Excerpts from the Daily Mail article here:
Head of ‘Climategate’ research unit admits he hid data – because it was ‘standard practice’
The scientist at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ row over global warming hid data ‘because it was standard practice’, it emerged today.
Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s prestigious climatic research unit, today admitted to MPs that the centre withheld raw station data about global temperatures from around the world.
The world-renowned research unit has been under fire since private emails, which sceptics claimed showed evidence of scientists manipulating climate data, were hacked from the university’s server and posted online.

Now, an independent probe is examining allegations stemming from the emails that scientists hid, manipulated or deleted data to exaggerate the case for man-made global warming.
Prof Jones today said it was not ‘standard practice’ in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.
He also said the scientific journals which had published his papers had never asked to see it.
Appearing before the committee’s hearing into the disclosure of data from the CRU alongside Prof Jones, the university’s vice chancellor Prof Edward Acton said he had not seen any evidence of flaws in the overall science of climate change – but said he was planning this week to announce the chair of a second independent inquiry, which will look into the science produced at CRU.
h/t to WUWT reader Richard Lawson
UPDATE: Steven Mosher writes in comments about some relevant history that disproves Dr. Jones claim of “standard practice”:
==========================
OK. Everybody write the UEA committee.
Jones says its standard practice NOT to share data.
1. in 2002 PRIOR to the publication of MM2003 Jones shared
data with Mcintyre. Jones was aware of confidentiality agreements.
“Dear Steve,
Attached are the two similar files [normup6190, cruwld.dat] to those I sent before which should be for the 1994 version. This is still the current version until the paper appears for the new one. As before the stations with normal values do not get used.
I’ll bear your comments in mind when possibly releasing the station data for the new version (comments wrt annual temperatures as well as the monthly). One problem with this is then deciding how many months are needed to constitute an annual average. With monthly data I can use even one value for a station in a year (for the month concerned), but for annual data I would have to decide on something like 8-11 months being needed for an annual average. With fewer than 12 I then have to decide what to insert for missing data. Problem also applies to the grid box dataset but is slightly less of an issue.
I say possibly releasing above, as I don’t want to run into the issues that GHCN have come across with some European countries objecting to data being freely available. I would like to see more countries make their data freely available (and although these monthly averages should be according to GCOS rules for GAA-operational Met. Service.
Cheers
Phil Jones”
http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/06/a-2002-request-to-cru/
2. After the publication of MM03 he refused to share that data with Hughes in Feb 2005:a month after MM05 was published and a month after Wigly and he discussed ways to avoid FOIA. He refused
again with Mcintyre in 2007, citing confidentiality agreements.
3. Fully aware of the confidentiality agreements Jones shared the data
with Webster and with Rutherford.
His standard practice was this.
If Jones had no reason to suspect you as an individual he would violate confidentiality agreements and send you data. If jones didn’t like your results or your treatment of his co author Dr. Mann, then he would refuse you data.
There is nothing standard about this practice.
===================================
It appears once Dr. Jones learned that Steve McIntyre had skeptical views, his unwillingness to share data became “standard practice”. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jones is wrong. Not sharing data is his standard practice. The FOIA says otherwise. Typical of conmen that hide information.
It is standard for dishonest people to keep secrets.
Standard practice!
Is this a standard in other non-military scientific disciplines?
I was lucky enough to watch this and the other sessions. This, IMO, was the most interesting portion to watch.
That ostrich’s technology of hiding head under the sand it is used by them who do not want to see the source of all light and heat: The Sun.
We already knew hiding data was standard practice in climate science. But admitting it? That is something new. Thank you, leaker.
Prof Jones today said it was not ’standard practice’ in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.
And, pray, who set the ‘standard’ that is so different from any other science? More of the old going round in circles, post-normally. Credibility zero.
Here is something about this on BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8543289.stm
“Professor Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of UEA, told the committee that it was not possible to make the entire international data set available because of a “commercial promise”.
He explained that a number of contributing nations – including Canada, Poland and Sweden – had refused to make their segments of data publicly available.”
Anyone from Canada, Poland and/or Sweden who can confirm that in fact these countries will not release the RAW data to other than CRU???
Sounds strange that such developed countries would withhold this kind of information.
Standard practice in science is to NOT share data?
Say what?
My pleasure.
Not sharing data is ‘standard practice’.
In the black art of science fraud it is Phil. Is that what you have been practicing over the last 20 years?
Bishop Hill did a fantastic live blog, see here for the different panellists:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/
Standard practice my eye.
“Prof Jones today said it was not ’standard practice’ in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.”
This is why “climate science” is not science but religion.
Lord Lawson was also giving evidence today so that is genuine ‘peer’ review!
tonyb
It would be nice to have a video clip of that being said. Wow!
… the university’s vice chancellor Prof Edward Acton said he had not seen any evidence of flaws in the overall science of climate change – but said he was planning this week to announce the chair of a second independent inquiry, which will look into the science produced at CRU.
I’m not sure I would call the stuff produced at CRU “science”.
You missed the best bit.
He also agreed that it (sharing data) should be a standard practice in future.
BTW the exchange between him and Graham Stringer on this was the biggest section in Harrabin’s report on BBC Radio 4’s Today program.
Prof Jones today said it was not ’standard practice’ in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.
Not really science then, is it?
The fellow in the photo doesn’t look like the press release Phil Jones. He seems to have aged considerably since the email release.
Understandably.
Erik in Cairo (11:46:36) :
Erik, not sure if you will be able to view it in Cairo (geo restriction) but try this:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979
Prof Jones today said it was not ’standard practice’ in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.
——————–
Which demonstrates that any correlation between ‘climate science’ and real science is purely coincidental. That may be the single most stunning admission I’ve heard this year.
What a S.O.P. !!! (Geddit?)
Wow…Phil Jones looks old in that picture.
or is it stress
So Acton is saying AGW must be true because Jones says it is! A scientific mind that. I thought on the BBC Jones said he was disorganised and that was the reason. Could we try a lie detector?
…standard operating procedure (rebuff the requests, shred the emails, change the data, hide the decline, ignore the chorus, pocket Profit, be empowered, become relevant, triumph over the adversarys, and if that fails: lie)
For broader and, IMO, more balanced report on the hearings, see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-climate-science-emails-select-committee-hearing
The Guardian also has live coverage of the hearings.