying or hod carrying as he appears to be particularly unsuitable for cooking science.
One still needs that data flowchart.
With boxes explaining where “added value” and “homogenisation” and “fudging” and removal of rural stations is done…..
Otherwise one will never understand who is doing what….
Did CRU only use ready-fudged data from others? Or did they add some fudging themselves? Was rural stations already “removed” when CRU used the data?
Richard Wakefield–may I make one minor constructive suggestion: Please have the text in your presentations absolutely perfect; have several people proofread it. Some critics will disregard your message completely if they find a grammatical or spelling error or two. Give them no leway; give them no excuse.
Otherwise, excellent job.
Pity this question was not asked:
“When you talk about the MWP you state it may not be global because of lack of reconstructions for the SH, even though you state “MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.”. How does this relate to relying on a single site (Yamal) to apparently derive a global temperature reconstruction?”
Or has this be covered elsewhere?
Folks – it occurs to me that Professor Jones nibbling at the crust of humble pie is all well and good – but we must NOT lose sight of the bigger picture.
He was the boss of the department which was the main driver of the alarmist IPCC report which initiated ALL the ‘carbon reduction’ policies of every government on the planet. One or two have since wisely stepped away (China for one) – but the fact remains that most are still blundering on with policies which will have a detrimental – in some cases catastrophic – effect on the way of life of millions of people in the so-called ‘developed’ world.
This guy and his casual approach to record-keeping, and if-I can’t-think-of-another-reason-it-must-be-human-activity reasoning, MUST be pointed out to every politician on the planet (with the obvious exception of Messrs Lawson and Monckton).
The effects of his UN-funded ‘adventure’ cannot be over-emphasised – this is the single biggest scam visited on the citizens of this planet in recent history – makes the tulip episode and the South Sea Bubble look like the three cup trick in comparison.
We must keep up the pressure – vigorously and with every piece of evidence at our disposal..!
“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.”
Now I thought some of the major Skeptics did make there own datasets from avalible records and when it didn’t match they were accused of fudging the data, cherry picking, not being scientists, and Charlatans
The first rat to jump ship will probably find the softest landing. Jones screwed up – this interview is a sign of weakness. It may very well convince one of the others on the team to for full disclosure and public atonement. Which ever one of them writes the narrative of the fraud first will define it for the public, my money is on Ken. WUWT should start a poll.
A C Osborn (03:31:57) :
“Vukcevic (01:17:01) : There is perfectly good explanation, and it is not to do either with the solar or volcanic forcing :
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf
That looks a great piece of work and adds yet another level of complexity to the way that Climate works.”
Thanks, it is only part one, eventually I will add the rest (all material is collected and waiting patiently for my attention), whenever I get around to do it. For time being suffice to say there is also good correlation from 1750
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC8.htm
or even earlier if one assumes that climatologist H.Lamb got dating errors of 25-40 years prior to 1700, on the other hand magnetic reconstructions were not entirely reliable for that period.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GandF.htm
” But Professor Jones said he had not cheated the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process.”
Leaving aside the first claim, has not Dr Jones’s admitted dereliction in what would seem to be the nuts-and-bolts of research, i.e. being a meticulously careful custodian of data, ‘unfairly influenced the scientific process’ by rendering his conclusions uncheckable and non-reproducible?
Jones’ rationalisations sound exactly like the excuses from a 16 year-old school boy when asked to prove he has completed an assignment; hardly the sort of thing one would expect from the very highly-paid and qualified head of a major science establishment which has recieved millions in grants for what he now says he was not very good at.
And thanks, Richard Wakefield – brilliantly clear exposition.
Ane Gordon Brown is still in his own nice warm bubble, totally adrift from reality – he has spent all the UK’s money and thinks there is more out there for him to give to ‘poor countries’ – the UK is, thanks to him, a ‘poor country’!
The older I get the slower my mind works (and it was never a race car to begin with…)
Seems to me that here in the US of A we have a bit of a legal conundrum – that being the Supreme Court decided against the state of Massachusetts in a landmark case involving AGW and CO2. Now we know, from Jones’ own mouth the evidence presented was false, tainted and not to be trusted.
Sooooo,
That means the SC needs to be presented with the folly of the first case to “make things right”. Also this really calls into question the EPA rulemaking on CO2. Strikes me that any legal case defended by the Feds is a non-starter at this point. As far as Cap ‘n Tax, anyone presenting that law in congress is a dead lame duck politically.
We do have quite the tragic opera going, don’t we!
Mike
@richard Wakefield: Maybe argue that warmer nights are consistent with UHI effects. (Heat stored in asphalt and stone buildings leaching out.)
I’m astounded at our huge battalion of allies in the letters columns this year. A year or two ago they were comparatively rare. How did so many people bone up on the topic, despite the lack of assistance from Wikipedia and the online reprints on the topic from the MSM back then? Someone should write an article on this unusual popular refusal to swallow the swill.
The inability to maintain a proper audit trail of your work is to my mind, a firing offence for any professional. Whether deliberate, or by incompetence is immaterial. When so much is at stake, the quality of your work, documentation and record keeping should be beyond reproach.
I am sorry, I have no sympathy for this man. This is a well orchestrated plan with a few soft mea culpa’s to divert attention and ensure a soft landing. Most of us on this forum would have been fired instantly had we shown such sloppy work and such deviousness, unless it was condoned by our superiors, and I therefore assume it was, and is, condoned by his.
Welcome to the real world Dr Jones!
“David (09:07:37) :
[…]
One or two have since wisely stepped away (China for one) – but the fact remains that most are still blundering on with policies which will have a detrimental – in some cases catastrophic – effect on the way of life of millions of people in the so-called ‘developed’ world.”
Our chancellor Angela Merkel had the nickname “Klima-Kanzlerin” (climate chancellor). Together with Gordon she spearheaded the EU group at COP15 (but wasn’t dumb enough to put a number on her financial willingness).
Since COP15 we have heard nothing of her, in January the germans were worrying that we don’t have a government anymore… could it be that they are busy planning their way out of the mess?
If you shorted some carbon trading stocks on Friday you are a very happy person today.
Richard Wakefield (17:52:17) :
Great video! Did you make that?
Any one really interested in temperatures should look at this video. It brought out a few concepts that I had not considered or seen elsewhere:
Great job! Richard, I will give you and others another concept that climate science tends to be overlooking but will take a while to compose. Will comment it here later under this post.
“in January the germans were worrying that we don’t have a government anymore.”
Our government over here in die Vereinigten Staaten has been down for a week due to the glut of snow in Washington, and the longer they’re snowbound the better for the country!
If Phil told me the sky was blue I’d check for myself.
Why would anyone ever believe anything he says about anything in future ?
Richard Wakefield (17:52:17) :
Great stuff. I would like to know how did you assembly gif or jpg into a video file.
Thanks.
RockyRoad, it was a bit of a rush job, point them out in a private email and I’ll fix them. I’m also looking for the right music for a background, got some possibilities that are appropriate.
Orson (04:37:58 on Eschenbach’s thread) …One is reminded of the famous Stanley Milgram experiments of the 1960s. In these, it was shown that people would inflict killing levels of pain on an innocent “test subject” merely on a scientists say so
Ah, at last another commenter refers to Milgram!
I feel that Phil Jones fits Milgram’s profile particularly well. Wants to please “scientific” authority, and still hasn’t a ******* clue of the level of scientific awareness of his critics. But now that the holder of “authority” is shifting, Jones is trying to shift… shiftily… IMO, he still has no clue of the maverick nature that a real scientist has to have, to question all evidence. I also think he is an archetypal example of “cleric in scientist’s clothing” whose power has grown and who tend to drive the real scientists out… Tennekes… Miskolczi and now his faithful Huxley, Zagoni… Soon and Baliunas… etc.
Thank you BBC. The operation still has a long way to drill down, and skeptics are watching, but this is real progress.
I really hope this isn’t actually an attempt to gather more funding to fix their archiving problem.. If they are desperate I have some blank CD’s, an old CD burner, an indelible black pen and a small lockable data safe they are welcome to have..
These guys really need to be taken out of the picture on any further work in this space; a failure to maintain original data in an area when it is ALL about the original data speaks volumes about how fragile their analysis really is.
Richard Wakefield
STEP AWAY FROM THAT COMPUTER AND NO ONE WILL BE HURT!!!
Seriously, before adding music please check the copyright on it – don’t put yourself in legal difficulties. If you want some licensed music let me know what type your thinking about and let me give you a few options. I have a licensed music library. If I have to say it – no charge…
Mike Bentley
INTHEDEN LLC (my production company)
Gordon Brown’s priority is the success of carbon trading which he sees tied to the success of London:
“No less chagrined must be Gordon Brown, who sees the carbon market as key to the global response to climate change, and to the economic fortunes of the City of London. As Brown told WWF in 2007, the government wanted binding limits on developed country emissions in a post-2012 climate agreement, because London was the world’s carbon trading capital, and “only hard caps can create the framework necessary for a global carbon market to flourish”.
* Thus he made it clear that the health of the carbon market took a rather higher priority than the health of the climate system.”…
“The great achievement of the (Kyoto) protocol was not to reduce carbon emissions –
* they actually rose at an increasing rate under its watch,
* three times faster in the early 2000s than during the 1990s –
but to create a market in emissions rights and notional emissions reductions worth tens of billions of dollars a year.”.. (paragraph 3 in article)
* Guardian UK, “Don’t let the carbon market die,” 1/25/10, by Oliver Tickell.
He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.
Phil buddy, could you put a robust number on that……….and a polar bear burger and fries to go.
Tokyoboy, This on line dictionary has a definition for “bunker menality”: http://www.merriam-webster.com/.
Tim Clark (14:00:04) :
“Phil buddy, could you put a robust number on that………”
Okay, lets try to enhance it;
“Phil buddy, be a Pal and put a robust number on that………”
Climate Progress is in deep denial today, running (old) pieces (“must read statements”) about the Met Office’s and the Royal Society’s deep attachment to agw science and their predictions of apocalyptic climate change,
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/13/science-met-office-and-royal-society-on-the-connection-between-global-warming-and-extreme-weather/#more-19169
with the related post beneath a link to
“MSNBC’s Ratigan: “These ‘snowpocalypses’ that have been going through DC and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming.”
I made a comment, suggesting they check out Jones’ statements (it’ll be modded in seconds I assume).
It has been a good day today. I woke up to a radio interview on the Beeb with Jones, I think, as I turned it off and went back to sleep, assuming it would be the same old tosh that State Radio always churns out – and I didn’t want to start Saturday feeling cross and irritable. So, finally woken and after a cup of coffee I checked out WUWT. I’ve been grinning all day. This really ought to be the end of the beginning.
Fingers crossed.
The two questions below from the BBC article and their answers show the deep flaw of the CRU science, if one can still call it science. If they acknowledge that there were several comparable warming periods many times before the current warming and only the current warming is being blamed on manmade greenhouse gases , a logical question would be how can we be sure that the cause of the past warming is not behind the current warming also. They have chosen to blame co2 for the current warming not because there is good science to prove so but because they cannot yet explain why warming in the past and present take place so by default,they blame co2? This is fine for a tentative and yet unproven hypothesis, but wrong and premature to use for a world wide energy policy costing the world trillions of dollars and possibly totally wasted. This is science at its worst with unproven and incomplete science being paraded as science. Then Jones makes it even worse by saying he is 100 % confident despite all the uncertainties the question “H ” raises?
Q&A from BBC article
H – If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D.
E – How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
Mike Bentley thanks, maybe best just not to have anything. May distract from the content.
“Great stuff. I would like to know how did you assembly gif or jpg into a video file.”
Several steps. First get the record set with an sql query, paste into Excel, and plot. Copy the plot and paste it into either Corel Draw or MS’s old PhotoDraw program and add the enhancements and text. Save as a jpg. Windows has MovieMaker as part of it, simply import each image as a storyboard item, set the time for each frame, test it, then compile into a movie.
Richard,
Let me know if you change your mind – the offer will stand…
Mike
Richard,
Thanks for the video. I’m going to watch it a few more times. This video needs to be circulated as your arguments are so interesting and well made. I look forward to seeing how well they hold up to informed challenges. Keep perfecting it.
I don’t think Jones, Mann, Pachauri or any of the rest should be tried for anything, at least not yet. In fact, I think some kind of resort should be built for them, their families, and their major political sponsors and supporters, where their health, wellbing, and most of all their longevity can be assured.
Under all the crud these people have been perpetrating as “science” lies very real evidence that the nature of climate is cyclical, and we are now entering a period of cold, dry drought. In fact, there is every reason to believe it is going to be a very severe, protracted, cold, dry drought.
Now consider – we are going to go into this period with:
– a greater number of mouths to feed and people to keep warm than ever,
– a smaller number of people than ever, as a percentage of overall population, who are in any way agrarian producers or self-sufficient – even including those at subsistence level standards,
– a significant and growing percentage of grainstocks previously available as “food” for humans or livestock being diverted to the production of ethanol,
– a western world, which, after over a decade chasing the folly of “sustainable energy” (wind farms etc) finds itself woefully energy deficient,
– a developing world which was always energy deficient and has deliberately been kept so as part of the “fight” against AGW,
– a world which, by and large, is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy,
– a world which, at the political level, is still “addressing” the folly of the exact opposite conditions.
Or, in summary, we are probably catapulting headlong into a severe, cold, dry extended drought with no food, no energy, no money, and no political will to even recognise, let alone address the issue or the consequences. And those consequences include the very real prospect of hundreds of millions of people dying in the next couple of decades.
I think it’s time some of you people “celebrating” over the demise of AGW give some thought to what the now virtually inevitable, probably unavoidable consequences of this fraud are going to be. Then tell me again how we should “go soft” on Jones for his grudging “admissions” of what has already been disclosed anyway.
Personally, I think at some point in the future Jones, Mann, Pachauri and the rest, their families, sponsors and supporters should be helicopter’d into wherever the hunger, starvation and suffering are worst, so that the victims of their actions can pass judgment on their motives.
Richard,
By the way, I was taught that no argument is well made that does not include the strongest points that can be found to refute it. When you try to be reasonably critical of your video what do you see?
And now this:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/13/climategate-scientist-says-g-warming-debate-not-over-discusses-hide-d
It doesn’t look good for Prof. Jones. Or for AGW, either.
Richard Wakefield (13:25:04) :
RockyRoad, it was a bit of a rush job, point them out in a private email and I’ll fix them. I’m also looking for the right music for a background, got some possibilities that are appropriate.
———–
Reply:
I can’t get to it until next week, which is probably not quick enough.
But if you can wait that long, tell me, how do I get your email? Will the moderator here send yours to me?
John G. Bell quality? Never said I was a movie producer. If you have an issue please tell me so I can fix it.
Michael J. Bentley, thanks. One I did think about using is Building a Mystery. There’s another by Madonna that would work well but can’t recall the name, searching for it.
Michael J. Bentley, I just checked an older video that I put a soundtrack on, they have muted it. Interesting.
Most important interview!
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/2/13_A_Most_Important_Interview.html
I think the interview should help Professor Jones at his parole hearing.
New report from “Der Bunker”;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490
“”” Bruce (17:12:14) :
“The major datasets mostly agree”
How would he know? “””
Well that’s all well and good; they are actually all different in some way; which is not too surprising since they all are using different raw data sources.
But the real question is not whether they agree with each other; but how well do they agree with Gaia’s data set.
We know that Gaia always gets the right answere, because she has the most thermometers, and reads them more often; ontinuously in fact.
And that’s the rub; we mortals don’t have any where near enough thermometers to get agreement with Gaia’s data.
D -….
please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.
This area is slightly outside my area of expertise
So if these basic parameters are outside his expertise, how the hell did he and his colleagues construct their climate models !!!
Yikes. Not a newsworthy story in the Northeast where we’ve had record snowfall and sustained low temperature.
The proof is in the environment, and it ain’t sayinb Global Warming.
The astounding aspect of this argument is the fact that humans believe that they could actually influence the temperature of the earth. Over hundreds of millions of years species from dinosaurs to man “destroyed” the plant and it seems to still be revolving just fine, thank you.
He didn’t want to share the data because it was not well organized.
I just learned a paper could go through the peer-review process without it’s data being well organized and easy to share…
We have nothing to do against it. We are destroying us day by day.
Summing up: