Excerpts from the Daily Mail article here:
Head of ‘Climategate’ research unit admits he hid data – because it was ‘standard practice’
The scientist at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ row over global warming hid data ‘because it was standard practice’, it emerged today.
Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s prestigious climatic research unit, today admitted to MPs that the centre withheld raw station data about global temperatures from around the world.
The world-renowned research unit has been under fire since private emails, which sceptics claimed showed evidence of scientists manipulating climate data, were hacked from the university’s server and posted online.
Now, an independent probe is examining allegations stemming from the emails that scientists hid, manipulated or deleted data to exaggerate the case for man-made global warming.
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.
He also said the scientific journals which had published his papers had never asked to see it.
Appearing before the committee’s hearing into the disclosure of data from the CRU alongside Prof Jones, 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.
h/t to WUWT reader Richard Lawson
UPDATE: Steven Mosher writes in comments about some relevant history that disproves Dr. Jones claim of “standard practice”:
==========================
OK. Everybody write the UEA committee.
Jones says its standard practice NOT to share data.
1. in 2002 PRIOR to the publication of MM2003 Jones shared
data with Mcintyre. Jones was aware of confidentiality agreements.
“Dear Steve,
Attached are the two similar files [normup6190, cruwld.dat] to those I sent before which should be for the 1994 version. This is still the current version until the paper appears for the new one. As before the stations with normal values do not get used.
I’ll bear your comments in mind when possibly releasing the station data for the new version (comments wrt annual temperatures as well as the monthly). 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. With fewer than 12 I then have to decide what to insert for missing data. Problem also applies to the grid box dataset but is slightly less of an issue.
I say possibly releasing above, as I don’t want to run into the issues that GHCN have come across with some European countries objecting to data being freely available. I would like to see more countries make their data freely available (and although these monthly averages should be according to GCOS rules for GAA-operational Met. Service.
Cheers
Phil Jones”
http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/06/a-2002-request-to-cru/
2. After the publication of MM03 he refused to share that data with Hughes in Feb 2005:a month after MM05 was published and a month after Wigly and he discussed ways to avoid FOIA. He refused
again with Mcintyre in 2007, citing confidentiality agreements.
3. Fully aware of the confidentiality agreements Jones shared the data
with Webster and with Rutherford.
His standard practice was this.
If Jones had no reason to suspect you as an individual he would violate confidentiality agreements and send you data. If jones didn’t like your results or your treatment of his co author Dr. Mann, then he would refuse you data.
There is nothing standard about this practice.
===================================
It appears once Dr. Jones learned that Steve McIntyre had skeptical views, his unwillingness to share data became “standard practice”. – Anthony
1
03
2010
Graeme From Melbourne (21:33:20) :
Wren (21:07:43) :
…
—————–
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.
Point 1. Say you have a conclusion, which you have derived from a set of data using a set of methods. How would you convince me that the conclusion is correct without sharing both your data and your methods? I would really like to know.
Point 2. Your financial adviser claims that he has successfully invested your life savings in a wonderful investment that will earn compounding returns of 10% every year. You ask for details, he says, that the details are unecessary as you can trust him – you do.
=====
Point 1. I doubt sharing the data and methodology would convince you the conclusions were correct if you didn’t like the conclusions in the first place. On the other hand, you might be like Wegman, who decided Mann’s conclusion was right but his methodology was wrong.
Point 2 is moot. I would take anything a financial advisor says with a grain of salt regardless of his d explanation or not. Capital is always at risk, no matter what you do.
Wren (22:29:27) :
=====
Point 1. I doubt sharing the data and methodology would convince you the conclusions were correct if you didn’t like the conclusions in the first place. On the other hand, you might be like Wegman, who decided Mann’s conclusion was right but his methodology was wrong.
Point 2 is moot. I would take anything a financial advisor says with a grain of salt regardless of his d explanation or not. Capital is always at risk, no matter what you do.
[1] I’m perfectly capable of dealing with unpleasant facts. I would follow the data and the methods to whatever conclusions could be logically drawn from them.
[2] The financial example was to demonstrate that a lack of transparency would immediately raise a red flag in that domain. So why not in a science domain.
“Wren (22:03:12) :
Sure, why not insist on it. But let’s also insist on seeing all the climate-related communications of McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano, to name a few.
[1] You suspect the Hadley CRU data are flawed, I suspect many of the data request are politically motivated. We both need to know the truth.”
[1] Note that even Phil Jones thinks that the CRU data is a mess. REF: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
@Wren (22:29:27) :
—>Point 1. I doubt sharing the data and methodology would convince you the conclusions were correct if you didn’t like the conclusions in the first place. On the other hand, you might be like Wegman, who decided Mann’s conclusion was right but his methodology was wrong.
Point 2 is moot. I would take anything a financial advisor says with a grain of salt regardless of his d explanation or not. Capital is always at risk, no matter what you do.
—
You must be a troll. Whether I like someone’s conclusions or not, if I have their data and methods and I replicate them and I find nothing wrong, I must accept them. And with point #2, you are of course now slyly changing the subject on us, which was do you request methods/data to confirm or do you decide to simply accept what anyone says on their word? It sounds like you would not trust a financial advisor, but you would accept anything any scientist says? There’s a word for someone who will blindly accept anything people with certain qualifications say, that word is “Sheep.” baaaaaa.
Wren, your stance was encapsulated perfectly by Phil Jones. When asked for his data by Warwick Hughes, Jones famously said:
I was so upset by this remark (and the lack of criticism of it by climate scientists) that I filed the first FOI request with the CRU.
I was so upset because Phil’s refusal showed absolute contempt of the scientific method. Here’s how that works:
1. A scientist comes up with a new idea. She writes up the idea, and publishes it along with all of the logic, data, methods, and computer codes that supports that idea.
2. Other people try their best to poke holes in the logic, data, methods, and codes.
3. If the other people can poke holes in the logic etc., the idea is tossed in the rubbish bin. If not, it is (provisionally) accepted as scientifically valid. (“Provisionally” because someone may come along next week and demolish it.)
So the idea that Phil shouldn’t give Warwick his data because he would try to find fault with it is as un-scientific as you can get. Of course he would try to find fault with it, that’s what scientists do. In fact, a true scientist should start by giving the information to his worst enemies, because if they can’t poke holes in it, no one can.
As a result, your idea that someone should be able to pick and choose who they give their data to is absolutely and completely against the scientific method. Science is not a game of lets make nice. It consists entirely of two parts, people making claims and other people trying to nit-pick holes in those claims, regardless of whether the nit-pickers have noble virtuous intent or not. So when you say:
you are setting yourself up as some kind of uber-science judge who is qualified to say “yes, you are qualified to find errors in someone’s work, but you can’t” …
Which, of course, is totally unscientific. Anyone, regardless of their motives or their station in life or their education, is free to find errors in a scientist’s work. We’re not looking for people with pure motives. We’re looking for scientific truth.
Yeah.
There’s no one more sincere, because there’s no one more self-deluded, than a narcissist. That accounts for their charisma.
Catch-22: You can’t judge it because he won’t give you the rope to hang him with, and he won’t give you the rope because he thinks you’re a hangman. Basically, allowing a scientist to hide data from a critic he deems politically motivated will give every dodgy scientist an excuse to hide his data from every potential critic. Such a justification is unjustifiable.
Strawmen. (Critics aren’t claiming his work is meritless and wrong because he won’t cooperate. They’re saying it’s not even wrong.)
But let’s also insist on seeing all the climate-related communications of McIntyre, Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano, to name a few.
I’m sure St. Mac wouldn’t mind! He’s CONTINUALLY publishing his email exchanges on his own site (Climate Audit).
There are many lengthy threads of CA devoted almost entirely to his email exchanges!
And the skeptical scientists don’t hide their data or methods. Sheesh! They are banging down the doors trying to get any and all to look at them! (And they are continually frustrated by a fanatic stonewalling by the AGW alarmists.)
“I haven’t seen the raw data Jones used and the finished results of his work. I imagine he has a methodology that explains what he did. Until I know more about it, I can’t say he did a good job or a bad job.”
This is very simple. I cannot say say whether Jones did a good job or a bad one. I suspend judgment. Everyone should say that. If we cannot see the code and cannot see the data we have a right to shrug our shoulders. If you want to prove your claims to me, I require code and data. You want me to believe in Global warming? you want me to elect officials who will do something about it? you want me to pay for global warming prevention?
Fine. Show me the data I paid you to collect. Show me the code I paid you to write. If you don’t fine. Shrugs. I’m not convinced. I don’t DENY your science. I shrug. Prove it. Don’t order me to trust you. Don’t question my motives unless you want me to question yours. Don’t sell me your drugs and hide the side effects. Don’t sell me your car and fake the safety tests.
This how this story is being presented in Australia;
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/british-scientist-in-climate-row-admits-awful-emails-20100302-pfgd.html
Bad house keeping, bad data management, bad attitude towards FoIA and a few “awful e-mails” lol…can he do better than that?
“Oops!”
It’s wrong to assume that a teeny error is necessarily a molehill. If it puts a number into “record” territory, it is a “mountain.” It is something that a conscientious scientist would double-check before publishing, knowing the effect it would have on public opinion, to whom it would imply an alarming trend, and the use that would be made of it as a talking point by advocates of alarmism.
And that raises another point. What if Jones was an advocate of alarmism himself? Then, maybe he’d think, “Well, what’s a feather on the scale, if that’s what it takes to tip the balance? For want of a feather, the battle could be lost.” I.e., calling it an error may be too charitable.
[try again without offensive terminology. I’m not going to bother to edit your work to make it acceptable. ~ ctm]
Patrick Davis (22:18:29) :
“Wren (22:03:12) :
Sure, why not insist on it. But let’s also insist on seeing all the climate-related communications of McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano, to name a few.
You suspect the Hadley CRU data are flawed, I suspect many of the data request are politically motivated. We both need to know the truth.”
As far as I know McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano aren’t paid by the taxpayer. However, those at hte CRU, Jones et al, are. Big difference.
========
Inhofe is a U.S. Senator and Morano worked for him, so both were paid by taxpayers.
Wren (00:02:50) :
[try again without offensive terminology. I’m not going to bother to edit your work to make it acceptable. ~ ctm]
=====
What offensive terminology?
Willis Eschenbach (23:14:20) :
Wren, your stance was encapsulated perfectly by Phil Jones. When asked for his data by Warwick Hughes, Jones famously said:
Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
I was so upset by this remark (and the lack of criticism of it by climate scientists) that I filed the first FOI request with the CRU.
I was so upset because Phil’s refusal showed absolute contempt of the scientific method. Here’s how that works:
1. A scientist comes up with a new idea. She writes up the idea, and publishes it along with all of the logic, data, methods, and computer codes that supports that idea.
2. Other people try their best to poke holes in the logic, data, methods, and codes.
3. If the other people can poke holes in the logic etc., the idea is tossed in the rubbish bin. If not, it is (provisionally) accepted as scientifically valid. (“Provisionally” because someone may come along next week and demolish it.)
So the idea that Phil shouldn’t give Warwick his data because he would try to find fault with it is as un-scientific as you can get. Of course he would try to find fault with it, that’s what scientists do. In fact, a true scientist should start by giving the information to his worst enemies, because if they can’t poke holes in it, no one can.
As a result, your idea that someone should be able to pick and choose who they give their data to is absolutely and completely against the scientific method. Science is not a game of lets make nice. It consists entirely of two parts, people making claims and other people trying to nit-pick holes in those claims, regardless of whether the nit-pickers have noble virtuous intent or not. So when you say:
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.
you are setting yourself up as some kind of uber-science judge who is qualified to say “yes, you are qualified to find errors in someone’s work, but you can’t” …
Which, of course, is totally unscientific. Anyone, regardless of their motives or their station in life or their education, is free to find errors in a scientist’s work. We’re not looking for people with pure motives. We’re looking for scientific truth.
=====
Well. how do you expect to get truth from people who don’t have pure motives? The flaws they uncover will be those that serve their agenda, rather than those that don’t. A half truth can be misleading.
According to the law of large numbers, a data set with a heap of numbers may have errors, but the errors will tend to offset each other. If I find only the errors that go one way, I have made the data set less accurate. So error finding must be even handed if you are looking for truth.
Maybe Jons should read this and rethink what he and other people on AGW side doing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7344329/Baby-survives-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html
To be fair to the guy, haha, he wasn’t lying. It isn’t standard practice in Climate Science, is it?
Daniel (00:41:54) :
Maybe Jons should read this and rethink what he and other people on AGW side doing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7344329/Baby-survives-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html
—————————–
That one was next to an article about a rare Buddhist flower discovered under a nun’s washing machine. The flower only blossoms every 3,000 years.
telegraph.co.uk is more entertaining than FoxNews
Wren (22:03:12) :
Sure, why not insist on it. But let’s also insist on seeing all the climate-related communications of McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano, to name a few.
You’ve pulled a bait-and-switch. The subject at hand is the data, not the communications.
You suspect the Hadley CRU data are flawed, I suspect many of the data request are politically motivated. We both need to know the truth.
An FOI request is an FOI request — compliance with one is the law, regardless of motivation, unless national security enters the picture. And *that’s* the truth.
“Wren (22:03:12) :
Sure, why not insist on it. But let’s also insist on seeing all the climate-related communications of McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano, to name a few.
You suspect the Hadley CRU data are flawed, I suspect many of the data request are politically motivated. We both need to know the truth.”
Nothin stoppin you putting in the requests is there. Problem is that nothing these people produce forms the basis for a global taxation policy does it?
Bill Tuttle (01:19:56) :
Wren (22:03:12) :
Sure, why not insist on it. But let’s also insist on seeing all the climate-related communications of McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano, to name a few.
You’ve pulled a bait-and-switch. The subject at hand is the data, not the communications.
You suspect the Hadley CRU data are flawed, I suspect many of the data request are politically motivated. We both need to know the truth.
An FOI request is an FOI request — compliance with one is the law, regardless of motivation, unless national security enters the picture. And *that’s* the truth.
====
I’m referring to the hacked e-mails. I want total transparency on all sides. My taxes have paid the salaries of Inhofe and Morano. What’s wrong with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
FYI there are 20 reasons FOI requests can be denied under UK law, most of which are not national security reasons.
Wren is a troll.
If he seriously thinks that comparing Jones et al, to people trying to get at the truth is a level playing field in terms of data etc he is completely insane.
NOAA and CRU should release their data, methodology and calculations, exactly, step by step they method they used to get their results.
Why?
Because global taxation is being metered out based upon it, whole industries are to be destroyed based upon the results they publish.
To call requests to see their methods politically motivated nit picking is blinkered. With so much resting on those results they need to be WATER TIGHT, justified beyond reproach, and universially accepted.
Ask yourself, within this pressure cooker scenerio, why NOAA and CRU still will not release everything to show the exact paths they take to reach their conclusions, when doing so would take all the pressure off them?
John (01:39:41) :
“Wren (22:03:12) :
Sure, why not insist on it. But let’s also insist on seeing all the climate-related communications of McIntyre , Wegman, Inhofe, and Morano, to name a few.
You suspect the Hadley CRU data are flawed, I suspect many of the data request are politically motivated. We both need to know the truth.”
Nothin stoppin you putting in the requests is there. Problem is that nothing these people produce forms the basis for a global taxation policy does it?
=====
Inhofe is a U.S. Senator, Morano was on his staff, and Wegman gave testimony in a Congressional hearing using information from McIntyre.
Wren:
While your requests for emails from Inhofe and Morano, during his time as government employee seem completely reasonable to me. In fact I suggest you file FOI requests for them. McIntyre, however is a private citizen and not subject to such disclosure. Wegman, depending on whether or not he has worked under Federal Grants may or may not be subject to FOI regulations. Knock yourself out, go file the requests.
John (01:50:16) :
Wren is a troll.
If he seriously thinks that comparing Jones et al, to people trying to get at the truth is a level playing field in terms of data etc he is completely insane.
NOAA and CRU should release their data, methodology and calculations, exactly, step by step they method they used to get their results.
====
Well, you are misinformed. I think all data should be and methodology should be released.
Calling someone a troll is a personal insult, and shouldn’t be allowed here. I do not call posters names, and I don’t post here to be called names.
Reply: You are correct. I almost snipped it. My apologies. ~ ctm
jeez (02:00:05) :
Wren:
While your requests for emails from Inhofe and Morano, during his time as government employee seem completely reasonable to me. In fact I suggest you file FOI requests for them. McIntyre, however is a private citizen and not subject to such disclosure. Wegman, depending on whether or not he has worked under Federal Grants may or may not be subject to FOI regulations. Knock yourself out, go file the requests.
====
I hear it’s already been done, but one more wouldn’t hurt.
Isn’t McIntyre a Canadian citizen? If he, is I don’t know why he had FOI rights in the UK
Wren:
Two reasons.
1. Canada is still a member of the British Commonwealth and a lot of rights transfer between those nations.
2. British FOI law in this case did not limit FOI rights to citizens of any country. Anyone in the world has the right to file a request. Probably not the best written legislation, but it makes point number 1 rather moot.
Missing the Point
I’m sorry to say so, but most of the comments here are entirely missing the point. Irrespective of whether Jones was truthfully saying it was common practice to share the data, the fact is that it wasn’t his data. He had no control over this data, he wasn’t responsible for its quality, for site placement, for the maintenance of equipment.
NOTHING TO DO WITH ME GOV!!!
So ask yourself this question: “WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THIS DATA WAS SUITABLE FOR THE BIGGEST PROBLEM FACING MANKIND
Jones wasn’t responsible for the data. His only job was to upjust it to make it fit the theory. So long as the data could be made to fit the theory his job was done, and it was “somebody else’s” responsibly to ensure that data was suitable for purpose.
Except, now we find there wasn’t that “somebody else” – nobody was responsible for the quality of the raw data, it was just a bodge job, cowboy scientists without a clue about temperature measurement propping up a few poor quality readings with a quick coat of scientific paint and trying to pass the whole lot off as being a good job.