From the BBC
By Roger Harrabin, Environment analyst, BBC News
Phil Jones, the professor behind the “Climategate” affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.
He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics – a decision he says he regretted.
But Professor Jones said he had not cheated the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process.
He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.
But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.
These statements are likely to be welcomed by people sceptical of man-made climate change who have felt insulted to be labelled by government ministers as flat-earthers and deniers.
‘Bunker mentality’
Professor Jones agreed that scientists on both sides of the debate could suffer sometimes from a “bunker mentality”.
He said “sceptics” who doubted his climate record should compile their own dataset from material publicly available in the US.
“The major datasets mostly agree,” he said. “If some of our critics spent less time criticising us and prepared a dataset of their own, that would be much more constructive.”
His colleagues said that keeping a paper trail was not one of Professor Jones’ strong points. Professor Jones told BBC News: “There is some truth in that.
“We do have a trail of where the (weather) stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be,” he admitted.
=========================
h/t Andrew Montford, See more at the BBC here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OK. Which stations are good ones, Jones?
And we should use U.S. data? So the U.K.’s data at that CRU place is no good? May as well shut that down, then. What’s the UEA’s refund policy?
…his data was not well “organized”? smile…. neither was his programmer supervision organized…
What about the Harry_Read_Me file….? when is someone going to put
that into their “dig here” pile?
And the CRU pillage/leakage… whatever… supposedly included 1K
emails and 3K other files. What has become of those “other files?” What are they? ….Lady in Red
Isn’t he defending his work by asking his critics to prove a negative? That’s not cricket.
It is obvious that Prof. Jones is not a student of history, or he would realize that Greenland got its name from the Vikings who landed there…why, because it was GREEN!!!, and it was warm enough to grow crops and raise livestock…so it was likely that it was considerably warmer than it is now… Yes, I am being a bit smart about this, but it doesn’t take having a Phd to be able to read historical information and draw a conclusion. Of course I am not a peer reviewed person, or getting research grants from oil companies, but this “spin” that is put on all weather events and data by the AGW group is just plain wrong.
Essentially, apart from Jones admitting the obvious, that the science is not, in fact, settled, he also admits he just isn’t a very good scientist.
It really wasn’t Phil’s fault. Like record snows and everything else, his problem was caused by global warming. I can’t wait to see how Real Climate spins this.
“should compile their own dataset from material publicly available in the US”
Professor Jones still does not seem to understand that HE is responsible for providing the dataset on which his scientific conclusions are based.
“…but they didn’t realise that the satellite record from the University of Alabama in Huntsville showed that January had been the warmest month since records began in 1979.”
anybody surprised that the interview ends with another untrue statement ?
january wasn’t the warmest month, it was just the warmest january since 1979.
precision
this is an error that is not supposed to occur by a professional record keeper of world temperature data.
anyways, having a record of 30 years, chances of a record month during a calendar year would be around 12/30 or 40%, assuming random data
nothing spectacular. and chances of a record month in an el nino enhanced year would be even higher.
Phil Jones said…….“The major datasets mostly agree,” he said. “If some of our critics spent less time criticising us and prepared a dataset of their own, that would be much more constructive.”
———————————————————–
Good grief! The guy still doesn’t get it!
Good science is supposed to be reproducable using the data and methodology of the scientist who claims to have produced a result…. If he was serious he would allow other interested parties to use his data and methods to reproduce his scientific findings and confirming its validity.
He is just too stupid for words. How do people like him end up heading organizations that develop science for policy makers……….Oh, I just answered my own question then, didn’t I…… 🙁
Off topic, CREW jet stream map, pacific, and west coast NA 3.5 days out, really strange jet stream, artic to equator??
All that Jones did or didn’t do is still uncovered.
Even so, I will speculate a little about this interview.
He may be telling the truth and the whole truth. Or not.
What do we know?
We know he stalled on the FOIA,
He impeded the publication of studies that did not please his cabal of Climate Scientists.
And we know some original data was lost or destroyed or adjusted until it is seems useless.
(My old accounting professor used the term “lost, stolen, strayed, or otherwise disappeared” for data that somehow could not be produced for audit.)
What appears likely but is not proved:
He deliberately damaged and perhaps ruined careers.
He tinkered with data and nudged it to produce desired results.
He may have selected favorable data and ignored unfavorable.
The published computer programs are a mess. And the database was equally so.
So far this is consistent with the classic 3 step defense:
(1) admit what cannot be denied,
(2) reveal minor items that cannot lead to serious difficulties,
(3) absolutely deny anything else occurred or should be investigated.
Before the CRU emails came out Jones had defended the citadel by:
appeals to authority, smearing critics, pretending to misunderstand communications, being too busy, claiming material was propriety, and insisting outsiders could never understand anyway.
Those defenses held for several years. They are laughed at now.
The IPCC continues to use the similar defenses. To date I believe they only admit that GlacierGate was a mistake, yet hardly more than a misprint.
Otherwise IPCC stonewalls by saying in effect ” We have made no material errors and never will.”
Why not follow why almost every Ice Age has become progressively colder.
One closer to the sun in the past and past and past…
Two our rotation of the planet was faster which had an effect on growth as different speed means different energy our planet was giving off.
Funny how from a pile of chemicals 4 billion years ago, the progressing of increased species as the timeline increases.
Species where much bigger when the planets energy was rotating faster.
Timeline future…much more diversified species but smaller due to less rotational energy.
The current measurement of temperatures at this timeline really is insignificant when compared to the past.
Bunker mentally my a**. He never has been shot at until he committed a”hide the decline”. The guys like Mosher, Fuller, Watts and McIntyre,Spencer, and many others were the ones that had to jump in the bunkers and wait out the barrages until they could counter -attack with the truth. Now all we see are the impotent responses,not robust responses to their deceptions.
OK, a little extreme, but to below Cabo, any info, because it looks strange to me anyway
So because he’s a sloppy scientist, we should cut him some slack, and just believe him anyway. This is the worst excuse so far of all the ones he’s come up with. Throw the bum out.
A possible scenario:
[To Mr Jones with apologies to the Matrix and M & M]
M & M : You (Mr Jones) must see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.
(In his left hand, M & M shows Mr Jones a blue pill.)
M & M: You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
(M & M show Mr Jones a red pill is shown in his other hand)
M & M: You take the red pill and you stay with Climate Audit and I show you how deep the data hole goes.
(Long pause; Mr Jones begins to reach for the blue pill)
M & M: OOPs, Mr Jones . . . . bad choice.
John
When you can graze cattle and grow crops in Southern Greenland again and the Viking graves there are no longer in perma frost. THEN the temperature will equal the MWP. How many tree rings and proxy data scources to you need to deny this historically documented fact.
Anand Rajan KD (17:36:33) : I repeat myself: Jones owes McIntyre an apology.
Fully endorsed, Anand.
Jones seems to be trying to make people feel sorry for his situation. Every time he now appears on TV/Radio/Paper I just go back and read the emails.
He made his untidy bed he now has to lay on it.
Forget about science the only thing he has on his mind right now is staying out of jail.
So they changed their story from “the dog ate the data” to “the dog ate the data, pooped it out, and it’s a bit of a mess”?
Sounds like he is going down the track of incompetancy as a defense…
“If some of our critics spent less time criticising us and prepared a dataset of their own, that would be much more constructive.”
Translation : Stop finding all our errors and give us something of yours that we can have the media pick apart for us!
Simple case of people trying to be bigger than they are capable of. Just think, if he spent 10% of his time documenting the data, subsequent work, etc., and allowed access he could be THE authorative figure in climate change, in whatever direction it takes us. What these people fail to realise that if you do your job with integrity, you keep your integrity whether the results validate your theory or not. Invalidating a theory is equally important as validating one. Both results are useful.
Mr. Jones appears to adopt a position that he did not knowingly compromise his scientific principles for the sake of advocating CACGW. This leads him to an adversarial dialog with those still seeking full disclosure of his data, methodology and code. Adversarial is OK, but full cooperation right now would go a long way to mitigate his public image.
It is in his best interest to fully engage in broad cooperation . . . who is advising him? He needs new advisors.
John
I bet he feels a lot better having got some of this off his chest. As I have stated to friends on many occasions ‘never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence’
Dr Jones knew his data were a mess, and that’s the last thing he wanted anyone to find out about. He probably felt ill-at-ease about hiding the MWP but kept his doubts privately for ‘the cause’. Now everyone knows it, and he has admitted it, he probably feels a weight off his shoulders. Nobody wants to show a guest a toilet that hasn’t been cleaned. Nobody likes stating absolute truths about something they aren’t 100% sure of.