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
Tough luck Phil. Nearly got away with it, eh?
NucEngineer (20:35:29) :
The latter (raw unadjusted) is not 100% available.
In general, I believe raw data, and research results gathered at public expense should be freely available to the same public at large unless that research were classified for national security issues.
If there is a substantial public (taxpayer) cost associated with keeping this data available then I think it would be in line with what I call the principle of fair taxation for voluntary use of government services to charge a fair fee for accessing this data.
”””NucEngineer (20:35:29) :
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.””””
Nuc,
Jones nuked the data? Well umm, not looking good for him.
On a Personal Note: Hey, I was in the nuclear engineering field for 30 years.
Nuc’s unite.
John
””””Bernie (20:27:51) :
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.””””’
Bernie,
Interesting speculation you brought out. Certainly, we could also speculate that there are communications going on the background between the Team and there is some effort by them to take mini steps forward from the dark place they are in.
Some see in the Jones interview that the “every man for himself” principle is starting to play out. But I do not see that . . . . yet.
John
Well, now I know what to tell the IRS about why my numbers do not match the 1099’s they have on file, I just have poor record keeping abilities. I’m sure that will get me off the hook.
Pants on the ground. Pants on the ground. Looking like a fool wit yo pants on the ground!
Jones from BBC Interview:
H – If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D.
I – Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?
No – see again my answer to D.
So since he thinks solar and volcanic forcing can’t explain a warming trend, it must be human caused?
Good grief, dig a little deeper Jones! The world is (check that, was) counting on you.
Wasn’t he the one who said he selfishly hoped all the disaster predictions would come to pass, to prove their point?
I can’t figure our well the nuance of the “bunker mentality.”
Does this trace back to a bunker in golf yards?
Anyone teach me please.
tokyoboy (21:36:05) :
I can’t figure our well the nuance of the “bunker mentality.”
Does this trace back to a bunker in golf yards?
Anyone teach me please.
Try Hitler’s Bunker
So he thinks his critics should compile their own dataset, presumably he will lobby the Governments of the world to provide a similar amount of money that he and his shonky scientist mates received.
Diminished Capacity seems a better defense.
I did the work under the influence of drink.
Oh Fudge.
Another major player just made a decision that the science is ”not settled”:
AZ Gov. Jan Brewer has issued an executive order saying that her state will suspend its participation in the 7-State Western Regional Climate Action Initiative or any similar program that could raise costs.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521142
Excerpt from the BBC article:
> “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature.
> If I registered that the climate has been cooling
> I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and
> then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
Hmmm. Excerpt from the 1120593115.txt email.
(This email is truncated on the http://www.eastangliaemails.com site. I got my copy from a Swedish site via wikileaks.)
========================================================
From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
…
IPCC, me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
========================================================
Vilmos
The problem is that even if you have measured something as having a trend line you made assumptions as to the cause of the trend line and politicized them. TO be honest ‘skeptics’ do not disagree that the world has warmed since the little ice age… that is why we call it the little ice age, because it was cold. nor is it shocking that the temperatures would in general be moving higher from that. Nor do we truly dispute that some glaciers are melting faster ( as they lose mass they should melt faster ( fun experiment for those of you who live in a place with snow, make a pile and see if the pile takes as long as the rest of the snow around the pile to melt come a sunny day, bet you the pile if you made it big enough lasted a lot longer then the stuff you didn’t pile together ) ) ergo a glacier that has been melting for the last 150 years should be melting faster now then it did say 30 years ago. Stop throwing out UHI or believing you have accounted for it 100%. Admit the non linear nature of CO2 absorption. Look for other causes to the increase in temperature. Stop being political. Then I will treat you as a respectable scientist instead of a political hack with scientific credentials and a political axe to grind.
tokyoboy – Try a web search for the term. It is based upon the meanings of a military bunker, such as a war room, bomb shelter, or machine gun nest.
So predictable…
”””’tokyoboy (21:36:05) : I can’t figure our well the nuance of the “bunker mentality.” Does this trace back to a bunker in golf yards?
Anyone teach me please.”””’
Tokyoboy,
A bunker is a reinforced structure usually underground that is build for the purpose of keeping military leaders or gov’t officials safe from military bombardment by artillery or aircraft. So a bunker mentality would be the state of mind of those in the bunker while it is being severely attacked. One cannot imagine their state of mind.
BUT, I think your reference to a bunker on a golf course can be extended to the current climategate and climate science situation. I like it the more I think about it. Let’s expand on it. What is the state of mind of a person whose ball finds the bunker . . . the beginning of a stressed situation? Then, difficulty of extracting oneself from the bunker without losing the match. Repeated failure and having the ball roll back into the bunker or go into another bunker. Etc, etc. Looks fruitful.
Personal note: I am headed for Tokyo from Taipei on Mon Feb 14 for 3 to 4 days. I go there every 2 to 3 months on business.
John
It a seige mentality that correlates to a desparate defence and being ‘holed up’ in a bunker
Unburden your soul, Phil. You’ll feel better. It is a pity, for you and for us, that this is what it took. . . but history won’t generally remember. The important thing is getting to the right answer. . . .the path is only embarrassing from time to time to individuals in the moment.
Dare I believe that our Dr. Jones has had a ‘road to Damascus ‘ experience?
I don’t think anyone has the complete story of the saga about Jones. IMO there is already plenty of evidence to charge him with fraud and let the courts decide whether he is guilty or not.
John Whitman (22:07:57) :
Thank you so much, my mentor.
I’m pleased to hear you are a frequent visitor to Tokyo.
Please note it’s now fairly cold, under 10 degC, and will be so for coming days, as long as our Met Office is credible.
I wish you a good trip from Taipei, but BTW, 14 Feb is Sunday….. [snip too personal a communication?]
But don’t forget to give credit to his sources: