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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

Standard practice my eye.

Lord Lawson was also giving evidence today so that is genuine ‘peer’ review!
tonyb

… 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”.

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?

Erik in Cairo (11:46:36) :
Erik, not sure if you will be able to view it in Cairo (geo restriction) but try this:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979

What a S.O.P. !!! (Geddit?)

For broader and, IMO, more balanced report on the hearings, see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-climate-science-emails-select-committee-hearing
The Guardian also has live coverage of the hearings.

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!

Here’s a recording of the select committee. Available here at the UK parliament site, not sure you’ll be able to see it elsewhere
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979

The whole enquiry is here:-
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979&wfs=true

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.

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.

Isn’t there a journal for unreproducible results?
I only hope one journalist on this planet understands the implications.

“scientific journals which had published his papers had never asked to see it”
Could Nature verify this?

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.

“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).

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.

”
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.

If anyone wants to see my submission WITH GRAPHICS, then it is here:
http://www.climatemice.com/submission.htm

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.

“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?

Prosecute them all for fraud
as Phil likes to say
Cheers

Nick,
Yes, there are MANY scientists here. Several that are published.
How about you?

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.

@Hal (11:55:36) :
“Wow…Phil Jones looks old in that picture.”
The picture of Phil Jones is much like his science. Data withheld.

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?

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.

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.

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?

@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!

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).

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!!!

@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.

” 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

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.

” 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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Sorry. Bad notebook keyboard. technoly -> technology; wih –> with.

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

And this is only the tip of the iceberg!
Interesting times ahead.

‘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.

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….

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

Looks like Phil’s throwin’ a ‘Westsidddde!’

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.

I think Phil has science confused with scientology.

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.

NickB. (14:00:48) :
Lost my coffee on that one Nick.

it’s Phil Jones (and Nick) against the world

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.

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.

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.

@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?

>>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.

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.”

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.

For those here who are complaining about Post Normal Science (PNS)…
Aren’t you at least glad it wasn’t called Post Modern Science?

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.

Standard practice my “eye’. What a blatant lie.
Welcome to the hell of denial, Dr. Jones. May your stay be long and painful.

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) 🙂

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.

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!

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.

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.

@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.

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?

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?

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

>>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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wren (21:27:04) :
Just saw this post.