Phil Jones on the hot seat – not sharing data is “standard practice”

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.

Professor Phil Jones

On the spot: Professor Phil Jones being grilled by the Science and Technology committee in the Commons today

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

About these ads

278 thoughts on “Phil Jones on the hot seat – not sharing data is “standard practice”

  1. 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.

  2. I was lucky enough to watch this and the other sessions. This, IMO, was the most interesting portion to watch.

  3. 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.

  4. We already knew hiding data was standard practice in climate science. But admitting it? That is something new. Thank you, leaker.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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?

  8. “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.

  9. … 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”.

  10. 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.

  11. 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?

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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?

  15. …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)

  16. The most important and the most heavily funded research in the history of this planet and it is STANDARD PRACTICE not to share the info???

    Are you kidding me?

  17. Canadian climate data is available online. See link below:

    http://climat.meteo.gc.ca/prods_servs/index_e.html

    As far as I can see there are no restrictions on the redistribution of Canadian data in the context of the uses (research) being discussed. See item 2 below. I think that the claim from Edward Acton is worthy of further research.

    License Agreement for Use of Environment Canada Data
    LIMITED USE SOFTWARE AND DATA PRODUCT LICENSE AGREEMENT

    1. GRANT OF LICENSE – The Government of Canada (Environment Canada) is the owner of all intellectual property rights (including copyright) of this Software and Data Product. You are granted a limited, non-exclusive, non-assignable and non-transferable license to use this software and data product subject to the terms below. This license is not a sale of any or all of the owner’s rights. This product may only be used by you, and you may not rent, lease, lend, sub-license or transfer the data product or any of your rights under this agreement to anyone else, except under the following terms and conditions.
    2. REDISTRIBUTION RESTRICTIONS – You are authorized to further distribute the data or software, including any portion of it, contained in this product under the following conditions only. No fee will be charged explicitly for this Environment Canada product to any party to whom it is distributed. (Charges for value-added services are permitted.). In consideration of the license you are herein granted, you have the obligation to acknowledge the source of the Environment Canada Data with the following layout or something similar: based on Environment Canada data. Redistribution must occur so that any other party must agree to the same redistribution restrictions before use of the redistributed product is allowed.
    3. NO WARRANTIES – Environment Canada does not warrant the quality, accuracy, or completeness of any information or data. Such information and data is provided “AS IS” without warranty or condition of any nature. Environment Canada disclaims all other warranties, expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, with respect to the software, the data retrieved from this product, and any accompanying materials.
    4. RESTRICTION AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY – In no event shall Environment Canada be liable for any other damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business profits, business interruption, loss of business information, or other pecuniary loss) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this Environment Canada product, even if Environment Canada has been advised of the possibility of such damages. In any case, Environment Canada’s entire liability under any provision of this agreement shall be limited to the amount actually paid by you for the data product.
    5. RESPONSIBLE USE – It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that your use of this product complies with these terms and to seek prior written permission from Environment Canada and pay any additional fees or royalties, as may be required, for any uses not permitted or not specified in this agreement.
    6. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT – Any use whatsoever of this Software and Data Product shall constitute your acceptance of the terms of this agreement.
    7. FURTHER INFORMATION – For further information, please contact:

    Meteorological Service of Canada
    National Archives and Data Management Branch,
    4905 Dufferin Street,
    Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4
    Tel: (416) 739-4328
    Fax: (416) 739-4446

    Cheers!

  18. “He explained that a number of contributing nations – including Canada, Poland and Sweden – had refused to make their segments of data publicly available.”

    Why is that? Is it privately funded? I don’t think so. And why are temperature data so secret? It ain’t rocket/nuclear science? Fercrissakes it’s temperature!

  19. “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”

    Bring on the next question: To whom was this commercial promise made?
    And what gives a publicly-funded institution the right to sell public info to a commercial enterprise (as if it were true) for profit?

    Seems to me that even if a priate entity gives anything to a public institution it then becomes public by default, including the info of private donation to a non-profit public inst.

  20. Noodlehead (11:36:22) :
    Is this a standard in other non-military scientific disciplines?

    Tech more than science, but back in my military days, if I propsed a tech procedure change I had to show my work and data to support it.

    Jones has finally flat out admitted what we’ve been claiming: He runs climate “science” in ways differing from the scientific method. If we can’t duplicate his work, why should we believe it?

  21. I did my undergrad in geology some years ago. There, it was standard practice to hide your data – but ONLY until you’d published your research, because you didn’t want to get “scooped”. Small wonder that so many geologists thing AGW is a load of crap.

  22. You submit answers to test questions and get a passing grade.

    When asked to show your work you reply: “Why should I?”

    GUILTY AS CHARGED!

  23. Standard practice?

    Translation: That’s the way everyone does things and that’s the way we’ve always done things.

    That’s the standard lame excuse that’s always trotted out when failure occurs and one tries to justify the failure by falling back on the ‘way it’s always been done’ defense. In business this usually is followed by a quick firing, but this is an unholy mix of politics and a quasi-religion, so it may end up with a mild tsk-tsk reprimand and a return to business as usual.

  24. 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.

  25. Isn’t there a journal for unreproducible results?

    I only hope one journalist on this planet understands the implications.

  26. During a brief report by the BBC on the House of Common Science & Technology committee enquiry, conducted by MPs, indirect reference was made by at least one MP (a scientist) to ‘The CRUtape letters’. I had supplied each of the committee members with a copy last week.

  27. “scientific journals which had published his papers had never asked to see it”

    Could Nature verify this?

  28. Sad.

    If it can’t be replicated, its not science. Replication is the core principle.

    Meanwhile Gore in the NYT op-ed yammered about CRU etc by claiming that FOI requests were make-work demands by skeptics hoping to delay real science.

    WTF?

    When did the very definition of scientific method change? Furthermore, when did it become so FUBAR’d that FOI was required?

  29. “commercial promise” = compromised science = an absolute mandate to be revealed and challenged and definitely not valid for consideration in setting any public policy.

    Any of the institutions of “learning” attended by Jones and any employee of Jones, et al must be exposed for full discrediting and other consequences. How could such a belief be condoned for an instant by any oversight organization?

    It is wonderful that the arrogance running rampant worldwide is being challenged! If this characteristic is brought under a fair degree of control what a great stride forward for upper level leadership!

  30. In good ol´ times of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, Phil and Edward would have been tarred and feathered and driven out of the town sitting in a wooden bar.

  31. Not many scientists here, are there?

    Standard practice is to outline the initial hypothesis, assumptions, and data, provide a guide of methodology, and conclusions. It is not to provide all of the interim and explicit calculations and values. You don’t release tables of processed data and explicit code.

    Peer review doesn’t work by taking all of a scientist’s numbers ‘along the way’ and running them yourself – you aren’t testing their methodology, you’re simply doing what they did over again. Peer review means you look at the methodology, and using the same assumptions and initial data, designing and running the analysis yourself. If your conclusions are the same, then you validate the paper. If they are different, you inquire where and how your methods and analysis differ. If you cannot reconcile the differences, then in all likelihood the conclusions are not robust enough to pass peer-review.

    Is this harder than simply running a carbon copy code and analysis? Yes.
    Does it actually test the robustness of the conclusions, rather than simply whether you can also make carbon copy code and conclusions? Yes.

    THAT is how peer review, and science, works.

    FTA: “According to the University of East Anglia (UEA) much of the data could not have been released without the permission of the countries which generated the information – and that while the majority had now allowed the figures to be released, a handful had refused to let CRU publish it.”

    There are datasets I have accessed that come with a non-disclosure agreement. I cannot just release it. It’s like ripping a CD and uploading a torrent to the web: sure, I could do it, but I am going to have some legal action taken against me. Is that how I would like it? No, datasets should be free. But that’s the way it is.

  32. “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???”

    Swedish climatological data are freely available from SMHI (the Swedish Weather Office) here:

    http://www.smhi.se/hfa_coord/nordklim/data/Nordklim_data_set_v1_0_2002.xls

    and here:

    http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/dataserier-for-observationsstationer-1961-2008-1.7375

    though this may not be the same station set that CRU used.

    However anyone can just walk into SMHI and demand the data. Sweden has a very strong FOIA (“Offentlighetsprincipen”, actually the “original” FOIA all others are based on). You don’t even have to give your name or tell what you want the data for (and as a matter of fact it is an offence to ask).

  33. Jones and Hansen are two of the founders of “climate science”, aren’t they? They set the standards, then claim “tradition”?

    Hey, Hunter – You sit on your “eye”?

  34. Also from the hearing:

    Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office UK in answering a question as to why the land based temperature data record has shown higher temperature anomaly than the two satellite records explains that the reason is that satellite data is “an order of magnitude” (10x) less accurate than the land based thermometer data [you know those thermometers in latex-painted boxes at the end of aircraft runways and in cities]. She dismisses the urban heat effect by saying “we’ve looked at it” and says the issues with the Mann Hockey Stick have been “resolved” without mentioning that it has been discredited.

    Don’t miss the first part of the hearing discussing the Mann Hockey Stick as “fraudulent” and Mike’s Nature Trick as a deliberate deception intended to hide the decline. Professor Phil Jones trembles and hands shake throughout his testimony as he evades answering questions.

  35. “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???”

    I’m still downloading all the data fom Environment Canada’s website. No one has stopped me. I also phoned originally to see if I could get it on CD, they would provide all the raw data for a fee. Which I was unwilling to pay, so I just get it off their website, which anyone can get.


  36. On the spot: Professor Phil Jones being grilled by the Science and Technology committee in the Commons today

    Poor bloke. Did he ever expect Global Warming to get this hot ?

    Is it fair that he should be taking all the heat ‘though ?

    He was only an over enthusiastic pawn in the grand scheme of things.

  37. If I understood Acton/Jones correctly, Canada didn’t give permission for the CRU to share the data. Instead, they prefer for the data to be downloaded from their website directly. So it may, technically, be true to say that Canada refuses to allow CRU to release their data.

    However, it is NOT correct for the CRU to intimate that Canada refuses to allow access to their data. The provision of a link to the download on the Environment Canada website from CRU or the Met Office would be easy to provide. But that would be contrary to their purposeful and deliberate obfuscations.

    It’s also worth noting that the Met Office’s hard-sell, to the Parliamentary Enquiry, of their/the CRU’s proactive sharing of underlying data DID NOT happen when they were first asked for it. It didn’t happen when they began receiving FOI requests, either. It all ONLY began happening after Climategate. That’s reactive, not proactive.

    And I never heard a more advocacy-laden diatribe than the bilge that spilled forth from Beddington, Slingo and Watson.

  38. rbateman (12:04:13) :
    “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”

    Bring on the next question: To whom was this commercial promise made?
    And what gives a publicly-funded institution the right to sell public info to a commercial enterprise (as if it were true) for profit?

    Seems to me that even if a priate entity gives anything to a public institution it then becomes public by default, including the info of private donation to a non-profit public inst.
    ======

    No, everything given by private entities to public institutions does not become public. Business survey responses are an example of data that are not public.

  39. Since much of this work is being done on the taxpayer’s dime and to influence public policy, then all data needs to be available.

    That the data wasn’t available by “standard practice” shows this was advocacy of a political agenda not open scientific research.

    What might that political agenda be?

    February 25, 2010 (Fox News) — Bali-Hoo: U.N Still Pushing for Global Environmental Control

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587426,00.html

    “Despite the debacle of the failed Copenhagen climate change conference last December, the United Nations is pressing full speed ahead with a plan for a greatly expanded system of global environmental governance and for a multitrillion-dollar economic transfer scheme to ignite the creation of a “global green economy.”

    U. N. documents spell plan for “green global governance”.

    Lord Monckton was absolutely right.

    Money quote from Fox News report:

    “But the major topics [at the Bali conference] are a global system of governance and what amounts to the next stage of a radical transformation of the world economic and social order, in the name of saving the planet.”

    If you value United States of America sovereignty, please read the Fox News report provided by link in total.

    Remember, these are U.N. documents that spell out the political agenda.

  40. Contrary to what you seem to believe, scientific papers are just that: writeups, figures and analysis, not raw data dumps. Scientist do share data with other scientists (though not always, and not as much as they could or probably should – see this report from the Committee on National Statistics for more info on that), but it’s not automatic.

    Is this an ideal state of affairs? No, I don’t think so. At the same time, the harrumphing and shock about data sharing seems a bit overblown to me.

  41. “Prof Jones said a ‘deluge’ of Freedom of Information requests last July had prompted the unit – which has only three full time staff – to try and get more of the data released.”

    Surely when a department applies for research grants STAFFING is included in the budget. Considering the millions obtained by this unit crying poor regards staffing is a but on the nose isn’t it?

  42. gcb (12:07:55) : I did my undergrad in geology some years ago. There, it was standard practice to hide your data – but ONLY until you’d published your research, because you didn’t want to get “scooped”.

    Exactly! That’s how it is done in physics too and we all understand the submission from the Institute of Physics.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

    Sometimes, however, physicists are so afraid of being scooped that they publish a preprint to the http://xxx.lanl.gov/ server. But in physics the whole point in publishing is to demonstrate to others what you did and how you did it – for physicists unfounded claims are completely pointless! Imagine Einstein stating that that the speed of light is constant without an explanation, now what can we learn from that?

    To me it seems that the most intelligent scientists are not working in the mainstream climate science establishment…

  43. Yet another example of Post Normal Science. It’s amazing how after the first PNS object was discovered, many more follow in quick succession – a bit like hunting for extra solar planets.

    We should thank Professor Ravetz for giving us the tools to make these observations.

  44. Nick (12:29:22) :
    Not many scientists here, are there?

    Standard practice is to outline the initial hypothesis, assumptions, and data, provide a guide of methodology, and conclusions. It is not to provide all of the interim and explicit calculations and values. You don’t release tables of processed data and explicit code.

    ==========================================

    1) Introduction: outline hypothesis
    2) Materials and methods: e.g. where you went for observations, or the design of your lab experiments with all recipes for all ingredients/solutions; statistical methods used
    3) Results: what happened, from day one; raw data, tables; workings of statistics; etc
    4) Discussion: discuss one’s findings, contrast and compare to those in the literature

    Thats how I was taught to write scientific papers, and woe befell us if we had elements of discussion in other sections, and if methods had any results in it – and if the results had not everything in it which had been done.

    Might be a tad old-fashioned, and it certainly was not climate science, but not publishing all the data was simply unthinkable.

    But then again – pace Phil Jones today, not doing it this way is a ‘fact of life’ in climate science. Perhaps that is why so many of us have such difficulties with the ‘science’ part of his subject.

  45. Nick (12:29:22) :
    Not many scientists here, are there?

    Standard practice is to outline the initial hypothesis, assumptions, and data, provide a guide of methodology, and conclusions. It is not to provide all of the interim and explicit calculations and values. You don’t release tables of processed data and explicit code.

    Peer review doesn’t work by taking all of a scientist’s numbers ‘along the way’ and running them yourself – you aren’t testing their methodology, you’re simply doing what they did over again. Peer review means you look at the methodology, and using the same assumptions and initial data, designing and running the analysis yourself. If your conclusions are the same, then you validate the paper. If they are different, you inquire where and how your methods and analysis differ. If you cannot reconcile the differences, then in all likelihood the conclusions are not robust enough to pass peer-review.

    Is this harder than simply running a carbon copy code and analysis? Yes.
    Does it actually test the robustness of the conclusions, rather than simply whether you can also make carbon copy code and conclusions? Yes.

    THAT is how peer review, and science, works.

    FTA: “According to the University of East Anglia (UEA) much of the data could not have been released without the permission of the countries which generated the information – and that while the majority had now allowed the figures to be released, a handful had refused to let CRU publish it.”

    There are datasets I have accessed that come with a non-disclosure agreement. I cannot just release it. It’s like ripping a CD and uploading a torrent to the web: sure, I could do it, but I am going to have some legal action taken against me. Is that how I would like it? No, datasets should be free. But that’s the way it is.
    ———–

    I agree. I believe there is much misunderstanding about FOI law.

  46. John Peter (11:40:57) :

    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”.

    If such data is the property of a sovereign nation, and that data has been obtained via taxpayer dollars, it seems odd they would be making “commercial promises.” If the data has been paid for by a private entity, such a demand might make sense. The purpose of government funding this type research is to SHARE it with the academic community worldwide.

    This rings very hollow.

  47. Nick (12:29:22) :

    I’ll refer you to the practice of reproducible results.

    But on the facts of the jones case, As I laid them out:

    In 2002 prior to ANY publication by steve mcintyre, Jones provided
    Mcintyre with temperature data. In his letter, he shows that he had
    an awareness of confidentiality agreements covering this data. he shared
    the data. that was his practice. that is the record.

    From 2000 to 2004 Jones has correspondence with warwick hughes.
    that coorespondence shows that Jones was aware of agreements and thought that WMO guidelines should allow its release.

    In 2003 Mcintyre publishes a paper critical of Mann.

    In Jan of 2005 MM05 is published. It is critical of mann.

    Contemporaneously, Wigley ( in jan 2005) asks Jones about a flyer he
    has received on FOIA. Wigley is concerned about releasing code. Jones
    is concerned and complains about Hughes asking him for data. Jones
    says that if FOIA is invoked, he will destroy the data.

    On feb 21 2005, keith Briffa forwards a collection of editorials to
    Jones. These editorials are critical of mann for not sharing data.

    On feb 21 2005, Jones refuses Hughes request and says that EVEN IF
    the WMO orders him to, he will not share the data. His reason?
    NOT scientific standards. His reason? he thinks Hughes aims to find mistakes.

    In 2007 Willis Eschenbach issues the first FOIA for the data. he is refused.
    Reason? not standard scientific practice but rather, Jones argues that the
    data is already available, except for 2%.

    In 2009; McIntyre becomes aware that Jones has shared this data with Webster. he asks for the same data. he is refused. Reason? Not scientific
    standards, but rather confidentiality.

    When the mails come out we find that Jones has also shared the data with
    Scott Rutherford.

    So, simply. Jones shared the data with McIntyre in 2002. Jones
    shows an awareness of these agreements
    Mc publishes 2 papers critical of Mann, one in 2003 the other in 2005.
    After that Jones changes his practice. he will share this confidential data
    with Rutherford and Webster, BUT he refuses to share with Eschenbach and Mcintyre, citing confidentiality in both cases.

    the record shows that jones had a practice. It was not a standard practice.
    it was not a scientific practice.

    Those are the facts. deal with it. If Jones wants to say its not standrda to share, then why did he share with Rutherford and Webster? If he wants to hide behind the agreements, then why didnt these agreements matter with rutherford and webster?

  48. Actually there is a sense in which Jones is correct — for example, pick some scientific finding not connected to climate science, call up the scientists, and ask for all their raw data. Sooner or later you’ll realized that they aren’t going to give it to you in any helpful form. Their reasoning is (not that they’ll admit it to you) that if you’re not qualified to understand it then it’s a thankless task, and if you are qualified then they are just creating more competition for the next round of grant money. The article “Big Science Poker Game” at

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5221

    explains how non-profit researchers acquire this attitude.

  49. Al Gore and other warmists have cited published statements of the National Academy of Sciences to buttress their continued defense of AGW. I sent the following message to NAS but don’t expect any prompt reply:

    I’ve been trying to find on your site any evidence of your organization investigating possible fraud in your climate studies. UEA and CRU in Britain are exposing troubling instances of unscientific methods being used in their climate data, covering up data, and freezing out researchers with contradictory viewpoints. Whatever the shabby nature of British science, please tell me that nothing like this can happen in the hallowed halls of the American science community?

    By the way, entering “climategate” in your search engine comes up empty.

  50. Robert of Ottawa (12:25:25) :

    Is the CRU working on Cold Fusion in their spare time?
    ————
    Reply:
    Please do not elevate climate science to the level of Cold Fusion.
    ;-)

  51. Nick (12:29:22),

    Your explanations are at odds with the scientific method. And that seems to be the central problem in government-funded science: we’re supposed to take their word for it. Trust them. Is that it?

  52. WRT the confidentiality agreements.

    I currently have an FOIA appeal into CRU. Many people argue that CRU cannot share the data because of these agreements. That is wrong on the law.

    Both the FOIA and EIR law allow CRU to BREAK the confidentiality agreement if the release is in the public interest.

    More importantly, CRU do not have a “blanket” right TO ACQUIRE confidential data. The FOIA guidelines dictate that they SHOW the following: they must demonstrate that the data is NECESSARY to their mission.
    The result of my FOIA on this revealed that they did no analysis to show
    that confidential data is NECESSARY. In fact if you look at Jones testimony, he argues that it is not.

  53. DirkH (12:18:23, It is called the Journal of Irreproducible Results and may be found at jir.com. I don’t think that they will refuse any submissions from Jones, et al, not because they are not reproducible or because they are not funny (they are) but because they lack humor which is a strict requirement for publication in the JIR..

  54. In the 1980s the US government was criticised for obstructing scientific information availability with a view to denying it to the USSR. The politically correct view was that this was unacceptable interference with science. Whatever the wisdom or otherwise of that, it has mysteriously been replaced by exactly the opposite view. It is now fine to publish work like the hockey stick, which affected policy on a global basis, without providing the detailed data and procedures which would permit replication of this work.

  55. Seems a bit odd to me, but I was just in Vancouver for the games, and it seemed that all of the people who were protesting and opposed to the games were hardcore environmentalist types. Eco-terrorists just hate life in general I guess.

  56. Until thus statement from Jones- essentially a lie to justify the unjusitifiable, I retained a degree of sympathy for someone who felt himself “under pressure”.
    With this lie, Jones has revealed his true colours- those of a cheat and a charlatan.

    He is s a disgrace to the scientific community.

  57. Nick,

    “Peer review doesn’t work by taking all of a scientist’s numbers ‘along the way’ and running them yourself – you aren’t testing their methodology, you’re simply doing what they did over again. Peer review means you look at the methodology, and using the same assumptions and initial data, designing and running the analysis yourself. If your conclusions are the same, then you validate the paper. If they are different, you inquire where and how your methods and analysis differ. If you cannot reconcile the differences, then in all likelihood the conclusions are not robust enough to pass peer-review.”

    Nice exposition. Now point me to where all that you say was done in respect to, for example, peer review of MBH98 and MBH99?

  58. Phil Jones: “You’re only seeing a tenth of one per cent of my emails in this group. l don’t think there’s anything in those emails that supports any views that I or the CRU are trying to pervert the peer review process in any way. I’ve just been giving my views on specific papers
    What about a FOIA request for the 99.9 per cent missing?

  59. Douglas Cohen (12:58:34) : The article “Big Science Poker Game” at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5221 explains how non-profit researchers acquire this attitude.

    I tend to agree with this point of view, many primitive areas of science resembles cargo-cult-science more than real science, in fact this is exactly what Richard Feynman concluded:

    http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

    However, the closer you get to the difficult parts of science like physics, mathematics and chemistry, the less cargo-cult-science you find. Why so much cargo-cult-science is found in climate science is an interesting question, in particular since climate science is so strongly based on both physics and mathematics.

    Again, a claim without any explanation is pointless. Imagine Einstein stating that that the speed of light is constant without an explanation, now what could we learn from that?

  60. @Nick (12:29:22) :
    “Not many scientists here, are there?”

    Plenty, myself included, but even if there were not, most people can see that your post is full of nonsense.

    “Standard practice is to outline the initial hypothesis, assumptions, and data, provide a guide of methodology, and conclusions. It is not to provide all of the interim and explicit calculations and values. You don’t release tables of processed data and explicit code.”

    No one asked for interim values, only the raw data and the methodology used to produce the results. Without those, there is no way to reporduceor falsify the work.

    “Peer review doesn’t work by taking all of a scientist’s numbers ‘along the way’ and running them yourself – you aren’t testing their methodology, you’re simply doing what they did over again. Peer review means you look at the methodology, and using the same assumptions and initial data, designing and running the analysis yourself.”

    You have a king-sized vision of peer-review. You can’t be be saying that all the CRU papers that were peer-reviewed that way before publication. That was absolutely NOT done by anyone who reviewed CRU papers; they didn’t have the data, either! What you describe is what other scientists want to do in order to coorborate or falsify the work.

    “There are datasets I have accessed that come with a non-disclosure agreement. I cannot just release it. It’s like ripping a CD and uploading a torrent to the web:…”

    However, that was NOT the case with the datasets in question. The only constraints were to include the source of the data, the caveats, and not charge for the data itself. In fact, in the Canadian case, the agreement clearly allows charging for “value added.”

    Your responses are classics in discombobulation!

  61. So whats the point of “peer review” if the datas not shared as standard practice?

    And why does is called climate “science” ( such as we see it now) the exception?

    Its just as bad as we suspected, in fact its probably worse, with Mr Jones and his pals virtually destroying the idea of science in short order in favour of a faith based system.
    I cannot understand how things have been allowed to go this far.
    Jail the lot of them.

  62. As there are many ‘climate scientists’, why not ask some of them (the non-CRU ones) what the standard practice is in climate science.

    This could prove/disprove Jones’ statement.

    I was also distrubed that in Steve Moshers’ comment, Jones is quoted as saying:

    “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.”

    Statistics is not my forte so I was a little surprised that Jones could develop a monthly annual temp value with ONE data point. Any statistician care to comment in terms that us laymen can understand (and believe).

  63. Gee, you would think temperature data should be treated with the same level of secrecy that nuclear bomb design is.

    Of course if you have something to hide, maybe it should …

    A major start from scratch do over is needed. First up, prove CO2 can do what it presumed to do. And can’t we just measure that point?

  64. He may be right.
    Doing ‘reverse science’, where the result is set and just has to be proven, there are other rules reversed as well.
    Don’t you understand?

  65. John Peter (11:40:57) :

    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.

    I bet this wouldn’t have applied only to their temperature data. If that alone had been released, it would not have severely lowered the commercial value of their entire data sets, which included precipitation, humidity, and wind. Most potential commercial purchasers would not have gained the knowledge they wanted from temperature alone.

    Therefore, this seems like an unjustified, letter-of-the-law interpretation of the situation by Jones.

  66. Poor Jones, he looks so silly with all his excuses not to share data.
    How can we take somebody like him and his work still seriously?
    I think with his appearence before the committee he really lost credibility

  67. Here is the video

    http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979

    Jones’ testimony begins at 1:02. At 1:12 he states that all methods are disclosed in the scientific papers. The ‘standard practice’ remark comes at 1:17. It is clear that he is referring to ‘codes’ rather than data, and if you review the question to which he is responding it is clear that this is meant as ‘computer codes’ or software.

    Jones is explaining that it is not standard practice to release computer software as part of publishing a paper. Which is no more or less than the truth.

    Now where in the video does he say that not sharing data is ‘standard practice’? Time reference please.

    For those readers outside the UK – the Daily Mail’s credibility on matters scientific is pretty much zilch.

  68. but climategate shows us (paraphrase)

    ….don’t you guys tell anyone about the UK freedom of information act……

    that is standard too?

  69. I hope the investigation also gets into the issue of why corrections/adjustments/homogenizations/etc/etc/etc are not fully documented for EVERY change to EVERY data point, which I would expect of anyone’s interpretation of scientific method.

    It is not only important to know which raw data sets were AVAILABLE to be used by CRU, we need to know which raw data WAS used, then HOW that raw data was manipulated (or discarded) to achieve the results that CRU publish. As we saw with Harry’s readme file, this is not obvious.

  70. Just to be clear – Jones is a Climactic Researcher which is climate
    Patchy Morals is a Climaxtic Researcher which is to do with climax.

  71. If it is not standard practice, then why do many journals and societies have an archival requirement for data and methods?

    Remember that it was the Royal Society’s requirement that got Briffa to release his data.

  72. Enron leaders are in jail for this reason.

    “intangible right to honest services”

    Jones can’t release data as he says in his e-mail because people want to see if he is dishonest.

    Jone thinks his science is fine and understand otheres can’t repeat his findings.

  73. Just listening to the committee when questioned if the peer reviewers of his reports requested the raw data, methodology and computer codes. Phil Jones said:

    “They’ve never asked”

    So Phil Jones has admitted in his own words the peer review process was reduced to a simple sign off procedure. How is it possible to peer review the final product without knowing the methodology.

    This one admission alone is priceless. And reason enough to scrap the entire output of the CRU. Its reports now boil down to three people (Phil and a couple of post grad researchers) and their opinion.

  74. PJB (12:11:49) :
    You submit answers to test questions and get a passing grade.

    When asked to show your work you reply: “Why should I?”

    GUILTY AS CHARGED!

    That’s a great point, and one any University Prof *should* understand. If you don’t show your work you fail.

    I recall on a few occasions neglecting to follow the “show your work” instructions and getting correct answers marked wrong for it. I never bitched and moaned and complained to the Dean about it, it was my fault.

  75. Do you struggle to remove those stubborn, hard to hide declines?
    Are you wasting hours each day fighting endless Freedom of Information requests?
    Are you wasting time and money torturing your data to make it confess?

    Help is at hand with Professor Ravetz’s PNS. With PNS you don’t have to let observations get in the way of your theories because PNS sweeps away that bugbear of all climate scientists – falsifiability. With Professor Ravetz’s PNS everything becomes consistent with your theory.

    Weather too cold? Hey, no problem – with PNS it’s all part of your theory. Himalayan glaciers not in meltdown? No problem. With PNS you can sweep it under the carpet. Steve McIntyre on your case? No problem with a quick squirt of Professor Ravetz’s PNS.

    PNS – kills scientifc methods – dead.

  76. Nick (12:29:22)

    Dear Nick,

    the harder people like you fight to hide things the more suspicious you look.

    So please, put your back into it man! Your not working hard enough. Don’t hold anything back! Fight on man, fight on. Show your true colors!

    LET US SEE HOW AWFUL AND CURRUPT THIS WHOLE GLOBAL WARMING FARRAGO IS!

  77. In a normal science, the most powerful test of an hypothesis and its evidence is via experimental replication. In comparison, peer review is a poor second cousin of experimental replication.

    With Climate Science hypotheses, experimental replication is generally not possible – there is often no experiment to begin with. The best that can be done is to re-analyse the climate data. This is why it is so important to share the data that climate hypotheses are based on – there is no other way to approximate an experimental replication.

    For Jones to say “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” means that climate scientists are effectively preventing replication tests – and this means that what they are practicing is not science.

  78. Vincent (13:42:07) :

    That’s a global warming sham–wow if ever there was one!

  79. Wren (12:40:17) :

    Ok. Then the CRU Climate Research data was actually a Climate Survery Response, in which case, it’s much like the IPCC advocacy survey. Opinion, not actual findings.
    To be fair, Jones did say the data does not support any warming conclusively, and as far back as 15 years nothing happening.

  80. Anyone else notice that in the picture he is, quite obviously throwing a West Side gang sign. As a representative of the University of East Anglia, who should be reprasentin’ the East Side and this can only be seen as a ‘dis’ (short for disrespect) against either the West Anglians, the Welsh or, more likely, his former colleagues in America that have distanced (also another form of ‘dissing’) themselves from him in recent months.

    What comes next will be no surprise for those in the know, a cross-Atlantic Rap-Science Battle is brewing.

    Peace out,
    His Pimptasticness: U-P-G-R-A-Y-E-D-D

  81. Manna from Heaven! Haul these fraudsters in front of government committees and let them talk.

  82. Yes I can see it the importance of it now.

    The world, our reality, the human race, will end in 90 years time, unless you pay me at least $1000 per person per year for…. ever.

    You want to see my data? Screw you you [snip]-heretic!!!

  83. If you were publishing original research in a journal you would not expect to be asked for your raw data for the publication. However, if you were working in the public sector, and did not need to keep data confidential for commercial reasons, you should have no objection to handing over files of raw data if asked by another researcher in the field.

    I cannot see any viable reason why a country should consider their temperature data copyright, for sole use or otherwise. Copyright covers original ideas such as literature, art and music, where there is a prohibition on plagiarism and a royalty due to the originator. I cannot see how that applies to temperature data that is publicly funded and carries no fee. Can anyone explain?

    I’ll resist the temptation to suggest that copyright applies because the data is a work of fiction, that would be childish.

  84. @Phil Clarke (13:33:17)

    That’s a level of nuance reserved for spinners and partisans. The court of public opinion could care a wit about this technicality when the phrase NOT SHARING is associated with it.

  85. “He also said the scientific journals which had published his papers had never asked to see it.”

    I weep.

  86. ” Home | Al Gore 2008 Draft Campaign **
    Will Al Gore Run in 2008? … Sea levels are rising, fires are raging, storms are stronger.
    http://www.algore.org

    Run, Al, run.
    …-

    “2010 Brings First Tornado-Free February

    While the so-called Snowmageddon and Snowicane tm blizzards that book-ended the month got much of the nation’s attention, not a single tornado was reported in the United States during February 2010.

    According to the Storm Prediction Center (SPC), no tornadoes were reported last month.

    “It’s a phenomenal feat that we went a month without a tornado,” said AccuWeather.com Expert Senior Meteorologist Henry Margusity.

    If the statistic stands, it would be the first tornado-free February in at least 60 years.

    February typically has 22 tornadoes on average, based on reports dating back to 1950 from the SPC.”

    http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/25571/2010-brings-first-tornadofree.asp

  87. The pity me/victim card didn’t work so he’s back to his usual self. His displays of arrogance show no signs of ever being suicidal or depressed as his buddies in the media tried to make the public believe.

  88. PaulT (12:00:25) :
    Canadian climate data is available online. See link below:

    http://climat.meteo.gc.ca/prods_servs/index_e.html

    As far as I can see there are no restrictions on the redistribution of Canadian data in the context of the uses (research) being discussed. See item 2 below. I think that the claim from Edward Acton is worthy of further research.
    ======
    I’m not sure Acton said there were restrictions on the redistribution of Canadian data. Jones said Canada wanted request for their data to made to them.

    If you can get it from them, why ask Jones for it anyway?

  89. ” Nick (12:29:22) :

    Not many scientists here, are there?

    Standard practice is to outline the initial hypothesis, assumptions, and data, provide a guide of methodology, and conclusions. It is not to provide all of the interim and explicit calculations and values. You don’t release tables of processed data and explicit code.

    Actually, I am a scientist, or I was until made redundant last year. I worked in the Pharmaceutical industry. Our peer reviewers are the FDA and European regulatory bodies who have the power to shut research sites down / levy huge fines if they find anything amiss in new drug submissions. So yes, in the industry I worked in we had to be prepared to provide, reports, data, and give access if required right back to the raw data, from the lab book and printouts from scientific instruments.

    Anything less than this level of disclosure and openness is just bad science. And how come the Pharmaceutical industry gets a bad name wheras the global warming industry was the darling of governments??? Well, it is all about to change!

  90. One thing Jones’s defenders ignore is that NONE of the data was created through experimentation by Jones and his associates. The raw data all came from various meteorological organisations. It is unthinkable that a genuine scientist involved in what is claimed by them to be world shattering research, with implications for every single one of us, would not automatically make ALL his work available so that someone could prove him wrong, as they all say they want to be wrong, don’t they? Doubly so for a scientist whose output is then used by other researchers to “prove” his claims.

  91. “Cadae (13:45:57) :

    In a normal science, the most powerful test of an hypothesis and its evidence is via experimental replication. In comparison, peer review is a poor second cousin of experimental replication.”

    No, not at all! Peer Review is just to weed out weak papers and give the auhor of the paper hints as to where he better strengthen his argument. Experimental replication is completely independent of this!

  92. I like the gangsta sign Jones is making. I wonder if he bought some gold chains with taxpayer’s money to go with his climate gangsta attitude.

  93. Nick — Peer review doesn’t work by taking all of a scientist’s numbers ‘along the way’ and running them yourself – you aren’t testing their methodology, you’re simply doing what they did over again.

    No, pal, it is *you* who fails to comprehend. There’s a great deal more than mere peer review to consider.

    If I pay tax so the state can build a road, I don’t need to file a FIOA request to drive on it.

    If I vote part of my tax burden is to pay for result compilation. I don’t need to file a FIOA request to see election results.

    And so on.

    This is taxpayer paid data, hence I own it. It is mine.

    Sure, there’s some data witheld in some taxpayer funded cases because it’s probably not a good idea to put nuke info in the hands of bad guys. But we’re talking temperatures here, not weapons tech.

    Plus, I’m also looking at politicians trying to use this data that I’m not allowed to see to affect my life.

    Furthermore.

    In some fields of science, looking at numbers and how they are derived is the crux of a paper and therefore the only relevant mechanism available.

    e.g. a simple school-level experiment, looking at lemons acting as batteries. Is it necessary to see the figures showing the current of each lemon if the purpose is to look at electrode composition? Not really. On the other hand, if the entire point of the experiment is to see what variety produces the most current, then this raw current data is what’s relevant.

    In climate science, the production of a hockey stick is utterly dependent on the math used to create it, since apparently the stick doesn’t exist outside the formulae used. Of course looking at the code is relevant; it’s the sole point of the paper.

    And of course… I paid for it. It’s mine. Hand it over.

  94. Having listened to a recent interview with Mann, and watched Prof, Alley’s talk to the American Geophysical Union, I’m pretty convinced that these people (and probably Jones too) are sincere. They believe the AGW hypothesis. They see the sceptic weblogs as wanton spoilers; they seem to believe that the battle of ideas is skewed by sceptics’ vast financial resource dwarfing that of the warmists(!!!). This is not irony – listen to Mann at: http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michael_mann_unprecedented_attacks_on_climate_research/ He feels like the little guy in a David v Goliath struggle; the tiny Copenhagen meeting (was it in the back room of a pub?) unable to compete with the massive sceptic spin-machine. I kid you not: listen to his voice and look for a crafty twinkle in his eye – you’ll find none.

    This Great Debate will be resolved by actual data refuting the AGW hypothesis; but the two warring factions need to agree a mutually-acceptable dataset with no funny business, and to agree on ‘falsifiability’ criteria, the point at which the Hockey Team can declare, “OK, we were wrong”. Following their recent humiliation, the Hockey Team may dig in all the more. Their psychology is as self-confirming as any religious zealot’s.

    Yes, the likes of Steve McIntyre have had to fight like hell for disclosure, and had he been less pugnacious he’d have got nowhere. But now that we have the momentum, a little tact and diplomacy are called for. Rub their noses in it, and they’ll never capitulate: they can hold out for decades saying, “The recent cold spell is merely a pause in global warming.”

    We need the modern-day equivalent of Einstein’s eclipse. Only if there is bilateral agreement of the pass/fail criteria can we prevent this poppycock lasting decades. Jaysus, I don’t want to have to send my ghost back to ask, “Hey, what was the score?”

  95. The thing that sounds the worst to me is that he appears to think that it is acceptable not to go into too much detail on the method. In many fields of science it is possible to summarise a method which is reproducible and unambiguous in about half a page. In the methodology section there should be surfeiting information for the work to be reproduced so that if the work is correct then the conclusions should not change. In climate science however the method is a lot more involved than in many other areas of science, the many aspects of which can have significant effects on the conclusion. Any paper on temperature reconstructions then would be expected to be at least half filled with detailing, justifying, discussing and testing the robustness of the methodology. Robust means that the conclusions can withstand changes to areas of ambiguity in the procedure. If you haven’t accurately described or disclosed your procedure then you are not entitled to claim that your conclusions are robust.

  96. I’ve listened to Dr Jones speak. I can assure you all he’s not a witch – although I suppose that kind of fairly close contact might make me one?

  97. If you don’t show how you got your results, how can you claim to be doing ‘science’?

    Phil seems to see others doing other things with others sets of data but getting the same results as equal to replication. To verify the CRU work others need:

    The raw data or pointing to the sources of the raw data.
    Details of the adjustment and homogenisation processes.
    The computer code for the climate projections.

    They need to repeat what CRU did not just get the same result.

  98. …in other words, you got your paper peer-reviewed, fine, the jury about the correctness of your science is still out. Nobody expects the peer “judges” to catch every flaw. Most of the times they can’t do that due to lack of time, lab equipment, money, staff etc. It would also be expecting too much of the judges.

    Peer review is and always has been an editorial process. Replication of the scientific results and independent evaluation is much more costly and needs to be done IN ADDITION to the peer review/whatever else was done in publishing to find out whether the science is substantial. Or let’s say maybe it should have been done before governments decided it would be a great idea to transform the entire economy using underdeveloped technoly combined wih billion dollar tax hikes.

  99. Phil Clarke — Jones is explaining that it is not standard practice to release computer software as part of publishing a paper. Which is no more or less than the truth.

    If there’s no other way to see how the numbers were generated, then this isn’t science — of course the code is to be released.

    Especially if we’re paying for it.

    Am I the only one here who has a problem with the apparent fact that what we have here is people employed on our backs and then refusing to let us examine — in any level of detail we like — what we paid for?

  100. Wren (14:29:08) :
    If you can get it from them, why ask Jones for it anyway?

    Nobody knew what subset of date he was using. This is about as good as when, I believe, around last August-September timeframe he pointed to GHCN and said, more or less, most of it’s in there.

    Regardless of the constantly shifting claims, his temperature reconstruction was and still is for all intents and purposes a black box for everyone – including him if he really did lose his unadjusted RAW data.

    Some days I almost feel sorry for him on the chance that this wasn’t intentional, other days I would like to see him publicly shamed and defrocked… but there is absolutely no excusing his behavior as acceptable. He is either inept or a fraudulent.

  101. I think Jones is going to need a very tall ladder to climb out that hole he’s digging for himself..

  102. >>Wren (14:29:08) :

    >>I’m not sure Acton said there were restrictions on the redistribution of Canadian data. Jones said Canada wanted request for their data to made to them.

    >>If you can get it from them, why ask Jones for it anyway?

    In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

    You don’t think it would be relevant to see how the CRU, ahem, added value to the raw data?

  103. Are there any penalties in prospect for people who lie to Parliamentary enquiries?

    And are any of the MPs doing the questioning actually capable of understanding the answers for what they are?

    I hope the answer to both is “Yes”, but I doubt it.

  104. ‘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.’

    I though that once a scientist does work for the IPCC, ALL His or HERS research has to made available for review if it is to be included in the IPCC report.

  105. The [snip] gross exaggeration of the small error McIntyre discovered in GISS temp records(i.e.,the correction for1934 and1998) confirms Jones was right to be wary of how data could end up being misused.

  106. Al Gore’s Holy Hologram (14:36:11) :

    (Apologies to Spock, et al) Isn’t that sign showing that Jones wants
    to live long and prosper (more grants, etc.)? I think those Vulcan
    gangs had to deal with a lot of warming too….

  107. *****************
    DirkH (12:18:23) :

    Isn’t there a journal for unreproducible results?

    I only hope one journalist on this planet understands the implications.
    *******************
    I believe Cold Fusion was put in that one, so this one surely belongs.

  108. Even the Guardian is less than complimentary in their reporting.

    “Jones’s general defence was that anything people didn’t like – the strong-arm tactics to silence critics, the cold-shouldering of freedom of information requests, the economy with data sharing – were all “standard practice” among climate scientists. “Maybe it should be, but it’s not.”

    And he seemed to be right. The most startling observation came when he was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication asked to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. “They’ve never asked,” he said.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry

  109. “Wren (14:54:16) :

    The [snip] gross exaggeration of the small error McIntyre discovered in GISS temp records(i.e.,the correction for1934 and1998) confirms Jones was right to be wary of how data could end up being misused.”

    That’s a misuse for you? Of course it was a “small” error, the entire climate science talks about fractions of degrees all the time and spends all their time trying to find an anthropogenic signal in the noise of natural variation. If you ask me, that’s like looking into an old CRT TV with no signal and trying to recognize the face of a deceased one in the noise. Before the correction, 1998 was the teensiest bit warmer than 1934 and the worldwide media machine went into overdrive about it, catastrophe was just around the corner! That’s “small” for you. McIntyre’s discovery BTW was NEVER reported by the MSM. That’s “exaggeration” for you?

  110. Phil Clarke (13:33:17) :

    Not sharing code that’s used to produce the results is just as bad as not sharing data; it makes it impossible to verify said results.

  111. Wren (14:54:16)

    Was McIntyre the one screaming from the rooftops “WARMEST YEAR EVAR!!!!!1!!!111!!!!!!ELEVEN”?

    If these alleged scientists had any integrity at all they would not have allowed their work to be exaggerated and misused. Hell, they were complicit in its exaggeration and misuse. They didn’t even raise an eyebrow as claim after claim was made in support of not just AGW Theory, but CAGW Hysteria.

    I love how EVERYTHING bad that happens is the fault of the skeptics. Just check out Al Gore’s Op/Ed in the NYT – “I represented magazine articles and junk science from advocacy groups as solid consensus science”… “I broke the law by obstructing/circumventing FOIA requests”… it’s all “understandable”, it’s all the skeptics’ fault.

    AGW is a faith not a science and I can prove it… just ask any believer how AGW Theory could be falsified and they will not be able to provide an answer.

  112. “Standard Practice”

    L-O-L

    Phil Jones, you more than anyone else just cast your profession into the realm of pseudo-science.

  113. DirkH (14:33:46) :

    “No, not at all! Peer Review is just to weed out weak papers and give the auhor of the paper hints as to where he better strengthen his argument. Experimental replication is completely independent of this!”

    Correct, experimental replication is independent of peer review – however (and this is the point I’m making and you have missed ) the best proof of their hypotheses that many Climate Scientists and their supporters can present is “peer reviewed papers”. They are using the peer review process as a substitue for the experimental replication process that is prevalent in other sciences.

    The closest that a relatively non-experimental science such as climate science can come to replication is to share the data and methods on which hypotheses are tested.

    By not sharing his data and methods, Jones effectively prevents replication tests.

  114. JackStraw (14:48:30) :
    >>Wren (14:29:08) :

    >>I’m not sure Acton said there were restrictions on the redistribution of Canadian data. Jones said Canada wanted request for their data to made to them.

    >>If you can get it from them, why ask Jones for it anyway?

    In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

    You don’t think it would be relevant to see how the CRU, ahem, added value to the raw data?
    ====
    I think it would be highly relevant if my purpose was to find small flaws that I and/or others could blow out of proportion to discredit the “value added.”

    It also would be relevant if I were curious about exactly how the value was added, but I doubt I would be unless the added value seemed strange.

  115. John of Kent (14:30:21) :
    ” Nick (12:29:22) :

    Not many scientists here, are there?

    Standard practice is to outline the initial hypothesis, assumptions, and data, provide a guide of methodology, and conclusions. It is not to provide all of the interim and explicit calculations and values. You don’t release tables of processed data and explicit code.

    Actually, I am a scientist, or I was until made redundant last year. I worked in the Pharmaceutical industry. Our peer reviewers are the FDA and European regulatory bodies who have the power to shut research sites down / levy huge fines if they find anything amiss in new drug submissions. So yes, in the industry I worked in we had to be prepared to provide, reports, data, and give access if required right back to the raw data, from the lab book and printouts from scientific instruments.

    Anything less than this level of disclosure and openness is just bad science. And how come the Pharmaceutical industry gets a bad name wheras the global warming industry was the darling of governments??? Well, it is all about to change!
    =====
    I don’t think pharmaceutical companies are required by FOI laws to give me their e-mails.

  116. where is Steve McIntyre? What? won’t be testifying?

    What’s a ClimateGate hearing without Steve McIntyre? Why, it’s not a ClimateGate hearing at all!

  117. Don’t feel sorry for Phil. He’s going to negotiate a settlement package with a two way confidentiality agreement for an undisclosed sum of money. Then he’ll write a book or cooperate in the making of a movie as a consultant. He will make more money out of this disaster than he can spend in the rest of his life.

    But back to the “confidential data”, Suppose you had surefire documented evidence that the world was going to end in ten days and it could be prevented. What would you do? Hands up, the number of people who would be calling every single person they know and going LOOK AT THIS! LOOK! even if it was something you stole and could go to jail for. Wow. Lotsa hands. OK, now how many people would run around screaming the world is going to end! Never mind how I know, I just know. Hmmm… no hands.

  118. Fred Pierce at the Guardian reports of Jones here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry

    “But for the first time he did concede publicly that when he tried to repeat the 1990 study in 2008, he came up with radically different findings. Or, as he put it, “a slightly different conclusion”. Fully 40% of warming there in the past 60 years was due to urban influences. “It’s something we need to consider,” he said.”

    Well, well, well! I didn’t know that!

  119. Super D (14:36:23) :

    Sounds to me like the fix is in.

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    with no Steve M around I may have reason to agree with you.

  120. You’ve got to laugh at the number of scientists popping up saying this is how science works. Well don’t think we didn’t notice that guys, and by the way, we also noticed there is a correspondingly huge amount of junk science going around, most of it based on spurious correlations. Happily the vast majority of it isn’t worth bothering about. Sometimes it is though and this is one of those times!

  121. This has been going on for too long for them to not have released their data and codes.
    If they had any faith in their “theory”, they would have been more than willing to prove it.

  122. Much anguish and fury I wonder what it signifies ? I see big Al in the news today trying to calm the waters in the hopes that change will occur in the Senate with some new bill being sponsered for all of our own good. Follow the money.

  123. @Nick, ‘Not many scientists here, are there?

    Standard practice is to outline the initial hypothesis, assumptions, and data, provide a guide of methodology, and conclusions. It is not to provide all of the interim and explicit calculations and values. You don’t release tables of processed data and explicit code.’

    If I claim the sun is about to fry your ass dead before your natural lifetime is up, how much information would you require before you even started to consider to believe that was true?

  124. Steve Goddard (15:06:31) :

    They should offer him immunity to spill the beans.

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………

    I don’t know if they are really after the beans.

  125. >>Wren (15:26:49) :

    >>I think it would be highly relevant if my purpose was to find small flaws that I and/or others could blow out of proportion to discredit the “value added.”

    I see. So basically you are against the scientific process and don’t really care if what Jones and Co. are saying is true or not despite the implications this has for the world. Ok.

    >>It also would be relevant if I were curious about exactly how the value was added, but I doubt I would be unless the added value seemed strange.

    And they do. Sort of the entire point.

  126. Nick (12:29:22) :

    Not many scientists here, are there?

    How conclusions may be verified without actual data, including metadata and methodology, is beyond me.

    I do know that in every undergrad science course I took, I’d have failed miserably had I simply presented my conclusions with nothing else. Are you saying that somehow climate science is above the requirements for physics, biology, etc.?

  127. DirkH (12:18:23) :

    Isn’t there a journal for unreproducible results?

    Called The Guardian isn’t it…?

  128. “Wren (14:54:16) :

    The [snip] gross exaggeration of the small error McIntyre discovered in GISS temp records(i.e.,the correction for1934 and1998) confirms Jones was right to be wary of how data could end up being misused.”

    That’s a misuse for you? Of course it was a “small” error, the entire climate science talks about fractions of degrees all the time and spends all their time trying to find an anthropogenic signal in the noise of natural variation. If you ask me, that’s like looking into an old CRT TV with no signal and trying to recognize the face of a deceased one in the noise. Before the correction, 1998 was the teensiest bit warmer than 1934 and the worldwide media machine went into overdrive about it, catastrophe was just around the corner! That’s “small” for you. McIntyre’s discovery BTW was NEVER reported by the MSM. That’s “exaggeration” for you.
    ====
    And after the correction, 1934 was the “teeniest bit” warmer than 1998, a difference too small to be seen in the global warming trend. No wonder it wasn’t reported in the MSM. How would you headline the story?

  129. Those confidentiality agreements sound fishy. Have those confidentiality agreements been shown as proof that confidentiality agreements exist?

    Or are the terms of the confidentiality agreements themselves subject to confidentiality?

    If so, is this additional confidentiality expressed in the confidentiality agreements themselves, or is it expressed in a higher level, separate confidentiality agreement? If the latter is the case, can the higher level confidentiality agreement be shown? Are we dealing with chinese boxes, russian dolls, or plain old child phantoms?

    I wonder, does it make any sense that the CRU temperature reconstruction results — involving lots of money and processing — are publicly available for free — yet the crude raw data on which they are based is claimed to be confidential? If so, what does this suggest as to the respective value of the raw vs refined material.

    Why would a given amount of a crude raw material be implicitly considered more valuable, and hence more worthy of protection, than the laboriously refined product obtained from it? Why would a basket of grapes be more demanding of protective confidentiality than the supposedly fine wine obtained from them? Are the grapes sour? Are they dangerous? Has the wine been adulterated? There is an Italian movie, can’t remember its name now, where near the end, an old successful winemaker imparts a fundamental secret to his son. He says “You know, son, wine can *also* be made from grapes.”

  130. “Not many scientists here, are there?”

    My Masters degree was in Computational Fluid Dynamics. In my thesis there is every step in the derivation of the PDE’s used, a complete detailed description of the flux-split, predictor-corrector, time stepping integrator (including stability analysis), a comparison to the results to a known, closed-form problem, and every single line of glorious FORTRAN77 used to implement it *including* the plotting library I wrote to graph it.

    During the review process, somebody asked to see every single bit of it and *that* was just for a Master’s degree.

    If someone wants reinvent the global economy, I’d think the standard should be at least the same, or (just maybe) a wee bit higher.

  131. If the CRU has only 3 members of staff, where did all the funding go? I suspect most of it was used to prop up the UEA’s finances. The Vice-Chancellor is clearly in damage limitation mode.

    As for Professor Jones, he has ridden the gravy train and also ridden rough-shod over any dissenter. I am sure that at the time it all seemed good fun and just between friends, however it is now coming back to haunt him, and I think he has only just realised the enormity of his situation. That is life, – we make a mistake, or get carried away with our own importance, and we have to live with the consequences. Tough.

    The UEA will fight tooth and nail to preserve its reputation, and hence its funding. Whether they will sacrifice Jones is a moot point. On the one hand they must be seen to support him as they have employed and funded him for many years. On the other hand they may let him go in order to show that they now have a clean slate. The problem with the latter is it will be seen as an admission that the CRU was severely compromised.

    The other problem is that the politicians have signed up to AGW lock stock and barrel, and it is going to be difficult for a committee of MPs to find that the CRU has been fundamentally flawed (Never mind the science and data). Unless the politicians want to find a way out of the AGW barrel and the associated costs, I regard it as highly unlikely that the Inquiry will lead to much more than a mild slap on the wrist for dubious practises.

    Politicians like taxes, they can then spend them. Green taxes are great, as the public tends to swallow them with less noise than with other taxes. Once you have the money, you can spend it where you like. Given the dire state of the UK economy, the AGW cash cow will take a long time to die.

    Hence the soft questioning. If they push too hard they will open a can of worms that can’t be closed, so better to put the can-opener away.

    Sorry to be so sceptical, but that’s a lifetime of observing politicians and people.

  132. INTERLUDE:

    Anthony, the MMs, the CRUtape evangelist, and many others deserve our thanks a thousand-fold.

    Thank you for saving us (so far) from Climapocalypse!

  133. For those here who are complaining about Post Normal Science (PNS)…

    Aren’t you at least glad it wasn’t called Post Modern Science?

  134. Come on people, you all know full well that withholding climatic scientific data has been standard practice all year:-)

  135. The beeb’s report:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8543289.stm

    Unless I missed it, not a sign of the “standard practice” phrase. My guess is they realise just how much of an embarrassment it is.

    I predict most alarmists will either try to defend it somehow, or divert attention away from it; probably mostly the latter as the former will put them in the same hole as Jones.

  136. How conclusions may be verified without actual data, including metadata and methodology, is beyond me.

    I do know that in every undergrad science course I took, I’d have failed miserably had I simply presented my conclusions with nothing else.

    Yes, that’s exactly what we’re talking about here, conclusions and nothing else. In fact, there’s not even that, just “Phil sez we haz teh globle warminz!!1!” on a blank sheet of paper.

    I always enjoy when commenters not only haven’t read the science or the news article linked to the post… but obviously haven’t even read the original post.

    Yes, you people are going to save science from itself.

    REPLY: Supporting data is extremely important. For example, missing metadata is central to the Keenan complaint on the Chinese weather stations, without it the claims of urban/rural siting and Jones UHI claim in his 1990 paper cannot be verified.

    Climate claims without supporting data are likely to no longer be accepted after today, the Royal Statistical Society just weighed in. They call for making models and data “public domain”. This is a very important concept, and despite your snark, one that is now gaining traction. -A

  137. Standard practice my “eye’. What a blatant lie.

    Welcome to the hell of denial, Dr. Jones. May your stay be long and painful.

  138. Putting aside the issue of whether, under an FOI request, CRU is obliged to release data even if bound by a non-disclosure agreement or similar, I think it inappropriate to use public funds to acquire data from overseas meteorological organisations; to use that data and those funds in support of research; to conduct public policy advocacy on the back of ‘findings’ from that research; to claim that the research is science; and to hide behind the non-disclousre agreements when those findings become the subject of scientific debate.

    For me, the issue is simple: without disclosure (or at least the possibility of disclosure) of the data sets, that data should not have been used in support of publicly funded ‘research’ – especially in view of the high profile nature of that research and the impact that it would likely have on the design of public policy.

    The choice is simple: use confidential data by all means, but call any analytical undertaking based thereon ‘advocacy'; or avoid using confidential data in research and enjoy the privilege of having your work enter into meaningful scientific debate.

    As the inimitable Jones is now discovering, confusing advocacy with science provides uncomfortable ground upon which to rest.

  139. I guess maybe I don’t understand it all…but this seems remarkable simple to me.

    Me: Hey…I’ve found a way to create Gold out of pine needles.
    Other scientist: Great…give me your data and your formulas, and I’ll see if I can do it too.
    Me: Yeah…that’s just not going to happen. But I did it. Really. I did. I can’t show you how, because you may be trying to poke holes in what I’ve done, but really. This gold here?…I made that gold. Out of pine needles.
    Media: He did! Really!…He did! And stop saying you doubt it!…you’re just a denier!…

    That about cover it?

    JimB (Antarctica) :)

  140. I guess the data, programs and processes are all transparent,
    when you can’t see them. Makes sense!

  141. They call for making models and data “public domain”. This is a very important concept, and despite your snark, one that is now gaining traction.

    You may be surprised – as well you should, since you didn’t ask – that I think making data and metadata and calculations public domain is a fantastic idea. Open it all up, for every researcher and in every field, rather than dogpiling on one scientist who does what many do because of the often cutthroat nature of research. Put it on arXiv or something without a strict word count so explanations and methodology can be detailed and complete. I hope the idea gains wider acceptance.

    My “snark” should neither help nor hinder that noble effort, and was only directed at the idea that Jones’s research consists of “conclusions and nothing else.” If you read even one paper, you know that’s not the case. Reading the post is helpful too.

  142. I trust funds granting agencies/institutions are boning up on the legalese pertaining to such concepts as “restitution” and “disgorgement.”

  143. JimB (17:07:20) : “Me: Hey…I’ve found a way to create Gold out of pine needles”

    Al Gore has indeed found a way to create Gold out of tree rings!

  144. Mike (13:17:51) :
    “Why would any sane person get their news from the Daily Mail”?
    Because of articles by Richard Littlejohn
    Every Brit should read his article today,funny but sad too.
    Brown’s Britain 2015 and even the Queen has fled
    Despite the dire financial crisis at home and the collapse of the currency abroad, which had seen petrol rise to £10 a litre (when available), Brown continues to pose as a world statesman.

    But his plans to hold a ‘global warming’ summit in London in January 2012 had to be cancelled because of the continuing bad weather.

    That month saw widespread power cuts, following the failure of Britain’s last decrepit nuclear power station and record low temperatures, which caused every single one of the 50,000 wind turbines erected across the country to freeze solid, snap in half and fall over.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1254697/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Browns-Britain-2015-Queen-fled.html#ixzz0gyll4bWZ

  145. Wren (15:35:34) :
    “I don’t think pharmaceutical companies are required by FOI laws to give me their e-mails.”

    1.) The FDA could certainly require access to emails.
    2.) Any information in emails could be subject to a legal discovery process, not excluding FOIA. If the research was publicly funded, it would certainly be accessible to any public regulators and pubic granting agencies. Unless you have a really good excuse, and it better be really good.

  146. Okay, freudian typo, “pubic granting agencies” above should be “public”. (Spell-checkers are evil!)

  147. Re: Cadae (13:45:57)

    You make a very good point. Traditionally in science you wouldn’t present your raw data because normally there is no need to as replication can be achieved simply by following the methodology with the same experimental setup. As this is not possible when your test subject is the earth however in order for there to be replication there must be disclosure of raw data and full methodology.

    The bottom line is science demands replication and in climate science this demand necessitates the release of raw data.

  148. I notice that the Daily Mail quotes have been changing a little, (‘data model’ has become ‘methodology’) and this is not a direct quote. It might be worth seeing what he actually said rather than a journalistic stylization of his words. The ‘Hide the data’ is just a headline with no attribution. But hey man, this is a witch hunt after all!

  149. @Nick (12:29:22) and anyone else saying that the lack of data/method sharing is excusable or acceptable…

    Imagine if you will an astronomer from an international astronomy organization in charge of determining threats to earth. This astronomer, with close friends of his, announce that they’ve discovered an unprecedented threat to earth, they say they’ve discovered a rock with our name on it, and it will hit sometime in the next 50-100 years. They use their influence in this organization to justify a multi-trillion-dollar effort at mitigating the asteroid threat. Many people the world over are convinced that we’re headed to catastrophe and we all must donate large portions of our income and sacrifice our lifestyles to avoid doom.

    Now imagine if a single amateur astronomer had asked for the orbital parameters they have calculated for this asteroid, and asked for the raw datasets for calculating those parameters. Then imagine that the entire cadre of astronomers in that organization refused for nearly a decade to hand over any of their raw information that led them to conclude this supposed doomsday threat while publicly bashing anyone who disagreed with them and continuing to publish report after report detailing the doom mankind faces.

    IF you can imagine that, then I say YOU are not a scientist. I know what I am, and while 2 degrees in physics doesn’t make me a “Scientist” per-se, it did teach me everything there is to know about how gains in scientific knowledge is supposed to work. Frankly, the argument that any temperature data, any tree-ring data, or any of these data-from-observing-the-earth datasets that were paid for by-and-large taxpayers that are then used to demonstrate a catastrophe should by-definition BE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Any claim otherwise is lunacy.

    These men have claimed for years that the entire human race is headed for doom and instead of showing their work, they stonewalled, lied, and gamed peer-review for years. They are criminals.

  150. Anyone who thinks that Doktor Jones is going to get what he deserves is unaware of the way governments in the West operate. In China or Iran he would be given a fair trial and taken out and shot (or beheaded) for embarassing the government by getting caught and being exposed as a hack. In the West, a’la Penn State, he will be given a budget of 400% more than he already has in order to hire additional personnel to answer the phones, the mail (e and slow), and run 10 new copy machines (Made in China); he will also be required to provide the Select Committee on Climate an annual report on Global Warming with detailed recommendations on methods to rectify the problems of Climate Change.

    All of you seem to be suggesting methods to rectify the Jonesgate Problem that have not been used for the last 40 years. Didn’t you get our telegram?

  151. D. King (17:08:58) :
    I guess the data, programs and processes are all transparent,
    when you can’t see them. Makes sense!

    ======
    Transparency is a window not a one-way mirror. All climate – related communications of those who attack the science and the scientists should be public. McIntyre, Wegman, Barton, Inhof, Morano, and others should have no objection to full disclosure of their e-mails and other correspondence.

  152. “Nick (12:29:22) :

    Not many scientists here, are there?”

    Anyone can study physics, chemistry and geology, might not have the Ph. D., but you can study it and understand it.

    But tell me, what is difficult about and how much of a scientist does one need to be to read a thermometer?

  153. Showing on BBC news right now (BBC2 or dedicated BBC24 news channel)
    Phil JNones looking v nervous, as well he might – not getting an easy ride at all
    (will prob be repeated throughout the night on BBC24 news)

    Meanwhile, this is the kind of consequence we can expect from the degree of terror which has been instilled in people: this couple clearly saw no future for their children

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7344329/Baby-survives-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html

  154. He also said the scientific journals which had published his papers had never asked to see it.

    Didn’t some of the journals violate their own policies by failing to require it? Not asking to follow the terms which both parties had publicly agreed to does not mean that it is OK to not follow the rules. And the journals’ rules show that sharing data is standard practice.

  155. Then imagine that the entire cadre of astronomers in that organization refused for nearly a decade to hand over any of their raw information

    Oh, the humanity!

    Look, even if this whole CRU matter is exactly what you are all saying it is, a multi-decadal con job, a scam, a grift… HadCRUT is not the only data set. There are terabytes in the public domain.

    Is somebody going to go do the analysis at some point, or are you just going to keep badgering scientists?

  156. J Zulauf (16:14:26) :
    “Not many scientists here, are there?”

    My Masters degree was in Computational Fluid Dynamics. In my thesis there is every step in the derivation of the PDE’s used, a complete detailed description of the flux-split, predictor-corrector, time stepping integrator (including stability analysis), a comparison to the results to a known, closed-form problem, and every single line of glorious FORTRAN77 used to implement it *including* the plotting library I wrote to graph it.

    During the review process, somebody asked to see every single bit of it and *that* was just for a Master’s degree.
    ———-

    I’ll bet that wasn’t because the reviewers wanted to find flaws they could use to discredit your research and malign you in the public eye for political purposes.

    I haven’t seen the raw data Jones used and the finished results of his work. I imagine he has a methodology that explains what he did. Until I know more about it, I can’t say he did a good job or a bad job.

  157. Ibrahim (12:23:14)

    “scientific journals which had published his papers had never asked to see it”

    Could Nature verify this?

    Nature has a policy requiring data archiving which they routinely ignore for “big name” climate scientists. The same is true of Science Magazine.

  158. Nick (12:29:22) : edit

    Not many scientists here, are there?

    Standard practice is to outline the initial hypothesis, assumptions, and data, provide a guide of methodology, and conclusions. It is not to provide all of the interim and explicit calculations and values. You don’t release tables of processed data and explicit code.

    Peer review doesn’t work by taking all of a scientist’s numbers ‘along the way’ and running them yourself – you aren’t testing their methodology, you’re simply doing what they did over again. Peer review means you look at the methodology, and using the same assumptions and initial data, designing and running the analysis yourself. If your conclusions are the same, then you validate the paper. If they are different, you inquire where and how your methods and analysis differ. If you cannot reconcile the differences, then in all likelihood the conclusions are not robust enough to pass peer-review.

    Is this harder than simply running a carbon copy code and analysis? Yes.
    Does it actually test the robustness of the conclusions, rather than simply whether you can also make carbon copy code and conclusions? Yes.

    THAT is how peer review, and science, works.

    Absolute nonsense. While there is no obligation to archive your intermediate calculations as you say, both Nature and Science and a host of other journals have requirements that the original data be archived. And more and more, journals are also requiring the archiving of code. This is because a verbal description of the code is totally inadequate for determining what the original author actually did.

    Without access to the code and data, the errors in the Hockeystick would never have been revealed. While independent confirmation using different datasets and code is also part of science, in climate science there is often only one dataset. Lonnie Thompson has published papers on his ice core data … and without access to that data (which he refuses to give), we can never say if he has produced valid work or junk.

    So your comment, “not many scientists here”, merely reveals that you haven’t thought about the difficulties of climate science. Sure, if you are describing an experiment on an orange, any scientist can repeat the experiment. But if you are describing conclusions on data that the “scientist” refuses to share, that can never be repeated.

  159. Wren (18:39:08)

    That was a joke. Let me rephrase it.
    You can’t see the data, programs and processes, because they are transparent.

  160. Philemon (17:56:42) :
    Wren (15:35:34) :
    “I don’t think pharmaceutical companies are required by FOI laws to give me their e-mails.”

    1.) The FDA could certainly require access to emails.
    2.) Any information in emails could be subject to a legal discovery process, not excluding FOIA. If the research was publicly funded, it would certainly be accessible to any public regulators and pubic granting agencies. Unless you have a really good excuse, and it better be really good.
    ======
    Sure, and that’s the way it should be, but I doubt a company would be compelled to release it’s e-mails to me simply because I wanted to see them.

    Under UK FOI law, there are about 20 reasons for not honoring requests for information.

    http://www.foi.gov.uk/guidance/exguide/index.htm

  161. I get the same story from some professionals in special education. “Don’t put the student’s name on the protocol. Shred it after you have done your report”. BS! Climate data is one thing, but labeling a student for their entire educational career in public education is another! %&*^$(*^)*_(&R^^^!!!!!!! Sped teachers should be required to keep the raw data until a student is 21 years old. Period. Anything less is #^%*&^*&^^%%&^!

  162. Wren (19:03:01),

    You have absolutely zero understanding of how the scientific method is designed to work.

    It is incumbent upon even those putting forth a new hypothesis to do their level best to find anything possible wrong with it. In other words, to be skeptical, and to falsify it, if they can. Whatever is left standing is accepted science.

    Had the promoters of the CAGW hypothesis followed the scientific method, their reputations would have remained unsullied. There is nothing wrong or dishonorable in having a hypothesis falsified. What is wrong is subverting the scientific method in return for money and fame. The result isn’t science, it is politics based on the Big Lie, repeated endlessly to a public that doesn’t even understand what “carbon” means.

    You presume to know everyone’s hidden motivations when you state that the reviewers wanted to find flaws they could use to discredit Jones’ research and malign him in the public eye for political purposes.

    There may be some schadenfreude now, but that’s simply the result of being lied to for the past fifteen years. And even that would quickly evaporate if Jones decided to come clean. But he’s still in denial, just like most of his apologists.

    Had Jones, Mann and the rest been open with skeptical scientists [FYI: the only honest kind of scientists] from the very beginning, instead of stonewalling over a hundred FOIA requests, and refusing to share their data and methods, and strategizing about how to game the peer review process, and how to punish journals and board members who didn’t fall into lock step with their planetary catastrophe fantasy, they wouldn’t need to be backing and filling now in a desperate attempt to extricate themselves the reality that is closing in on them.

  163. Willis! Hear! Hear! I still have my raw data table. When I presented my results to the lab committee I presented that raw data table. From there I presented my ANOVA and CO-ANOVA (which I did by hand with just a calculator as well as run it through the lab’s statistician’s DOS program, which used chadded cards).

    Another researcher wanted a looksee at my raw data after reading my thesis. I gladly handed it over. He ran it and confirmed it. Eventually, he ended up as a co-author on our journal article.

    Anything less than this kind of cooperation is just bratty. If you do good research, it will stand up to this kind of test. If it doesn’t stand up, consider yourself damn lucky that someone warned you before you embarrassed yourself.

  164. >>Wren (15:26:49) :

    >>I think it would be highly relevant if my purpose was to find small flaws that I and/or others could blow out of proportion to discredit the “value added.”

    I see. So basically you are against the scientific process and don’t really care if what Jones and Co. are saying is true or not despite the implications this has for the world. Ok.

    >>It also would be relevant if I were curious about exactly how the value was added, but I doubt I would be unless the added value seemed strange.

    And they do. Sort of the entire point.
    ———-
    No, I’m not against the scientific process, but I am against politically motivated efforts veiled as science, and I am against judging Jones’ work without evidence.

    What seems strange about his results?

  165. Phil Jones is corrupt and dishonest. The four corners of deceit (media, academia, sciences, and government) are loaded with people who are dishonest and corrupt. Ever wonder how they live their lives? They believe that the ends justify the means. They are all perverted and pathological. May they all burn in hell. Every last one of them. They have destroyed the culture. They are perverse. They are corrupt. They are dishonest.

  166. Wren (19:03:01),

    You have absolutely zero understanding of how the scientific method is designed to work.

    It is incumbent upon even those putting forth a new hypothesis to do their level best to find anything possible wrong with it. In other words, to be skeptical, and to falsify it, if they can. Whatever is left standing is accepted science.

    Had the promoters of the CAGW hypothesis followed the scientific method, their reputations would have remained unsullied. There is nothing wrong or dishonorable in having a hypothesis falsified. What is wrong is subverting the scientific method in return for money and fame. The result isn’t science, it is politics based on the Big Lie, repeated endlessly to a public that doesn’t even understand what “carbon” means.

    You presume to know everyone’s hidden motivations when you state that the reviewers wanted to find flaws they could use to discredit Jones’ research and malign him in the public eye for political purposes.

    There may be some schadenfreude now, but that’s simply the result of being lied to for the past fifteen years. And even that would quickly evaporate if Jones decided to come clean. But he’s still in denial, just like most of his apologists.

    Had Jones, Mann and the rest been open with skeptical scientists [FYI: the only honest kind of scientists] from the very beginning, instead of stonewalling over a hundred FOIA requests, and refusing to share their data and methods, and strategizing about how to game the peer review process, and how to punish journals and board members who didn’t fall into lock step with their planetary catastrophe fantasy, they wouldn’t need to be backing and filling now in a desperate attempt to extricate themselves the reality that is closing in on them.
    =====
    I don’t think the scientific process means if a scientist is unwilling to cooperate with those he doesn’t trust, his work has no merit. Nor do I think the scientific process means if a method hasn’t been revealed, it’s wrong.

    The National Research Council concluded the main point of Mann’s work was supported by other evidence.

  167. Wren, you seem to be arguing with yourself regarding how you quote. Who said what and what is on first?????

  168. Wren (20:07:57):

    “I don’t think the scientific process…”

    You continue to use that vague term, “scientific process.” If that’s what Phil Jones is engaging in, I can think of shorter words that more appropriately define what he was doing to the taxpayers.

    What I was referring to was the scientific method, which has been completely ignored by Jones, Mann and the rest of the rent-seeking government and university pro-CAGW climate scientists.

    The scientific method doesn’t require a litmus test to establish someone’s motivation when they request data and methods. It simply requires genuine cooperation. That cooperation is what is missing from what passes as climate science.

  169. Re: Another Brit (Mar 1 16:31),

    “If the CRU has only 3 members of staff, where did all the funding go?”

    Another half-truth (or even quarter-truth). CRU has only 3 members of staff who are paid from UEA general funding. The rest of the staff receive their remuneration as a consequence of outside funding (ie grants for specific projects). Unfortunately, this is the way most science is funded these days. It leads to a great deal of mediocre science because of the “publish or perish” pressure it generates. Who would want to be a scientist with no guarantee of employment when your current project funding runs out? No wonder they all give the answers their political masters require.

  170. The gift that just keeps giving, Jones had me laughing, with testimony like this who needs critics? Public education looks like a failure to me, the scientific method is not taught anymore it seems. None of them asked????? Too much. Watch, the elected rats will be throwing their trusted science authorities under the buses by June. The emails, now this testimony,science? We don’t need no ……. science. Trust us. 2010 is going so well. This farce is over just the clean up to do.

  171. So let me get this straight. The journals never asked for any of that data?

    So peer review was done . . . uh . . . how?

  172. Wren (20:07:57) :


    =====
    [1] I don’t think the scientific process means if a scientist is unwilling to cooperate with those he doesn’t trust, his work has no merit.

    [2] Nor do I think the scientific process means if a method hasn’t been revealed, it’s wrong.

    [3] The National Research Council concluded the main point of Mann’s work was supported by other evidence.

    [1] Why do you need to “trust” – the facts will stand or fall on their merits.

    [2] An “unrevealed” method may indeed be correct – but how would anyone else know that. By revealing the method, others may then check it. A revealed method will stand or fall on its merits.

    [3] Who’s evidence would that be – “one tree in yamal” Briffa?

    You appear to lack a robust endoresment for the independent checking of data and methods. Could you please suggest an appropriate method for discovering false ideas as an alternative to the independent checking of data and methods.

  173. JRR Canada (20:43:14) :

    The gift that just keeps giving, Jones had me laughing, with testimony like this who needs critics? Public education looks like a failure to me, the scientific method is not taught anymore it seems. None of them asked????? Too much. Watch, the elected rats will be throwing their trusted science authorities under the buses by June. The emails, now this testimony,science? We don’t need no ……. science. Trust us. 2010 is going so well. This farce is over just the clean up to do.

    Western culture is rapidly approaching a cross roads…

    We need to make a choice between the following principles. Independence vs Dependence; Individual Freedom vs State Tyranny; Genuine Inquiry vs Authoritarian Dogma… oh it’s the same old war isn’t it. We keep having to fight it.

    Those who lust to rule us just won’t go away will they.

  174. Smokey (20:34:31) :
    Wren (20:07:57):

    “I don’t think the scientific process…”

    You continue to use that vague term, “scientific process.” If that’s what Phil Jones is engaging in, I can think of shorter words that more appropriately define what he was doing to the taxpayers.

    What I was referring to was the scientific method, which has been completely ignored by Jones, Mann and the rest of the rent-seeking government and university climate scientists.

    The scientific method doesn’t require a litmus test to establish someone’s motivation when they request data and methods. It simply requires genuine cooperation. That is what is missing from what passes as climate science.
    —————–

    The scientific method doesn’t compel a scientist to cooperate with people he doesn’t trust. FOI laws may, but the scientific method doesn’t

    The scientific method doesn’t mean if something hasn’t been revealed, it’s wrong.

  175. evanmjones (20:47:49) :
    So let me get this straight. The journals never asked for any of that data?

    So peer review was done . . . uh . . . how?

    1
    03
    2010
    Graeme From Melbourne (21:00:39) :
    Wren (20:07:57) :


    =====
    [1] I don’t think the scientific process means if a scientist is unwilling to cooperate with those he doesn’t trust, his work has no merit.

    [2] Nor do I think the scientific process means if a method hasn’t been revealed, it’s wrong.

    [3] The National Research Council concluded the main point of Mann’s work was supported by other evidence.

    [1] Why do you need to “trust” – the facts will stand or fall on their merits.

    [2] An “unrevealed” method may indeed be correct – but how would anyone else know that. By revealing the method, others may then check it. A revealed method will stand or fall on it’s merits.

    [3] Who’s evidence would that be – “one tree in yamal” Briffa?

    You appear to lack a robust endoresment for the independent checking of data and methods. Could you please suggest an appropriate method for discovering false ideas as an alternative to the independent checking of data and methods.
    =====
    I welcome independent checking of data and methods, providing the intent is in the interest of science. I do not welcome politically motivated nit-picking. Still I think the best policy is transparency, providing it’s not a one-way mirror.

  176. Wren (21:07:43) :

    —————–

    The scientific method doesn’t compel a scientist to cooperate with people he doesn’t trust. FOI laws may, but the scientific method doesn’t

    The scientific method doesn’t mean if something hasn’t been revealed, it’s wrong.

    Point 1. Say you have a conclusion, which you have derived from a set of data using a set of methods. How would you convince me that the conclusion is correct without sharing both your data and your methods? I would really like to know.

    Point 2. Your financial adviser claims that he has successfully invested your life savings in a wonderful investment that will earn compounding returns of 10% every year. You ask for details, he says, that the details are unecessary as you can trust him – you do

    [a] Trust him, who needs details and after all you don’t want to hurt his feelings by doubting him.

    [b] Insist on receiving details.

    [c] Check to see if his last name is “Madoff” and call your lawyer.

  177. Wren (21:27:04) :


    I welcome independent checking of data and methods, providing the intent is in the interest of science. I do not welcome politically motivated nit-picking. Still I think the best policy is transparency, providing it’s not a one-way mirror.

    Then why not insist on “independent checking of data and methods” for the Hadley CRU data?

    It would allow for the science to move forward.

    You appear to assume that requests to check their data is politically motivated, do you have evidence to back up that assumption of political motivation?

  178. Pamela Gray (20:27:42) :

    > Wren, you seem to be arguing with yourself regarding how you quote. Who said what and what is on first?????

    No, Who’s on first, and What’s on second. I Don’t Know’s on third.

  179. This whole debacle is exposing just one tiny corner of a much broader scandal about how science is now done. The article by Henry Bauer Science in the 21st Century: Knowledge Monopolies and Research Cartels, discusses the broader issue, looks at a number of other examples, and discusses possible ways out.

  180. Graeme From Melbourne (21:38:58) :
    Wren (21:27:04) :


    I welcome independent checking of data and methods, providing the intent is in the interest of science. I do not welcome politically motivated nit-picking. Still I think the best policy is transparency, providing it’s not a one-way mirror.

    Then why not insist on “independent checking of data and methods” for the Hadley CRU data?

    It would allow for the science to move forward.

    You appear to assume that requests to check their data is politically motivated, do you have evidence to back up that assumption of political motivation?
    ——–
    Sure, why not insist on it. But let’s also insist on seeing all the climate-related communications of McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano, to name a few.

    You suspect the Hadley CRU data are flawed, I suspect many of the data request are politically motivated. We both need to know the truth.

  181. evanmjones (20:47:49) :
    So let me get this straight. The journals never asked for any of that data?
    So peer review was done . . . uh . . . how?

    How?
    By using peers with the same political leanings,
    with the same ethical standards,
    with the same regard for the scientific process,
    with the same lack of statistical skills,
    with the same penchant for obfuscation,
    with the same………. umm…..no, you’ve got me. How?

  182. RockyRoad (13:01:39):
    Reply to Robert of Ottawa (12:25:25) :
    ——-
    Please do not elevate climate science to the level of Cold Fusion.
    ;-)
    ——-
    You are right! At least Pons and Fleischmann followed the scientific method.
    1) Pons and Fleischmann shared their data.
    2) They followed the scientific method and shared their data.
    3) Others could not replicate their results thus ‘falsifying’ their claims.

    CRU on the other hand don’t share data because it was “standard practice” not to do this. What if Pons and Fleischmann said it was standard practice not to give out data; they would have been totally ignored by the scientific community.

  183. “Wren (22:03:12) :

    Sure, why not insist on it. But let’s also insist on seeing all the climate-related communications of McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano, to name a few.

    You suspect the Hadley CRU data are flawed, I suspect many of the data request are politically motivated. We both need to know the truth.”

    As far as I know McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano aren’t paid by the taxpayer. However, those at hte CRU, Jones et al, are. Big difference.

  184. 1
    03
    2010
    Graeme From Melbourne (21:33:20) :
    Wren (21:07:43) :

    —————–

    The scientific method doesn’t compel a scientist to cooperate with people he doesn’t trust. FOI laws may, but the scientific method doesn’t

    The scientific method doesn’t mean if something hasn’t been revealed, it’s wrong.

    Point 1. Say you have a conclusion, which you have derived from a set of data using a set of methods. How would you convince me that the conclusion is correct without sharing both your data and your methods? I would really like to know.

    Point 2. Your financial adviser claims that he has successfully invested your life savings in a wonderful investment that will earn compounding returns of 10% every year. You ask for details, he says, that the details are unecessary as you can trust him – you do.
    =====

    Point 1. I doubt sharing the data and methodology would convince you the conclusions were correct if you didn’t like the conclusions in the first place. On the other hand, you might be like Wegman, who decided Mann’s conclusion was right but his methodology was wrong.

    Point 2 is moot. I would take anything a financial advisor says with a grain of salt regardless of his d explanation or not. Capital is always at risk, no matter what you do.

  185. Wren (22:29:27) :

    =====

    Point 1. I doubt sharing the data and methodology would convince you the conclusions were correct if you didn’t like the conclusions in the first place. On the other hand, you might be like Wegman, who decided Mann’s conclusion was right but his methodology was wrong.

    Point 2 is moot. I would take anything a financial advisor says with a grain of salt regardless of his d explanation or not. Capital is always at risk, no matter what you do.

    [1] I’m perfectly capable of dealing with unpleasant facts. I would follow the data and the methods to whatever conclusions could be logically drawn from them.

    [2] The financial example was to demonstrate that a lack of transparency would immediately raise a red flag in that domain. So why not in a science domain.

  186. “Wren (22:03:12) :

    Sure, why not insist on it. But let’s also insist on seeing all the climate-related communications of McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano, to name a few.

    [1] You suspect the Hadley CRU data are flawed, I suspect many of the data request are politically motivated. We both need to know the truth.”

    [1] Note that even Phil Jones thinks that the CRU data is a mess. REF: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

  187. @Wren (22:29:27) :

    —>Point 1. I doubt sharing the data and methodology would convince you the conclusions were correct if you didn’t like the conclusions in the first place. On the other hand, you might be like Wegman, who decided Mann’s conclusion was right but his methodology was wrong.

    Point 2 is moot. I would take anything a financial advisor says with a grain of salt regardless of his d explanation or not. Capital is always at risk, no matter what you do.

    You must be a troll. Whether I like someone’s conclusions or not, if I have their data and methods and I replicate them and I find nothing wrong, I must accept them. And with point #2, you are of course now slyly changing the subject on us, which was do you request methods/data to confirm or do you decide to simply accept what anyone says on their word? It sounds like you would not trust a financial advisor, but you would accept anything any scientist says? There’s a word for someone who will blindly accept anything people with certain qualifications say, that word is “Sheep.” baaaaaa.

  188. Wren, your stance was encapsulated perfectly by Phil Jones. When asked for his data by Warwick Hughes, Jones famously said:

    Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

    I was so upset by this remark (and the lack of criticism of it by climate scientists) that I filed the first FOI request with the CRU.

    I was so upset because Phil’s refusal showed absolute contempt of the scientific method. Here’s how that works:

    1. A scientist comes up with a new idea. She writes up the idea, and publishes it along with all of the logic, data, methods, and computer codes that supports that idea.

    2. Other people try their best to poke holes in the logic, data, methods, and codes.

    3. If the other people can poke holes in the logic etc., the idea is tossed in the rubbish bin. If not, it is (provisionally) accepted as scientifically valid. (“Provisionally” because someone may come along next week and demolish it.)

    So the idea that Phil shouldn’t give Warwick his data because he would try to find fault with it is as un-scientific as you can get. Of course he would try to find fault with it, that’s what scientists do. In fact, a true scientist should start by giving the information to his worst enemies, because if they can’t poke holes in it, no one can.

    As a result, your idea that someone should be able to pick and choose who they give their data to is absolutely and completely against the scientific method. Science is not a game of lets make nice. It consists entirely of two parts, people making claims and other people trying to nit-pick holes in those claims, regardless of whether the nit-pickers have noble virtuous intent or not. So when you say:

    I welcome independent checking of data and methods, providing the intent is in the interest of science. I do not welcome politically motivated nit-picking.

    you are setting yourself up as some kind of uber-science judge who is qualified to say “yes, you are qualified to find errors in someone’s work, but you can’t” …

    Which, of course, is totally unscientific. Anyone, regardless of their motives or their station in life or their education, is free to find errors in a scientist’s work. We’re not looking for people with pure motives. We’re looking for scientific truth.

  189. JonesII (13:10:53) :

    Phil Jones: “You’re only seeing a tenth of one per cent of my emails in this group. l don’t think there’s anything in those emails that supports any views that I or the CRU are trying to pervert the peer review process in any way. I’ve just been giving my views on specific papers

    What about a FOIA request for the 99.9 per cent missing?

    Yeah.

    Brent Hargreaves (14:40:51) :

    Having listened to a recent interview with Mann, and watched Prof, Alley’s talk to the American Geophysical Union, I’m pretty convinced that these people (and probably Jones too) are sincere. They believe the AGW hypothesis. They see the sceptic weblogs as wanton spoilers; they seem to believe that the battle of ideas is skewed by sceptics’ vast financial resource dwarfing that of the warmists(!!!). This is not irony – listen to Mann at: http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michael_mann_unprecedented_attacks_on_climate_research/ He feels like the little guy in a David v Goliath struggle; the tiny Copenhagen meeting (was it in the back room of a pub?) unable to compete with the massive sceptic spin-machine. I kid you not: listen to his voice and look for a crafty twinkle in his eye – you’ll find none.

    There’s no one more sincere, because there’s no one more self-deluded, than a narcissist. That accounts for their charisma.

    Wren:
    No, I’m not against the scientific process, but I am against politically motivated efforts veiled as science, and I am against judging Jones’ work without evidence.

    Catch-22: You can’t judge it because he won’t give you the rope to hang him with, and he won’t give you the rope because he thinks you’re a hangman. Basically, allowing a scientist to hide data from a critic he deems politically motivated will give every dodgy scientist an excuse to hide his data from every potential critic. Such a justification is unjustifiable.

    Wren:
    I don’t think the scientific process means if a scientist is unwilling to cooperate with those he doesn’t trust, his work has no merit. Nor do I think the scientific process means if a method hasn’t been revealed, it’s wrong.

    Strawmen. (Critics aren’t claiming his work is meritless and wrong because he won’t cooperate. They’re saying it’s not even wrong.)

  190. But let’s also insist on seeing all the climate-related communications of McIntyre, Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano, to name a few.

    I’m sure St. Mac wouldn’t mind! He’s CONTINUALLY publishing his email exchanges on his own site (Climate Audit).

    There are many lengthy threads of CA devoted almost entirely to his email exchanges!

    And the skeptical scientists don’t hide their data or methods. Sheesh! They are banging down the doors trying to get any and all to look at them! (And they are continually frustrated by a fanatic stonewalling by the AGW alarmists.)

  191. “I haven’t seen the raw data Jones used and the finished results of his work. I imagine he has a methodology that explains what he did. Until I know more about it, I can’t say he did a good job or a bad job.”

    This is very simple. I cannot say say whether Jones did a good job or a bad one. I suspend judgment. Everyone should say that. If we cannot see the code and cannot see the data we have a right to shrug our shoulders. If you want to prove your claims to me, I require code and data. You want me to believe in Global warming? you want me to elect officials who will do something about it? you want me to pay for global warming prevention?
    Fine. Show me the data I paid you to collect. Show me the code I paid you to write. If you don’t fine. Shrugs. I’m not convinced. I don’t DENY your science. I shrug. Prove it. Don’t order me to trust you. Don’t question my motives unless you want me to question yours. Don’t sell me your drugs and hide the side effects. Don’t sell me your car and fake the safety tests.

  192. DirkH (15:06:05) :

    “Wren (14:54:16) :

    The [snip] gross exaggeration of the small error McIntyre discovered in GISS temp records (i.e., the correction for 1934 and 1998) confirms Jones was right to be wary of how data could end up being misused.”

    Before the correction, 1998 was the teensiest bit warmer than 1934 and the worldwide media machine went into overdrive about it, catastrophe was just around the corner! That’s “small” for you. McIntyre’s discovery BTW was NEVER reported by the MSM. That’s “exaggeration” for you?

    Wren:
    And after the correction, 1934 was the “teeniest bit” warmer than 1998, a difference too small to be seen in the global warming trend. No wonder it wasn’t reported in the MSM. How would you headline the story?

    “Oops!”

    It’s wrong to assume that a teeny error is necessarily a molehill. If it puts a number into “record” territory, it is a “mountain.” It is something that a conscientious scientist would double-check before publishing, knowing the effect it would have on public opinion, to whom it would imply an alarming trend, and the use that would be made of it as a talking point by advocates of alarmism.

    And that raises another point. What if Jones was an advocate of alarmism himself? Then, maybe he’d think, “Well, what’s a feather on the scale, if that’s what it takes to tip the balance? For want of a feather, the battle could be lost.” I.e., calling it an error may be too charitable.

  193. [try again without offensive terminology. I'm not going to bother to edit your work to make it acceptable. ~ ctm]

  194. Patrick Davis (22:18:29) :
    “Wren (22:03:12) :

    Sure, why not insist on it. But let’s also insist on seeing all the climate-related communications of McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano, to name a few.

    You suspect the Hadley CRU data are flawed, I suspect many of the data request are politically motivated. We both need to know the truth.”

    As far as I know McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano aren’t paid by the taxpayer. However, those at hte CRU, Jones et al, are. Big difference.
    ========
    Inhofe is a U.S. Senator and Morano worked for him, so both were paid by taxpayers.

  195. Wren (00:02:50) :
    [try again without offensive terminology. I'm not going to bother to edit your work to make it acceptable. ~ ctm]
    =====

    What offensive terminology?

  196. Willis Eschenbach (23:14:20) :
    Wren, your stance was encapsulated perfectly by Phil Jones. When asked for his data by Warwick Hughes, Jones famously said:

    Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

    I was so upset by this remark (and the lack of criticism of it by climate scientists) that I filed the first FOI request with the CRU.

    I was so upset because Phil’s refusal showed absolute contempt of the scientific method. Here’s how that works:

    1. A scientist comes up with a new idea. She writes up the idea, and publishes it along with all of the logic, data, methods, and computer codes that supports that idea.

    2. Other people try their best to poke holes in the logic, data, methods, and codes.

    3. If the other people can poke holes in the logic etc., the idea is tossed in the rubbish bin. If not, it is (provisionally) accepted as scientifically valid. (“Provisionally” because someone may come along next week and demolish it.)

    So the idea that Phil shouldn’t give Warwick his data because he would try to find fault with it is as un-scientific as you can get. Of course he would try to find fault with it, that’s what scientists do. In fact, a true scientist should start by giving the information to his worst enemies, because if they can’t poke holes in it, no one can.

    As a result, your idea that someone should be able to pick and choose who they give their data to is absolutely and completely against the scientific method. Science is not a game of lets make nice. It consists entirely of two parts, people making claims and other people trying to nit-pick holes in those claims, regardless of whether the nit-pickers have noble virtuous intent or not. So when you say:

    I welcome independent checking of data and methods, providing the intent is in the interest of science. I do not welcome politically motivated nit-picking.

    you are setting yourself up as some kind of uber-science judge who is qualified to say “yes, you are qualified to find errors in someone’s work, but you can’t” …

    Which, of course, is totally unscientific. Anyone, regardless of their motives or their station in life or their education, is free to find errors in a scientist’s work. We’re not looking for people with pure motives. We’re looking for scientific truth.
    =====
    Well. how do you expect to get truth from people who don’t have pure motives? The flaws they uncover will be those that serve their agenda, rather than those that don’t. A half truth can be misleading.

    According to the law of large numbers, a data set with a heap of numbers may have errors, but the errors will tend to offset each other. If I find only the errors that go one way, I have made the data set less accurate. So error finding must be even handed if you are looking for truth.

  197. To be fair to the guy, haha, he wasn’t lying. It isn’t standard practice in Climate Science, is it?

  198. Wren (22:03:12) :
    Sure, why not insist on it. But let’s also insist on seeing all the climate-related communications of McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano, to name a few.

    You’ve pulled a bait-and-switch. The subject at hand is the data, not the communications.

    You suspect the Hadley CRU data are flawed, I suspect many of the data request are politically motivated. We both need to know the truth.

    An FOI request is an FOI request — compliance with one is the law, regardless of motivation, unless national security enters the picture. And *that’s* the truth.

  199. “Wren (22:03:12) :

    Sure, why not insist on it. But let’s also insist on seeing all the climate-related communications of McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano, to name a few.

    You suspect the Hadley CRU data are flawed, I suspect many of the data request are politically motivated. We both need to know the truth.”

    Nothin stoppin you putting in the requests is there. Problem is that nothing these people produce forms the basis for a global taxation policy does it?

  200. Bill Tuttle (01:19:56) :
    Wren (22:03:12) :
    Sure, why not insist on it. But let’s also insist on seeing all the climate-related communications of McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano, to name a few.

    You’ve pulled a bait-and-switch. The subject at hand is the data, not the communications.

    You suspect the Hadley CRU data are flawed, I suspect many of the data request are politically motivated. We both need to know the truth.

    An FOI request is an FOI request — compliance with one is the law, regardless of motivation, unless national security enters the picture. And *that’s* the truth.
    ====
    I’m referring to the hacked e-mails. I want total transparency on all sides. My taxes have paid the salaries of Inhofe and Morano. What’s wrong with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

    FYI there are 20 reasons FOI requests can be denied under UK law, most of which are not national security reasons.

  201. Wren is a troll.

    If he seriously thinks that comparing Jones et al, to people trying to get at the truth is a level playing field in terms of data etc he is completely insane.

    NOAA and CRU should release their data, methodology and calculations, exactly, step by step they method they used to get their results.

    Why?

    Because global taxation is being metered out based upon it, whole industries are to be destroyed based upon the results they publish.

    To call requests to see their methods politically motivated nit picking is blinkered. With so much resting on those results they need to be WATER TIGHT, justified beyond reproach, and universially accepted.

    Ask yourself, within this pressure cooker scenerio, why NOAA and CRU still will not release everything to show the exact paths they take to reach their conclusions, when doing so would take all the pressure off them?

  202. John (01:39:41) :
    “Wren (22:03:12) :

    Sure, why not insist on it. But let’s also insist on seeing all the climate-related communications of McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano, to name a few.

    You suspect the Hadley CRU data are flawed, I suspect many of the data request are politically motivated. We both need to know the truth.”

    Nothin stoppin you putting in the requests is there. Problem is that nothing these people produce forms the basis for a global taxation policy does it?
    =====
    Inhofe is a U.S. Senator, Morano was on his staff, and Wegman gave testimony in a Congressional hearing using information from McIntyre.

    • Wren:

      While your requests for emails from Inhofe and Morano, during his time as government employee seem completely reasonable to me. In fact I suggest you file FOI requests for them. McIntyre, however is a private citizen and not subject to such disclosure. Wegman, depending on whether or not he has worked under Federal Grants may or may not be subject to FOI regulations. Knock yourself out, go file the requests.

  203. John (01:50:16) :
    Wren is a troll.

    If he seriously thinks that comparing Jones et al, to people trying to get at the truth is a level playing field in terms of data etc he is completely insane.

    NOAA and CRU should release their data, methodology and calculations, exactly, step by step they method they used to get their results.
    ====
    Well, you are misinformed. I think all data should be and methodology should be released.

    Calling someone a troll is a personal insult, and shouldn’t be allowed here. I do not call posters names, and I don’t post here to be called names.

    Reply: You are correct. I almost snipped it. My apologies. ~ ctm

  204. jeez (02:00:05) :
    Wren:

    While your requests for emails from Inhofe and Morano, during his time as government employee seem completely reasonable to me. In fact I suggest you file FOI requests for them. McIntyre, however is a private citizen and not subject to such disclosure. Wegman, depending on whether or not he has worked under Federal Grants may or may not be subject to FOI regulations. Knock yourself out, go file the requests.
    ====
    I hear it’s already been done, but one more wouldn’t hurt.

    Isn’t McIntyre a Canadian citizen? If he, is I don’t know why he had FOI rights in the UK

    • Wren:

      Two reasons.

      1. Canada is still a member of the British Commonwealth and a lot of rights transfer between those nations.

      2. British FOI law in this case did not limit FOI rights to citizens of any country. Anyone in the world has the right to file a request. Probably not the best written legislation, but it makes point number 1 rather moot.

  205. Missing the Point

    I’m sorry to say so, but most of the comments here are entirely missing the point. Irrespective of whether Jones was truthfully saying it was common practice to share the data, the fact is that it wasn’t his data. He had no control over this data, he wasn’t responsible for its quality, for site placement, for the maintenance of equipment.

    NOTHING TO DO WITH ME GOV!!!

    So ask yourself this question: “WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THIS DATA WAS SUITABLE FOR THE BIGGEST PROBLEM FACING MANKIND

    Jones wasn’t responsible for the data. His only job was to upjust it to make it fit the theory. So long as the data could be made to fit the theory his job was done, and it was “somebody else’s” responsibly to ensure that data was suitable for purpose.

    Except, now we find there wasn’t that “somebody else” – nobody was responsible for the quality of the raw data, it was just a bodge job, cowboy scientists without a clue about temperature measurement propping up a few poor quality readings with a quick coat of scientific paint and trying to pass the whole lot off as being a good job.

  206. Wren,
    “I welcome independent checking of data and methods, providing the intent is in the interest of science. I do not welcome politically motivated nit-picking.”

    You welcome independent checking as long as it is not politically motivated? And who decides if it is politically motivated? Do you have a court of science that all requests for data sharing must go through? No, that would be too absurd for words. So the decision as to whether the request for data is politically motivated, must come from the scientist who holds the data.

    Basically you are saying that Jones et al can decide for themselves whether such requests are politically motivated. Of course they will apply objective tests such as “if you only want my data so you can find something wrong with it, you are politically motivated.”

    Maybe that won’t work either. How about if we let the media decide. Whenever someone wants to see data, George Monbiot can write an opinion piece, and share his wisdom. Maybe that scientist requesting the data is in the pay of “big oil.” George’s editorial will prevent data falling into the wrong hands.

    We can’t have the likes of Steve McIntyre auditing climate scientists, wasting time with his “politically motivated nitpicking” of hockey sticks. If he wasn’t so politically motivated he might have even found some real mistakes.

    The truth is wren, you “welcome” data sharing through clenched teeth and after making every requester jump through your hoops of politically correct tests. Nobody here’s is fooled by your outrageous [snip].

  207. Phil Jones on the hot seat – not sharing data is “standard practice”

    That was the headline from the Daily Mail that started this thread, but that isn’t what Jones said.

    The guardian.uk.co quotes Jones:

    “It is not standard practice to provide codes and methods,” he said. “Perhaps it should be.”

    So many posters had unkind words for Jones saying something, presumably not knowing it wasn’t what he actually said.

    Is that any way to do?

    • Wren,

      I believe in someone else’s read over on CA, I think it was Kenneth Frisch, that Jones currently hates himself for not behaving as a scientist should have, but he is continuing to lie and dig himself a deeper hole. Personally I have no sympathy for him with his whining interviews about suicidal thoughts. He has behaved badly while riding a grant train that has now run of the tracks. Without any more metaphors he has earned the wrath being heaped upon him. He is not telling the truth. He continues to obfuscate. The funny thing is, the more you read the emails and put them in context the worse it gets, not better.

  208. Vincent (02:31:00) :
    Wren,
    “I welcome independent checking of data and methods, providing the intent is in the interest of science. I do not welcome politically motivated nit-picking.”

    You welcome independent checking as long as it is not politically motivated? And who decides if it is politically motivated? Do you have a court of science that all requests for data sharing must go through? No, that would be too absurd for words. So the decision as to whether the request for data is politically motivated, must come from the scientist who holds the data……
    =====
    Hold it right there! I said I do not like politically motivated nit-picking. I did not say the decision as to whether the request for data is politically motivated should come from the scientist who holds the data.

    I do not like politically motivated nit-picking because as a taxpayer it interferes with work I am funding. FYI law should not be a license to harass and impede scientists funded by government, but the law can be used that way. I hope the solution is complete disclosure of data, methodology, codes and whatever else is needed to check the work of scientist. But will it be?

  209. This is really weird news:

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-01/russia-canada-won-t-reveal-data-climategate-school-says.html

    “Canada and Russia are among nations that won’t allow the U.K. university at the center of the “climategate” leaked-e-mail dispute to release their temperature data, researchers at the school said.”

    Are they nuts? All Russian data is in public domain and can be freely downloaded.

    Can someone confirm that UEA scientists really said this? Because I only see a single article in Business Week without any references to other sources and I couldn’t find anything about this on UEA/CRU sites.

    Reply: I watched much of the interview. Jones definitely said this. Here is a link to the full official video of the proceedings. ~ ctm

  210. Wren (01:49:11) :
    I’m referring to the hacked e-mails. I want total transparency on all sides. My taxes have paid the salaries of Inhofe and Morano.

    The e-mails weren’t hacked, they were on an open server. And if you don’t like Inhofe and Morano, you can vote for their opponents.

    What’s wrong with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

    Nothing — whaddya say we start with the correspondence between [insert names of The Usual Suspects] and the EPA that led that agency to declare CO2 an industrial toxin, regardless of how — or what — produces it?

    FYI there are 20 reasons FOI requests can be denied under UK law, most of which are not national security reasons.

    Twenty-three, actually, six of which deal with British national security and defense, ten with discovery of the information by other means, two with law enforcement operations, one with personal information, one with the Queen’s communications, two with parliamentary and legal privilege, and one with commercial or industrial secrets. The point is, the FOI requests were made because the data was *not* available through other means — even though it should have been available under the provisions of the Environmental Information Act.

    Which it wasn’t.

  211. Nick (12:29:22) :

    Not many scientists here, are there?

    I am.
    I do al lot of reviewing (it’s most of my work) and I always get the raw data so if I wish I can replicate the results.
    Untill the CRU-mails I wasn’t realy skeptic about AGW; I thought Jones et. al. knew what they were doing and that everything was properly reviewed.
    Then I saw the mails, and then I read the first draft of COP15 and then I started to study.

    The CRU-mails woke an army.

  212. “Jonesgate” was, is about “Jones”.

    The Government trusts until the Government is embarassed.

    The matter that is NOW the focus of the Government is a discheveled, absent-minded, PhD who apparently never should have been in charge of anything bigger than his own desk.

    Whoever the leaker or group of leakers were that released the files to the World, they were apparently less concerned about the past and more concerned about the present and future of UEA and the CRU. It appears more true as each day passes that they were right.

    It’s the little things that screw you up!

    It’s really not about Freedom of Information. This is a timeless Human drama.

  213. confusion between peer review and scientific method. they’re not the same thing. peer review means someone has gone through the paper looking to see if it makes sense or has obvious faults or that the author is missing the obvious in that they screwed up. This is not the scientific method which calls for duplication of the experiment to determine if the results can actually be duplicated. The reviewer may not have the equipment, time, resources, or perhaps even the skill and knowledge necessary to duplicate the experiment and/or the subsequent analysis of the data. In the climate arena, it’s pretty evident that those involved in many peer review activities did not have the basic understanding of the advanced statistics being used (and more imporantly in some cases – being abused) and failed to find gross faults with the results.

  214. Well, I just finished watching the Commons committee hearing in full.
    I agree with the Guardian’s Fred Pearce common that “the Commons committee tiptoed round embattled scientist and sidestepped crucial questions”

    I am American and am completely unknowledgeable about British gov’t hearings and British political nuance. Someone from Britain please give me your assessment. Please.

    To me there was only one committee member (out of six) who asked the right questions with a very convincing tone. It was the man who was second person to the left of the committee chairman (from camera view). That gentleman was right on target almost consistently. No one else was even close to the targeted questions at the relevant issues. Some of the committee members seemed sympathetic to UEA/Jone and the poor AGW.

    The only credible persons interviewed were Lord Lawson and the former ICO head guy who went through the laws. For a person solely focused on the legal bureaucracy he was pretty sharp.

    Jones was in pathetic condition and the guy with him, university’s vice chancellor Prof Edward Acton , looked incredibly mousy. Neither came across very well and I sensed the committee’s discomfort with their testimony.

    I do not have an overall good impression of the hearing based on what I saw through Yankee eyes. But to bolster my waning confidence in justice I guess there are statements (such as IOP, RSS, RCS, etc, etc) submitted to the committee that were not discussed at the hearing.

    The answers by the gentleman who will chair the the independent inquiry into UEA/CRU did not give me any confidence of an outcome other than complete vindication of Jones and CRU. Some please convince me that I got it completely wrong there. The guy seemed really goofy.

    John

  215. Wren
    “I do not like politically motivated nit-picking because as a taxpayer it interferes with work I am funding. FYI law should not be a license to harass and impede scientists funded by government, but the law can be used that way. I hope the solution is complete disclosure of data, methodology, codes and whatever else is needed to check the work of scientist. But will it be?”

    Do you see how your words are loaded with judgmental phrases? Requesting data becomes “harassment.” You complain that this wastes the time of the scientists whom you are funding through your taxes, but seem oblivious to the astronomically larger sums that are being spent or proposed on the basis of research whose data is not made available, because it might waste your tax dollars.

  216. Hopefully someone has carefully saved permanent copies of the entire set of submissions to the Parliamentary Committee, and the video of yesterday’s committee meeting. The vigor of the submissions, combined with the cautious, milktoast questioning of the witnesses, must further erode any remaining confidence in the global warming hypothesis among the general public and government elites around the world.

  217. Phil Jones had a pretty tough and PUBLIC grilling yesterday from the science and technology committee, some of whome were clearly sceptical of his scientific methods.

    When are we going to see Micheal Mann subjected to a similar interview?

  218. “Wren (00:14:52) :

    Inhofe is a U.S. Senator and Morano worked for him, so both were paid by taxpayers.”

    Fair enough, but are they “adjusting” climate data, do they have a vested interests in “homogenisation” or “green technologies” or “carbon trading” or “tricks” or do they even have the data Jones et al have “aquired” to release in the first place? No. And what of the other two you mention?

    Epic fail on your part!

  219. Just because someone worked for another, does not invalidate their thoughts. Indicting by association is an age old fallacy of the leftists that holds no water. They always assume their motives are pure … When nothing is farther from the truth.

    Merit is how science is validated, just on the merits. Else we would have to disqualify everyone who is contributing who was promulgating the AGW hoax, now wouldn’t we?

    Government is evil and is in general looking out for it’s own good, like the desire for never ending higher taxes. That clause comes with all research grants, doesn’t it.

    Open science solves most of these problems … not science in a closet, like Jones is pushing.

  220. Wren, the nice thing about science is that it doesn’t matter who looks at the data. The data is the data. Reality doesn’t change based upon who looks at it.

    Neither does the truth. If we really are warming, nothing that Steve does is going to change that. Nor will publishing the data that allegedly shows we’re warming.

    Of course, if the data doesn’t really show any warming, well, that WOULD be a good reason to hide it from skeptics.

    And, btw, if you wished to have any intellectual credibility, you too would be a skeptic. One should ALWAYS be skeptical of any science that is being used to redistribute income. “Trust me” doesn’t count. “Show me” does.

  221. Wren, if you come back have a look at the following Sites that relate to The Russians taking Offense at HadCrut temperature results for Russia. Hadley and CRU share their data.
    The first shows a blog repeating the Russian’s claim – http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d16-Russians-accuse-Hadley-Centre-of-falsifying-Russian-temperatures

    The second shows Deltoid Refutation of the Calims in the Blog and says the russian data proves Hadcrut were right, look at the Graphs – http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php

    The last one is the Russian Paper itself, you may not be able to read Russian, but just look at the Graphs – http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf

    If that doesn’t convince you nothing ever will.

  222. @Paul Daniel Ash (18:58:44) :
    “Is somebody going to go do the analysis at some point, or are you just going to keep badgering scientists?”

    Right, because according to you we should stop questioning those who make huge claims for proof of their claims. Again you are putting the burden of proof in the wrong place and your failure in logic is plain for all to see.

    As long as these scientists maintain their extraordinary claims, they should be badgered for proof of them. I would ask nothing less of a crazy man on the street much less a professor of climatology at a major university who is a core author on IPCC reports, and neither should you.

  223. @Paul Daniel Ash (18:58:44) :
    It is painfully obvious you that you are either blind or can’t read what is written on many of the Threads on this Site, there have been many posters who have analysed the RAW data and found it does not match the NASA, NCDC, GISS, CRU or Hadcrut values. Just how much more analysis do you need, the whole world’s results I suppose, but then you still won’t believe, will you?
    See my post to wren above.

  224. A C Osborn (09:10:27) :
    Wren, if you come back have a look at the following Sites that relate to The Russians taking Offense at HadCrut temperature results for Russia. Hadley and CRU share their data.
    The first shows a blog repeating the Russian’s claim – http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d16-Russians-accuse-Hadley-Centre-of-falsifying-Russian-temperatures

    The second shows Deltoid Refutation of the Calims in the Blog and says the russian data proves Hadcrut were right, look at the Graphs – http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php

    The last one is the Russian Paper itself, you may not be able to read Russian, but just look at the Graphs – http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf

    If that doesn’t convince you nothing ever will.
    ======

    It convinces me I need to read Russian to know what’s in the graphs. I don’t read Russian.

    Has McIntyre checked the data in the Russian paper?

  225. Kevin (07:42:31) :

    I thought he looked like he was rapping. Phil Jones the rapping vulcan.

  226. Wren (19:03:01) :

    “I’ll bet that wasn’t because the reviewers wanted to find flaws they could use to discredit your research and malign you in the public eye for political purposes.”

    No, it was because I was modeling pressure transients in contained combusting gases — and we didn’t want to die or worse, fail. :)

    The answer to critique is full disclosure. If you have people attempting to discredit you, show *exactly* what you did. If anyone can replicate it, then no-one can (reasonably) dispute it. Anybody hiding anything in science (except for privacy or security reasons) is rightly suspected of charlatanism.

  227. Jeremy (15:16:52) :

    “Standard Practice”

    L-O-L
    ===

    I’m not so sure about Jones’s claim of “standard practice” – or about any of his claims, for that matter; but, I digress …

    From what I’ve read, I’m inclined to think that Jones’s practice (which has often made less than perfect) gives a whole new meaning to “standard deviation” ;-)

  228. Dave McK (20:04:49) :

    “What they do not want questioned is the fundamental fraud. That fraud is the very concept of ‘global temperature’ that even many skeptics have been drawn into accepting as meaningful”
    ====

    I’m a relative newbie to the “climate wars”. My gut feeling was always that the idea that human generated C02 as *primary* cause of “climate change” fka global warming, was very much a stretch: How do these “climate scientists” know that it’s *our* minuscule contribution of C02 rather than the much greater naturally occurring C02 (not to mention the multitude of various and sundry other influences) that is the demonic culprit?!

    And since deciding to research the issue for myself (about 2 weeks BC – i.e. Before Climategate) the concept of “global temperature” (which is presumably an “average” derived from a number of “adjusted” datasets … not to mention “projections”, fka “predictions”) was very puzzling – and had me saying to myself, “So what?”

    Thank you, Dave McK, for validating my non-scientific skeptic perceptions!

Comments are closed.