Excerpt from the Nature article here
Central to the Russell investigation is the issue of whether he or his CRU colleagues ever published data that they knew were potentially flawed, in order to bolster the evidence for man-made global warming. The claim specifically relates to one of Jones’s research papers1 on whether the urban heat island effect — in which cities tend to be warmer than the surrounding countryside — could be responsible for the apparent rise in temperature readings from thermometers in the late twentieth century. Jones’s study concluded that this local effect was negligible, and that the dominant effect was global climate change.
In the paper, the authors used data from weather stations around the world; those in China “were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times”, they wrote.
But in 2007, amateur climate-data analyst Doug Keenan alleged that this claim was false, citing evidence that many of the stations in eastern China had been moved throughout the period of study. Because the raw data had been obtained from a Chinese contact of one of Jones’s co-authors, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany in New York, and details of their location had subsequently been lost, there was no way of verifying or refuting Keenan’s claim.
Jones says that approaching Wang for the Chinese data seemed sensible at the time. “I thought it was the right way to get the data. I was specifically trying to get more rural station data that wasn’t routinely available in real time from [meteorological] services,” says Jones, who asserts that standards for data collection have changed considerably in the past twenty years. He now acknowledges that “the stations probably did move”, and that the subsequent loss of the details of the locations was sloppy. “It’s not acceptable,” says Jones. “[It’s] not best practice.” CRU denies any involvement in losing these records.
Jones says that he did not know that the weather stations’ locations were questionable when they were included in the paper, but as the study’s lead author he acknowledges his responsibility for ensuring the quality of the data. So will he submit a correction to Nature? “I will give that some thought. It’s worthy of consideration,” he says.
The full Nature article is here
======================================
Doug Keenan writes in a comment to the nature article:
This news report discusses my work on the Chinese weather-station data, but provides no references for that work. The main reference is this: Keenan, D. J. Energy & Environment, 18, 985-995 (2007). It is freely available on the web.
The news report also misrepresents my allegations.
My principal allegation is that some of the data on station histories never existed. Specifically, Jones et al. (1990) claim to have sourced their data from a report that was published by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Yet for 49 of the 84 meteorological stations that Jones et al. relied upon, the DOE/CAS Report states “station histories are not currently available” and “details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in station location or observing times … are not known”. Those statements imply that the quoted claim from Jones et al. is impossible: “stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times”. My paper presents more details; some updates are available via http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm .
I have also alleged that, by 2001, Jones knew there were severe problems with the Chinese research and yet he continued using that research–including allowing it to be relied on by the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report. Evidence is in Section 2.4 of my 2007 paper. Jones was one of the reviewers for my paper (the reviewer tally was 2-1 for acceptance, with Jones being the 1). Although Jones had many comments, he did not attempt to dispute this allegation.
Additional support for the latter allegation is given in my submission to the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. A copy of my submission is available via http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5610.htm . The submission additionally alleges that Jones acted unscrupulously when he was reviewing my paper.
The news report further claims that “e-mails and documents were illegally obtained from the university”. In fact, it is not known whether the leak of the e-mails and documents was illegal: the leak might be covered under whistle-blower legislation.
Lastly, with regard to Jones’ question “Why don’t they do their own reconstructions?”, the answer is that the data has not been released. In particular, regarding the Medieval Warm Period, what is arguably the most valuable tree-ring data extant remains unavailable. Details on that are at http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3900.htm .
Jones must be on the path to righteousness 🙂
You know what? Thank you Dr. Jones for at least being somewhat straightforward recently. Your former associates over at RealClimate still have a lot of work to do to become respected again.
Oh frabjous day, calloo, callay. Wanging hanging slowly in the wind.
===================
Seems like Jones is realizing the complaints against his work actually have merit, as opposed to being oil-funded attacks on his credibility. Still, it seems he owes Mr. Keenan a big fat apology.
I’m surprised that they didn’t give Keenan equal time in the article to respond. >ok not so surprised considering the source< He had to get his point across in the comments to the article? bad form on Nature's part.
But surely Wang was cleared by a fully independent inquiry at Albany University. Just like all the other inquiries are whitewash jobs.
You know sometimes when you recognise that you are so angry,that you start to laugh? This is one of those times for me. These fecking crooks should be burnt alive!
Ian Plimer:
“I fingered Jones for fraud on pp. 481-482 in my book Heaven and Earth. If investigative journalists had not been advocates for the climate industry, they would have followed my lead and scooped the world. They didn’t because they were too busy trying to frighten us.”
…-
“Climategate: A Defiance of Arrogant Political Power
The average voter has had enough: no more being force-fed scenarios defying that rare commodity called common sense.
The people are speaking. We are seeing a defiance of bureaucrats, officials, government propaganda, and funded climate catastrophe researchers. A scary scientific paradigm of human-induced climate change is collapsing because the cake has been over iced. The average voter has had enough of being talked down to by arrogant scientists with vested interests who present scenarios that defy that rare commodity called common sense.
It was only a short time ago that climate rationalists were told they were factually wrong, that their skepticism was evil, their views were akin to Holocaust denial, and that they should be tried for crimes against humanity. However, Climategate emails show that the coterie of two dozen leading climate comrades shared this skepticism in private — yet denounced skeptics in public. Various cap-and-trade systems have been shown to be an extra tax, which may end up being distributed by the sticky fingers of the UN.
Even more disturbingly, Climategate emails show two decades of systematic willful fraud. Since then, there has been the farce of Copenhagen, which the UK Taxpayers’ Alliance found cost the GDP of Malawi. (If such funds were used to provide electricity and potable water to Malawians, then this would have been a demonstration of true environmentalism.)
The allotted 10-minute speaking time for President Hugo Chavez became a one-hour rant against capitalism. He received a standing ovation. This is what Copenhagen was about.” (more)
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-a-defiance-of-arrogant-political-power/?singlepage=true
http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2010/02/15/the-debate-is-not-over/#comment-75069
The 1990 paper should be withdrawn. Period.
It is sad to see that Jones is still hemming and hawing on this one.
As he comes clean, next we’ll learn that he’s the leaker
Jones seems both sloppy and a tad on the dishonest side.
From the article… “The science still holds up” though, he adds. A follow-up study verified the original conclusions for the Chinese data for the period 1954–1983, showing that the precise location of weather stations was unimportant. “They are trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion,” says Jones of his critics.”
That certainly doesn’t sound like he will be issuing much of a correction if he does issue one at all.
Is one simply to rewrite fraudulent papers to regain respectability? At least Jones is being candidly honest these days, a big step up from Mann’s and Pachauri’s strident issuances in interviews, although both the latter have already had their “papers” rewritten for them.
Agree with Dr. Robert. Although it took a devastating and irrefutable blow to bring him to being truthful, Jones is at least on his way to re-establishing his name by going through some pretty painful admissions and pennance. It’s not easy to stand up and say “I was wrong, I knew it, but I soldiered on notwithstanding.”
Meanwhile, here in Pennsylvania, Michael Mann is still trying and hoping to dodge the bullets.
What is it about Pennsylvania. Why do we get both Mann and Michael Behe?
I’mwith Dr Robert: respect to Jones. We need to make it as easy as possible for people to shed their idées fixées and come over to the side of truth and transparency, heaven knows they must be getting it in the neck from former associates with a lot to lose.
Is it just me, or is it that every time somebody wants to check this guys work, the information required has been “lost”?
Raw CRU data? Oops, lost it.
Data proving Urban Heat Island effect is negligible? Oops, lost it.
Anything relating to any work I have ever done? Oops, look I JUST lost it.
But no matter, my conclusions are robust, you can trust me!!! Never mind those emails that show I’m a criminal, the statute of limitations has expired! (Hahahahahahahahahahahaha Stupid Sheeple will never catch me, I’m to smart for em)
This really made me laugh. Alot: http://www.neptunuslex.com/2010/02/14/last-man-in/
Tom,
I truly believe Jones’ accomplices are just digging themselves deeper graves. If we look at RealClimate, you can see their attempt to spin everything, which is especially exemplified in their comments sections by the moderators.
Absolutely ridiculous.
It’s funny, because Phil Jones looked the worse at the start of ClimateGate, but he may end up looking the best at the end of it. Smart man indeed!
DR
I’m really happy to see this post.
It is notable how Nature went about reporting the story of the dispute between me and Jones. The dispute essentially boils down to this: one party accused another party of fraud. Nature’s reporting consisted of asking the accused party if he was guilty, and finding that the accused declared himself innocent. The reporting did not include examining any evidence for the accusation, nor interviewing the accuser. (Inadequate resources could not be the problem, because the journalist traveled to Jones’ university in Norwich, to do the interview.) Even without assessing the merits of the accusation, then, I believe it is fair to say that the reporting on this was abysmal.
I have what might be a dumb question, and is probably somewhat off-topic for this particular discussion, but it’s bugging me, and they did mention tree-ring reconstructions in the article, so I’m not completely off-topic. 🙂
We know that the bristlecone pine and other tree-ring logs diverge from the “official” interpretation of the temperature, by showing flattening or even cooling in recent years.
We also know that trees (and other vegetation) grow better (and thus should have thicker tree rings) in a higher-CO2 atmosphere.
Given those two facts, I’m seeing a pretty major disconnect – if the CO2 is on the rise, and vegetation the world over is responding to this rise by increasing yield (as I think I’ve seen stated elsewhere), why are the dendrochronology reconstructions not showing a CO2 effect?
My English test for the Intermediate Certificate in 1960 did not go well, can I have another crack at it?
For fun, here’s a bunch of related Onion-style takes on Climategate: http://optoons.blogspot.com/search/label/global%20warming
Actually, I do not know anything about international politics.
Criminals must be punished. By the laws of their countries or by international laws.
I can imagine the data from any weather station to be adjusted or corrupted. But. I can not imagine all the data to be handled simultaneously without a source of money involved extremely powerful.
And now …. China connection
I tried to post a comment over at RealClimate this morning, stating that the data gathering techniques were flawed, the data manipulated, and the resulting “peer reviewed” documents biased to support a predetermined result. I’m a bit shocked to see that my comments have yet to be posted with a rebuttal. Everyone knows that RealClimate is moderated by real scientists and they should be able to enlighten a “stoopid” skeptic such as me. According to Reader (Daily Mangle reply 159), “You could stick a thermometer up their (skeptics) ass and they’d deny it was 98.6 degrees.” It seems all of us skeptics are just stoopid.
Well, lo and behold, now the Oracle of East Anglia himself is saying a resubmission is “worthy of consideration” but “the science still holds up..” Why is a resubmission worthy of consideration? Does this mean that (gasp!) the data may not have been correct the first time? It’s for greater minds than mine to figure out – I’m just a stoopid skeptic.
If I’d been in the same gang as Jones, I’d be getting very concerned. Almost everyday now he recanst something, it is classic behaviour, he’s looking for forgiveness, ultimately, if he continues he’ll, as they say , “blow the gaff” and give it all up, including his previous comrades in arms.
MattN 10:01:26
That clip is making a lot of people laugh, a lot, but the magnificent moderation here is going to dump it because of its admittedly distant association with Holocaust denial.
Far be it from me to criticize the moderation, which is one of the keys to the success of this establishment.
===================================