Pielke Senior: Correspondence with Phil Jones on Klotzbach et al

From Roger Pielke Sr.’s website:

Klotzbach Et Al 2009 Corrigendum Published – Contribution To The Correction By Phil Jones

The Corrigendum to our paper

Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841.

has been published. It is

Klotzbach, P. J., R. A. Pielke, Sr., R. A. Pielke, Jr., J. R. Christy, and R. T. McNider (2010), Correction to “An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere”, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D01107, doi:10.1029/2009JD013655

As we report in our correction, none of the changes affected our conclusion that there is a significant warm bias in the multi-decadal global average surface temperature trends.

With the permission of Phil Jones, I have reproduced below e-mails in November 2009 from Phil and one from me that led to one of our corrections. I am posting to illustrate that despite the disparaging comments about me and some of my colleagues, as well as several other issues in a number of the released CRU e-mails,  there was (and is) an interest to constructively interact by Phil Jones. While we still significantly disagree on the findings in our research, the posting of the e-mails below shows that this collegiality is still alive.  We need to nurture this interaction.

We should build on these positive interactions to discuss the climate science issues which remain incompletely understood. In Phil’s e-mail from yesterday, this positive interaction was illustrated in that he let us know of a typographical error in the second to last line of the first paragraph in that we wrote “CSU TS 3.0″ instead of  “CRU TS 3.0″.

***************************************NOVEMBER 2009 E-MAILS**********************************************

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:21:45 +0000

From: Phil Jones xxxxx

To: Phil Klotzbach xxxxx santer xxxxx

Cc: Tom Wigley xxxxx Gavin Schmidt xxxxx

“Parker, David (Met Office)” xxxxx

Thomas C Peterson xxxxx

Thomas R Karl xxxxx

“Thorne, Peter” xxxxx

“Roger Pielke, Jr.” xxxxx

Roger A Pielke Sr xxxxx

john.christy xxxxx, mcnider xxxxx

Subject: Your JGR paper

Dear Dr Klotzbach,

There is another mistake in your recent JGR paper.

In Paragraph 35, the paper starts to talk about Tx and Tn data. Para 36 says you have examined the CRUTEM3v Tx and Tn data from the 1979-2005 period. CRUTEM3v doesn’t produce Tx and Tn series – see Brohan et al (2006). Para 25 is slightly wrong as HadCRUT3v combines CRUTEM3v with a variance adjusted version of HadSST2 (HadSST2v) – see Brohan et al (2006).

Table 4 also refers to CRUTEM3v as having Tx and Tn data which is wrong. The data you’ve used have come from the KNMI Explorer site where it is clear that they come from a different dataset than Brohan et al. (2006).  You say CRUTEM3v does not have data south of 60S but CRUTEM3v does have data south of 60S. Another CRU dataset (CRU TS 3.0) doesn’t. So your Tx and Tn data probably come from CRU TS 3.0, which has been available on the KNMI site for a while, but we’ve yet to fully write up this update.

CRU TS 3.0 is a completely different dataset than CRUTEM3v. It is clear on the KNMI site that it is different as it has a different

name! CRUTEM3v is on a 5 deg lat/long grid and is not infilled, but CRU TS 3.0 is on a 0.5 by 0.5 degree grid and is infilled. KNMI appear to have aggregated CRU TS 3.0 to slightly coarser resolutions of 1.0 by 1.0 and 2.5 by 2.5.

The CRU TS datasets are globally complete for all land areas north of 60S. They use a different set of stations than used in CRUTEM3v. For Tx and Tn they use the GHCN archive and some extra data we’ve added. The original purpose of the CRU TS datasets (see the New et al 1999,2000 references in Mitchell and Jones, 2005) was not climate monitoring but a globally complete dataset for driving vegetation models.  As said they are also spatially infilled for all 0.5 by 0.5 degree boxes that are land.

CRU TS 3.0 is an updated version of CRU TS 2.1 (Mitchell and Jones, 2005).

Also just noticed that Table 4 says the entire globe – it isn’t as para 36 said it was only north of 60S.

Sincerely

Phil Jones

Mitchell, T.D. and Jones, P.D., 2005: An improved method of

constructing a database of monthly climate observations and

associated high-resolution grids. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 693-712.

****************************************************************************

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:27:00 -0700 (MST)

From: Roger A Pielke Sr xxxxx To: Phil Jones xxxxx

Cc: Phil Klotzbach xxxxxxxxxx,

Tom Wigley xxxxx Gavin Schmidt xxxxx

“Parker, David (Met Office)” xxxxx

Thomas C Peterson xxxxx

Thomas R Karl xxxxx

“Thorne, Peter” xxxxx

“Roger Pielke, Jr.” xxxxx john.christy xxxxx,

Dick McNider xxxxx

Subject: Re: Your JGR paper

Dear Phil

We will look at the issues you raised. However, you did not mention whether any of this materially affects the conclusions of our paper. The “mistakes” you refer to in our paper were just typographical errors and the need to properly cite the source of the GISS data (from Gavin Schmidt) that Ross McKitrick used. The issue with respect to amplification remains disputed, despite Gavin Schmidt’s claim to the contrary, and, in any case, is not central to our findings.

What would also be useful is your input on our finding that, with respect to the relationship of temperature trends in a deeper layer of the lower troposphere, any effect which reduces the slope of the vertical temperature profile within a stably stratified surface boundary layer will introduce a warm bias, while any process that increases the magnitude of the slope of the vertical temperature profile in a stably stratified surface boundary layer will introduce a cool bias.

Sincerely

Roger Sr.

*********************************************************************************

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:34:18 +0000

From: Phil Jones xxxxx

To: Roger A Pielke Sr xxxxx

Cc: Phil Klotzbach xxxxx, santer xxxxx,

Tom Wigley xxxxx Gavin Schmidt xxxxx

“Parker, David (Met Office)” xxxxx

Thomas C Peterson xxxxx

Thomas R Karl xxxxx

“Thorne, Peter” xxxxx

“Roger Pielke, Jr.” xxxxx john.christy xxxxx,

Dick McNider xxxxx

Subject: Re: Your JGR paper

Roger,

Your mistakes are more than typographical errors! If I had reviewed the paper I would have told you to go back and read Brohan et al (2006). I have just had a meeting with one of my PhD students. He is writing a paper and I suggested he refer to a certain paper. He said he’s been unable to locate a copy of the paper, which I have to admit is a bit obscure. He then recalled that when he started 2 years ago I told him it was essential to read through all the papers he was ever intending to refer to.  I don’t recall giving him this sound advice, but I guess I must have. I do recall getting the same advice in the 1970s. I still try to follow the advice I got.

Over the years I’ve reviewed countless papers. I have no evidence except my history of reviewing, but I’ve noticed that authors who make mistakes referring to the literature or to datasets or not apparently knowing which datasets they have used, have invariably made mistakes elsewhere.

Presumably all the authors on your paper read through a draft or two. Also the reviewers which are acknowledged for improving the manuscript presumably read it. It seems that none of the authors or the reviewers are aware of what Brohan et al (2006) actually says. I urge you to read it – there is a lot in it.

For example, the hadobs web site has error estimates for CRUTEM3v. With these you will be able to work out the correct confidence intervals for your linear trends in Table 4, but only mean temperature. Your ranges are just based on regression, so exclude the fact that the annual zonal averages also have errors. Ch 3 of the 2007 IPCC Report included this component of the errors into the uncertainty range.

It is quite easy to check whether any of this makes any difference to any of your paper. You need to do some work though. You need to compare the time series of CRU TS 3.0 for Tmean with those from CRUTEM3v. My guess is that you will find differences. Based on the infilling in CRU TS 3.0 I’d expect the 60-90N band to show more warming in the infilled dataset than in CRUTEM3v. You can see this is roughly the case from your Tables. The CRUTEM3v global trend for 79-08 is 0.22 but for CRU TS 3.0 (in Table 4 for 79-05) is 0.31. The 3 extra years is a factor, but there is also the infilling.

Sincerely

Phil

***********************************************************************************

FINAL COMMENT JANUARY 14 2010: I recommend that we move forward with an inclusive assessment of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC.  We need to focus on the science issues. This necessarily should involve all research investigators who are working on this topic, with formal assessments chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.

Advertisements

66 thoughts on “Pielke Senior: Correspondence with Phil Jones on Klotzbach et al

  1. FINAL COMMENT JANUARY 14 2010:
    ….mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.
    Errrrrr, and just who might that be? Since, AFIK, all are funded by one side of AGW or the other, it’s going to be hard to find a CLIMATE SCIENTIST with no vested interest.
    just sayin’

  2. “…climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”
    Is that species critically endangered or already extinct in the wild?

  3. This presents an interesting projective test as to the overall dispositions of Phil Jones and Roger Pielke (and other readers!). That Roger sees this as a collegial interaction says a lot about Roger. I hope Roger’s optimism and openness leads to results. Personally I would be a bit more cynical.

  4. Maybe it’s just me, but Jones’ comments sound rather more like patronising point-scoring than collegiality with an equal.
    And I’m British too, so it’s not a cultural misunderstanding.

  5. The final comment is curious. Who out there in the climate science universe does NOT have a vested interest in the outcome of a review of the temperature data?
    I would think the best review would be one that would involve data and statistical experts from outside of the climate science community to augment a balanced selection of climate scientists that included the whole spectrum of opinions.
    It might be messier than a room full of the usual climate science crowd, but I think it would be viewed by those outside the field as being balanced and give more credence to its work.

  6. Big Jim
    But the warmer temp keeps going upward past the troposphere; at 118,000, the readings stop and the temp is still .25 degree warmer than the reference.
    Seems like heat radiating outward — am I missing something?

  7. Sorry Roger, I’m not buyin’ it.
    I read the email that said something to the effect that ‘Pielke shouldn’t find out about this…’
    Jones’ emails reveal him to be of suspicious character at best. Roger may be honorable, but Jones is not, and this has all the appearances of Jones simply doing a CYA. He’s already shown his dishonesty with Roger…..

  8. “artwest (09:00:58) :
    Maybe it’s just me, but Jones’ comments sound rather more like patronising point-scoring than collegiality with an equal.
    And I’m British too, so it’s not a cultural misunderstanding.”
    I think artwest has hit the nail on the head. Jones is telling Pielke Sr what he tells to his PhD students. Can you get any more patronising that that?

  9. Bernie (08:55:57) : “ a bit more cynica.”
    I had the same thought but there is no rule that these folks have to like each other to exchange useful ideas.

  10. These kind of interactions will almost inevitably be nit-picky for the simple reason that that is one of the purposes of having them in the first place.
    I feel a great deal of affection and respect for Pielke, Sr right now in holding out the hand of collegiality to a colleague “on the other side” of the science debate who has certainly been roughly used (generally fairly, IMO, but nonetheless) on a very wide and very public scale the last few months.
    This is the very opposite of “piling on”, and kudos to Pielke, Sr for it. Hopefully it will have positive follow-on effects, and not just with Jones.
    In the end, we have to get the scientists back to doing science rather than poring over old emails, and that requires that the lines of communication between the camps function.

  11. Save our Planet (08:46:40) :
    Just because a particular hypothesis blinds itself to all other factors in a climate system does not mean that it’s decision to declare C02 the sole primary driver of a warming event is evidence of anthropogenic forcing, or that C02 is the primary driver of warming/cooling.
    When was the last time you saw definative work to account for the factors at play in the climate and assign them thier relative strengths backed up by reproducilble tests?
    Models themselves are not proof and the predictions they put forth for the present time all failed. The oceans have not risen and the climate has shown them false.
    The tests are what the climate has done and the ocean levels displayed.
    That means that by the Scientific Method global warming is not overwhelmingly attributable to modeled anthropogenic forcings.
    The AGW models have failed.
    Get a new hypothesis.

  12. How do we respond to Jones’s correspondence without stooping to his level of ad hominem abuse? Yet again he is arrogant, disrespectful, and given the quality of the data he uses, entirely without any capacity for self-reflection.

  13. Save our Planet (08:46:40) :
    “Just because temperatures go down it doesn’t mean global warming isn’t true”
    And just because temperatures go up it doesn’t mean anthropogenic global warming is true.

  14. If you are really concerned about the Planet, disengage from the Agenda that proposes to use Malthusian means to alter the climate. I.E. – don’t get on the flight that you know is piloted by hypocrites. They can surely get airborne, any idiot can hit the throttle and lower the flaps. It takes a pilot who knows how the system functions to land it safely.
    Referece to a Twilight Zone episode: It’s a cookbook written on cooked books.
    Throwing gas on the fire that is the problems on Planet Earth won’t put the fire out.

  15. I agree with Artwest. Having spent much of my career reviewing papers, reading the reviews of others as an editor as well as reading those on my own papers Jones’ reviews are anything but collegiate. They are arrogant and offensive. Not a nice person, unless, of course, you’re part of the team.

  16. I think everyone should remember that an inclination toward professional “collegiality”, as Pielke describes it, is what lured dissenting scientists into a professional and public relations trap from which they are only recently emerging. The party who smiles and shakes your hand at the big conference while simultaneously blocking your papers from being published and poisoning your public relationships through planted news articles is a snake in the grass who has not earned the high-minded status of “colleague”.
    While revenge is a wasteful endeavor, cavorting with snakes that have already bit you is just plain foolish.
    CH

  17. To “Save Our Planet”: Just because global temperatures rise doesn’t mean AGW is true. As Climate Cultists say, “If it’s cool, it’s weather; if it’s warm, it’s climate.” Meantime, Lorenz’s Chaos Theory (1964) demonstrates that linear extrapolations of complex dynamic systems (those with three or more interacting variables) is mathematically impossible, while basic physics’ thermodynamic Conservation Laws require that heat disspipates from open (planetary atmospheric) systems, while closed systems subside to thermal equilibrium via cooling by convective heat-exchange. Otherwise, perpetual motion would generate heat-energy from nothing… Gore’s fatuous “flat earth” pejoratives are nothing compared to pseudo-scientific Warmists’ sophomoric naivite and willful ignorance.
    Since heat is a form of energy, and energy can only be transformed (neither created nor destroyed), a cumulative global “greenhouse effect” due to ozone layers, solar irradiance, CO2 emissions or whatever, violates fundamental natural law. But since when have Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. –the Green Gang, aka The Team– ever had any self-respecting use for truly “settled” math or science? Garbage in, garbage out: Hey, even peculating scamsters have to eat.

  18. ..I think Pielke Sr is being ironic….it would be odd that his sons nice satire was not also inbred in the father. So I think we are meant to smirk.

  19. My impression is that Jones comes off as a condescending SA. Similar to what we hear from Aussie skeptics discussing meetings with “their” climate scientists.

  20. rbateman (09:47:17) :
    If you are really concerned about the Planet, disengage from the Agenda that proposes to use Malthusian means to alter the climate

    They are not really concern with any other thing outside their wallets.

  21. George M (08:45:00) :
    FINAL COMMENT JANUARY 14 2010:
    ….mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.
    Errrrrr, and just who might that be? Since, AFIK, all are funded by one side of AGW or the other, it’s going to be hard to find a CLIMATE SCIENTIST with no vested interest.
    just sayin’

    What is the other side? How much do they pay? How does it compare to what the AGW doom-sayer’s side pays? How much has been spent by each side?
    Lastly, how do I sign up?
    BTW: Funny how payment only affects the skeptics, right?

  22. BTW:
    My understanding of Pielke senior’s position is that CO2 does affect climate, only it is not as significant as others believe. I believe he supports the notion of AGW in general, but believes there are other significant factors (like land-use changes) that are being overlooked in favor of the man-made emissions of greenhouse gas thesis.
    Am I incorrect?

  23. All animals are animals. All mammals are mammals. All carnivores are carnivores. But isn’t there still a BIG difference between cats and dogs? I’m not saying anything, really, about cats or dogs. I’m simply pointing out that a ‘Pielke, Sr’ is not a ‘Phil Jones’. There are differences in values, perspective, life style, and –in my humble opinion– integrity; there are also differences in the type of prey they each eat every day. One seems to like fresh, unspoiled meat, the other seems to eat anything his handlers throw at him. It’s not enough that both claim to be scientists –after all there are Scientists and then there are “scientists”. One group is of the traditional persuasion, the other is of the new age, anything-for-my-cause persuasion.

  24. I have to agree with DJ Meredith. The integrity of Phil Jones the Scientist has been compromised — seemingly for a long time (10 years or more?). What needs to happen now is for an independent body of scientists to reassess his work. Does anyone really trust this guy anymore?

  25. John Galt (10:50:02) :
    I haven’t yet gotten a single check in the mail, though I toil ceaselessly.
    How ’bout you? Judging from your post, you haven’t been visited by Ed McMahon either.

  26. So what? He communicatedwith Jones. What does that change? Nothing, De nada, rien.
    This is a very niave piece of communication, IMHO.

  27. tmtisfree (09:46:44) :
    No-one has yet published anywhere, AFAICT, an engineering quality description of solar – Earth climate interaction.

  28. Save our Planet (08:46:40) :
    Not sure whether you are recommending tis piece ot not. But both hypotheses are correct, Temps up, not AGW, Temps done nor global warming. However, temps up = AGW now thats a different theory and difficult to prove.

  29. rbateman (11:30:06) :
    John Galt (10:50:02) :
    I haven’t yet gotten a single check in the mail, though I toil ceaselessly.
    How ’bout you? Judging from your post, you haven’t been visited by Ed McMahon either.

    So far no checks and no visits from Ed McMahon. I am less and less optimistic about receiving payment since Ed passed away, too.

  30. Claude Harvey (10:01:55) :

    I think everyone should remember that an inclination toward professional “collegiality”, as Pielke describes it, is what lured dissenting scientists into a professional and public relations trap from which they are only recently emerging. The party who smiles and shakes your hand at the big conference while simultaneously blocking your papers from being published and poisoning your public relationships through planted news articles is a snake in the grass who has not earned the high-minded status of “colleague”.

    Hate to say but your words ring true.

  31. Was it before or after the start of Climategate appearance?
    ClimateAudit, Steve McIntyre, The Mosher Timeline, Jan, 12:
    Nov, 17
    “Later that day, a RealClimate author (presumably, the pervasive Schmidt) notified CRU, a unit of the University of East Anglia, of the existence of the dossier. “

  32. David (09:39:59) :
    “Yet again [Jones] is arrogant, disrespectful, and given the quality of the data he uses, entirely without any capacity for self-reflection.”
    That’s too bad, since he currently has plenty of time for reflection.

  33. I don’t quite get it.
    So, Pielke Sr messed up his paper, Jones tells him off on the seriousness of the error, and we are happy to show to the world the evidence? Is that some sort of badge of honour?

  34. oh heck, and now by the same “snake who bit me” I’m going to defend Phil Jones! My friend did turn on me while seeming to accept me, and bit me almost dead. Yet he was a good man. Beautiful visions. Hard working. Loved by many. But weak and chinless. And when put under pressures that no living person should have to bear, he cracked to subservience to his form of authority, in which I was the outsider, the baddie. A classic case as described by Stanley Milgram. I think Jones may be another… his real crack appearing with his horrible email to Warwick Hughes, just after, what was it? Mann bullying? Something…
    Here is a superb account of the history of AGW / IPPC where one can imagine Jones feeling under pressure to this “authority”. I’ve just acquired Sir Crispin Tickell’s 1977 “Climatic Change and World Affairs” which looks pretty seminal too, in building Jones’ authority figure.

  35. All the payment talk comes from the “Climate Cover-up” book, with a review at
    http://hubpages.com/hub/Climate-Cover-Up-A-Review
    http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up
    What it tries to insinuate is that the whole skeptic community is built from the efforts of PR companies that got about $20m for the fossil fuel industry during the last ten years.
    Apparently, the book is so cheap ($10) that I am getting it just for the laughs.
    I really wonder if the authors of the book think that we Americans would really be that stupid.

  36. stephen richards (11:35:20) wrote:
    “No-one has yet published anywhere, AFAICT, an engineering quality description of solar – Earth climate interaction.”
    Perhaps because we are far to produce one. As a scientist, I can support the inductive scientific approach as such is described in the paper I pointed to (empirical analysis) rather the modeling approach by the IPCC which pre-supposes the complete understanding of the underlying processes at work in the climate: an assumption one can consider excessively optimistic…

  37. ‘I’m not lying’, the exact thing you expect a liar to say when right in front of you.
    ‘I’m not cheating’, the exact thing you expect a cheater to say as you observe him cheating.
    Neither can be used to show the person is lying or cheating, they could just be saying the honest thing. But when someone is at the cusp of being found out for doing a wrong, they usually start to act very nice and polite to the people who are closely observing them, in order to prevent that person from being able to find certainty in the observations. In this case, Jones knows that the observer will never get his hands on any real incriminating evidence, because it is behind layers and layers of firewalls and protected by the politically connected. Thus, all he has to do is appear to be looking for the correct unbiased scientific conclusion, and just as hoped, convince the observer that there is no wrong doing going on.
    What is really amazing, is just how much of a dupe the observer seems to be, as even direct evidence that the person observed is blatantly working behind the scenes in his protected domain to remain a very biased person and discredit the observer in any way possible, the observer still holds out the idea that the observed is really trying to be unbiased. This my friends is a person who refuses to see evil in the world. His absolute bias to needing to never be seen as biased is the determining factor in his observations and conclusions.
    Someone should really get on the line and get Obama to give this guy a position at the state department. He would be the most valued member on Obama’s team to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons.

  38. Claude Harvey and Lucy Skywalker:
    Chaucer knew about such Jones-like people many centuries ago: “…The smiler with the knife under the cloak….”
    Sums it up beautifully, doesn’t it?

  39. Lies, damn lies, statistics and statisticians!
    Raw data is the key. No wonder they flushed it! With all of the versions and variants that have been massaged and masticated…….START AGAIN!

  40. It is quite clear to me that Dr. Jones is looking down his nose at the Klotzbach, et al paper. In quintessentially British fashion, Dr. Jones has politely yet patronizingly all but dismissed the error-filled (according to Dr. Jones) paper. The tone was one of a luminous professor speaking down to a student about the unacceptable sloppiness of that student’s work. Kudos to Roger Sr. for ignoring the obvious insults while maintaining the demeanor one would expect from a respected scientist. I suspect though that Roger Sr just might be playing his hand to the weaknesses in Dr Jone’s character.
    The insufferably arrogant Dr. Jone just may have a point here. Typos are one thing and a sure sign of sloppy editing, but typos have zero effect on the science. However, if Dr. Jones is correct in his critique about the data sets and their attributes (or the lack of claimed attributes), there may be far more serious issues with the paper. Those possible issues aren’t just about the science.
    I am not a scientist, just an educated and informed voter. I don’t know if the changes to the data sets suggested by Dr. Jones would alter the findings or the conclusions of the Klotzbach, et al paper one iota. What I DO know is that scientific papers with conclusions that go against mainstream science (and the egos involved) must be bullet-proof in order to maintain a perception of credibility and confidence in the public arena. This credibility factor is the non-scientific issue I’ve alluded to.
    The field of climate science isn’t just about competing theories, it is a battle for the hearts and minds of the electorate. AGW theory is firmly entrenched in the minds of most (not all) of the electorate, but nearly all of their representatives. To dislodge that mainstream train of thought (if AGW theory is unsupportable) it will take unimpeachable, impeccably written and reviewed scientific research papers (no sloppy errors, unsound references or cites, etc.) to the contrary. Skeptics will be held to a much higher standard, and skeptical scientists must rise to the challenge or the AGW policies juggernaut will just gather more speed.
    Perception is reality; especially so in the public arena. All an opponent need do is create the impression in the public eye that, because a paper has obvious errors, it’s therefore sloppy science and the conclusions unsupportable. Dr. Jones, by being dismissive with this paper, has demonstrated how easily that can be done. Sound bites don’t leave much room for rebuttal or clarification, so it is incumbent that skeptical scientists “get it right” the first time so that first impression is positive.

  41. I disagree with Dr. Pielke. Dr. Jones and the rest of the team have a lot of apologizing to do, and need to prove themselves anew as to whether they can be trusted to provide an unbiased review of scientific papers, data, etc.
    Unless they’re willing to admit wrongdoing, all of them, not just one or two, then they will remain a rogues gallery of persona non grata.

  42. Hats of to Roger Pielke Sr. and his co-authors for their magnanimity and good nature.
    For myself, I wouldn’t believe ANYTHING that Jones, or Mann and their ‘teams’ said, if they arranged for it to be blazoned across the sky in letters of golden fire.
    They (and their cheerleaders like the Grauniad and the BBC) have absolutely and irretrievably forfeited any confidence that a scientifically literate layman like myself might have, in both their honesty and their competence.
    If the Pielkes think this is an unjustified ad hominem attack then that’s a shame but I am totally unrepentant.
    At least the Pielkes are not absolutely aware that their “scientific findings” are being used by political dimwits and big finance crooks to terrify schoolkids, to cause irreparable damage to the economies of the western democracies and to destroy hope in the third world.

  43. stephen richards (11:35:20) :
    No-one has yet published anywhere, AFAICT, an engineering quality description of solar – Earth climate interaction.

    It needs some engineering quality funding behind the research.
    Nir Shaviv, Nicola Scafetta and others are working on the problem of disentangling the solar signal in temperature form the rest of the internal climate noise.
    See the scafetta paper.
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.4319v1.pdf

  44. It appears that Roger Pielke, Sr. is showing us, besides irony, that Jones is “something else”. He is an extreme nitpicker of even the most inconsequential. Therefore, anything that was issued under his aegis or review at CRU or IPPC, has met with his approval and is “error free”. Thus, all incorrect or biased or fraudulent data, calculations, statistical manipulations, or site selections are the result of his intent and approval. He won’t be able to claim innocence at his trial.

  45. In the legal profession unethical conduct results in disbarment. The individual is no longer allowed to practice law. Jones, Mann, Schmidt, Briffa, et al should be disbarred, disowned, from climate science.
    I agree with Pielke calling for a fully independent assessment of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC.

  46. B. Smith (12:25:17) :
    ‘AGW theory is firmly entrenched in the minds of most (not all) of the electorate, but nearly all of their representatives.’
    Most of our representatives (it is not about the science) only believe in a new source of revenue (CO2 Cap and Tax or CO2 Tax) and the control it will bring to their party.

  47. The last time that I heard of people saying that the science was ‘settled’ was in 1899, when it seemed it was just a matter of filling in a few details. Soon after Einstein came along and really screwed things up!
    Science is never settled, just not disproved. AGW has made several predictions, all of which have failed, so in scientific terms AGW is a dead science.
    I did see one comment suggesting that $50 billion had been spent on AGW climate research! Is this true?
    If so : ‘$50 billion spent on research and all I get is one lousy graph!’

  48. Anticlimactic (15:39:48) :
    I did see one comment suggesting that $50 billion had been spent on AGW climate research! Is this true?
    If so : ‘$50 billion spent on research and all I get is one lousy graph!’

    To be fair…. monies spent did go for a great deal of important research. The issue however would be how much work, how many studies (which would otherwise be accurate) contain errors and are not accurate due to the activity of the little Jones / Mann group?
    How much ‘science’ has to be redone (if any) and at what expense. Will CRU, Penn St. , NASA, etc reimburse / compensate those who have been so affected should that be the case ?

  49. old construction worker (14:39:36) :
    “Most of our representatives (it is not about the science) only believe in a new source of revenue (CO2 Cap and Tax or CO2 Tax) and the control it will bring to their party.”
    It may be my California bias, surrounded as I am by New Age liberals, but off record conversations indicate too many politicians have bought into AGW theory itself. How much of that acceptance is fueled by the tax grab component still isn’t clearly defined. Regardless, I don’t buy the theory that tax grabs equate to more power for a given party; certainly not in the USA.
    Historically, excessive taxation without a truly just cause invariably will cost the party responsible for the tax policies either their Congressional majority (often in both Houses) or the Presidency itself. That was the point I was making regarding winning over the electorate. AGW has been a just cause for a majority of the people, until now. The revelations from the CRU whistle blowing has caused voters to pause and reflect and that pause is the opening skeptical scientists must use to be heard above the noise.
    So long as the majority of voters think AGW is a real danger, their elected representatives will stay the course on current environmental policies (the caps and taxes you mention). If the skeptics, by the weight of empirical proof and soundness of their science, can convince the majority of the voters that AGW theory is grossly overstated or even discredited, the voters can now remove (by not re-electing) those officials who do not represent their new views. AGW-fueled tax policies will no longer be viewed as justifiable, and voter backlash will certainly take place.

  50. Lee Kington (16:13:05)
    I do wonder, if historical raw data has been deleted, whether copies will be found to exist once the AGW edifice has crumbled. I can not believe all the researchers are truly loyal to AGW even if forced to be to get a job and may have taken clandestine copies. Not quite ‘Fahrenheit 451’, but it does come to mind.
    Is any independent organisation trying to create a store of untainted data?
    Also many researchers may be able to redo the science quickly one they are given the freedom to do so.

  51. Don’t forget that the article itself says Jones agreed to the appearance here of his emails. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and I take Pielke, Sr at his word for the purpose of this article’s appearance here –reengaging on the science going forward.
    Hey, look people, aside from all the lighting and thunder (and what Johnny Apple would have called “horserace reporting”), there are real differences held by very intelligent and highly trained/experienced people who believe passionately that they are correct and the other fellow is regrettably, but very seriously, mistaken.

  52. Oh, and btw, should Phil Jones be reading this article, knowing that it would appear. . . .thank you Dr. Jones for allowing them to appear here, and I hope WUWT will see more of your participation, even if indirectly, in the future.
    The past is the past, and those issues will work themselves out however they do. All any of us can do is try to make the future better.

  53. From looking around the data bases used and talked about in the e-mails it would seem that the original DAILY data bases are still intact as is, because it would take too much work to redo the individual daily values. Due to laziness and the ease of shifting averages a few tenths to a whole degrees is easy to hide (until searched to confirm) in piles of numbers that vary all over the place.
    It appears to me that what was “lost” was the “adjusted MONTHLY average” values they had in their cook books for future use then discarded before they could be found, by prying eyes through FOIA request.
    If new monthly average values are needed they could be re-figured from the intact daily records. However I would suggest starting from scratch, to avoid falling into the trap or using any erroneous infilling values.

  54. Let me see if I’ve got this right
    Jim,Makiko and Reto released a paper in 2001 that stated 1998 was the warmest year(for the US)when in fact 1934 was.Jim being the brilliant scientist that he is cannot even remember the 2001 paper,and for some strange reason cannot just look it up,or is he telling Makiko and Reto that they made the mistake,and they’d better fix it(trying to guess why he states he doesn’t know what the 2001 paper stated)Very polite of him,not so polite when he talks about other scientists questioning his brilliance.Comes across as very incompetent,anything to do with his work should be available to him within 1 minute.I didn’t read all the e-mails.So hard to pick out who is talking to who with all the repeats,but this one from Jim held my interest.
    Could you please clear this up?Other people keep saying the same thing as Demian does
    that we previously claimed 1998 was warmer than 1934.
    Is that right?
    I am quite sure that our 2001 paper shows 1934 slightly warmer.
    Did we once find 1998 as warmer?
    End
    As I said,very incompetent,glad he didn’t pick medicine for his career.

  55. WAAAAAA..
    Jones:
    I have just had a meeting with one of my PhD students. He is writing a paper and I suggested he refer to a certain paper. He said he’s been unable to locate a copy of the paper, which I have to admit is a bit obscure. He then recalled that when he started 2 years ago I told him it was essential to read through all the papers he was ever intending to refer to. I don’t recall giving him this sound advice, but I guess I must have. I do recall getting the same advice in the 1970s. I still try to follow the advice I got.
    Over the years I’ve reviewed countless papers. I have no evidence except my history of reviewing, but I’ve noticed that authors who make mistakes referring to the literature or to datasets or not apparently knowing which datasets they have used, have invariably made mistakes elsewhere.”
    well, all you need to do is look no further than AR4 chapter 6. Jones and others pushed hard to get a paper from Amann and Wahl in that Chapter.
    They did. too bad that paper has references to a paper that wasnt finished or accepted at the time. Jones suggestion? CHANGE THE PUBLICATION DATE.

  56. artwest (09:00:58) :
    “Maybe it’s just me, but Jones’ comments sound rather more like patronising point-scoring than collegiality with an equal.
    And I’m British too, so it’s not a cultural misunderstanding.”
    I noticed this as well. I thought Jones’ comments were rather condescending and arrogant, particularly in consideration that they were not addressed to a student, but rather an equal. Dr. Pielke should commended for his willingness to maintain a collegiality in such circumstances, but IMHO, he is “throwing pearls before swine”. Jones needs to be taken down a few pegs.

Comments are closed.