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.
Re: Richard Wakefield (Feb 12 17:52),
that was excellent Richard, well done. Now email it to all the pollies in your juristiction.
This is a day to be put in history. I wonder if anyone see how big is it? The MWP concession actully puts the Hockey StiX to the trash.
I will sleep better tonight.
So if its is not clear that the MWP was warmer than now (or not) …. then how can it be a certainty that the current period of warming is man-made ….. how can it be said that the ‘science is settled’.
This man has a DUTY to stand up to politicians and say “THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED”
– honesty is not enough … you have to also be courageous.
“If some of our critics spent less time criticising us and prepared a dataset of their own, that would be much more constructive.” – Phil Jones
“Art may imitate life, its imitation of climate needs to be considered quite carefully” – Gavin Schmidt
__________________________________________________________________
“Nine times out of ten, in the arts as in life, there is actually no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed.” – H L Mencken
We have a number of recent analysis detailing the strong likelihood that the actual warming is less and cannot be attributed to AGW.
Such as this
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/why-the-epa-is-wrong-about-recent-warming/
Jones et al are hiding from it to avoid facing and accepting what they have done.
With the actual warming and science of determining the human contribution so challenged it’s preposterous for Jones to stand by the view that “recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.”
It’s not science. It’s wishful presumption gone wild.
He can’t state with any certainty what the warming has been or how likely it is man-made. Let alone most likely.
Jones’ claim that he had not cheated the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process is insulting since he is continuing to thwart the scientific process by ignoring, disparaging and misrepresenting the extensive scientific refutations. His continued pitch to discount the skeptics and their work is more of the same from Jones et al.
The data that is available in electronic form is not raw. It has already been adjusted and “corrected.” And there is really only one global data set (derived from thermometers) and of course it agrees with itself.
Thanks for throwing Mann in front of the bus but all it proves is that this man has no integrity, no integrity at all.
When I read the mails about the FOI requests I already came to that conclusion.
Ideology over science!
Hmmmm.
Pardon me!? We skeptics should assemble our own data?
WE ARE NOT PAID TO DO THAT. YOU ARE DR. JONES!
What in God’s name is the matter with this man that he could make such an asinine suggestion like that?
The major datasets may agree, but a scientist without his data is no scientist at all. He’s a soothsayer.
Gong!
Assuming you believe the incompetence argument. I don’t for a second. It’s blatantly obvious that obfuscation of the facts was the goal all along.
‘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.’
What utter b—y rot. These words need to be measured against those he wrote in the infamous emails. He demonstrated arrogant hubris in large quantities then. How can you believe anything from this man? I for one simply cannot trust him. I couldn’t care less about what happens to him but I do care about getting thing right. It can’t happen with the likes of him anywhere near the process of sorting the science.
Mick
Wow! Good job Richard Wakefield.
Now let’s see which science journalists run with this. Will the BBC follow up and connect the dots? How will our friends at RealClimate, ClimateProgress, etc., frame his comments? What Steve McIntyre has suggested has proven to be exactly the case. Jones’ defense is sloppiness coupled with overwhelming arrogance. That is hardly a defense.
Arrogant till the end
Hummm, Lessseee here….
Jones isn’t known for being a good file clerk – or keeping good records, or documenting findings.
Solution:
A classified under “Opportunities”
Needed
One file clerk/data entry person
a dedicated, loyal and underpaid grad student
I can’t understand why a couple of million dollars can’t buy those two things to keep Dr Phil on the up and up.
Sorry Phil it still doesn’t wash….
Mike Bentley
Andrew30 (17:57:43) : [on annecdotal evidence] “… An anecdote is some kind of hearsay that only exists in the minds of people, like say, human induced global warming. …”
Not really. An annecdote can be perfectly real – i.e. not hearsay – and still not be more than “annecdotal.” Bacon (Francis, that is) railed against “empiricalists” because they tended to rely on annecdotal evidence. The significance of a real event in isolation is uncertain. The event is true, but the significance can’t be fully determined.
You might say that one black swan falsifies the assertion that all swans are white. However, asserting on the basis of a single black swan that an entire class of black swans exists is relying on annecdotal evidence – you saw just one. Noting one black swan is an annecdote; noting a flock of them is seeing evidence of a population.
Suddenly so freaking clean that maybe there was a MWP and the records were kind of messy. Then why hide the decline and duck FOIs. This is supposed to be a leading researcher in climate ‘science’ who still is so sure of his numbers, if he could find them, that he would bet our pocketbooks and freedoms on his calculations. Cognitive dissonance is a polite way of describing criminal negligence.
Given the nature and significance of these revelations, it might be interesting to speculate what caused the soul baring by Prof. Jones.
One hypothesis is that Prof. Jones has learned who released the emails and files, why and what else is about to come out. Something had to trigger this amazing set of admissions.
To keep a record of all his data, code, and documents, including revisions, all he needed was a source control system. These have been around almost as long as computers, and are free. Never mind for a record, just for backup.
He is also claiming here that they did all this work and didn’t have a basic backup system. That has to either be a lie, or be on purpose. Most likely they had a backup, and then deleted things (along with emails that might have been damning).
You could not make this up!
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5130&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co2sceptics%2Fnews+%28CO2sceptics+News+Blog%29
The data is available?
Is that the data already massaged, corrected, fudged, or is that the raw, unpolluted data that is available?
It makes a difference.
[snip]
He said “sceptics” who doubted his climate record should compile their own dataset from material publicly available in the US.
Yes, Phil, that is what I have been doing. And what I am finding in an “edited” area are huge gaps. Gaps that exist in the “official” records found at NCDC, but for the most part, do not exist in local print media of the times in question.
That, in of itself, is a huge problem, and that is why I agree with this statement:
some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.
It was never well-organinzed, and therefore as a basis to make a major dataset, flawed from the beginning.
Everything based on those flawed datasets are open to criticism.
And last, but not least, the MWP debate cannot be settled before the question of exaclty how much uncertainty exists in the ‘official’ dataset is made clear.
I’m going to hazard a guess that somewhere, in a dusty corner, lie untold boxes and crates stuffed with original station data papers.
I see a few things wrong with Mr. Jones statements but I will focus on this one. Science is not based in fact, it is based in theory and theory is proven until someone disproves it. So if you are not willing to make your data available for others to test your theory, you are violating one of the basic tenants of science. It is a search for the truth, not a search for the truth as you see it…
Duster (20:19:22) :
Andrew30 (17:57:43) : [on annecdotal evidence] “… An anecdote is some kind of hearsay that only exists in the minds of people…”
Perhaps you misunderstood my use of the term ‘hearsay’. I used it to mean something that was heard and then said (hear -> say). I did not say it could not be real. I appended the words ‘kind of’ to imply that the subject ‘human induces global warming’ of the piece was not strictly only ‘hearsay’ but a ‘kind of hearsay’ which is what an anecdote is once repeated by someone other than the original observer.
I am sorry if I caused any misunderstanding, you may have though the word ‘unreal’ when you read the phrase ‘kind of hearsay’ since the subject that followed the phrase was ‘human induces global warming’.
It is common to sub-consciously associate ‘human induces global warming’ with ‘unreal’, so no fault on your part.
🙂