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
Wren,
“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 welcome independent checking as long as it is not politically motivated? And who decides if it is politically motivated? Do you have a court of science that all requests for data sharing must go through? No, that would be too absurd for words. So the decision as to whether the request for data is politically motivated, must come from the scientist who holds the data.
Basically you are saying that Jones et al can decide for themselves whether such requests are politically motivated. Of course they will apply objective tests such as “if you only want my data so you can find something wrong with it, you are politically motivated.”
Maybe that won’t work either. How about if we let the media decide. Whenever someone wants to see data, George Monbiot can write an opinion piece, and share his wisdom. Maybe that scientist requesting the data is in the pay of “big oil.” George’s editorial will prevent data falling into the wrong hands.
We can’t have the likes of Steve McIntyre auditing climate scientists, wasting time with his “politically motivated nitpicking” of hockey sticks. If he wasn’t so politically motivated he might have even found some real mistakes.
The truth is wren, you “welcome” data sharing through clenched teeth and after making every requester jump through your hoops of politically correct tests. Nobody here’s is fooled by your outrageous [snip].
Phil Jones on the hot seat – not sharing data is “standard practice”
That was the headline from the Daily Mail that started this thread, but that isn’t what Jones said.
The guardian.uk.co quotes Jones:
“It is not standard practice to provide codes and methods,” he said. “Perhaps it should be.”
So many posters had unkind words for Jones saying something, presumably not knowing it wasn’t what he actually said.
Is that any way to do?
Wren,
I believe in someone else’s read over on CA, I think it was Kenneth Frisch, that Jones currently hates himself for not behaving as a scientist should have, but he is continuing to lie and dig himself a deeper hole. Personally I have no sympathy for him with his whining interviews about suicidal thoughts. He has behaved badly while riding a grant train that has now run of the tracks. Without any more metaphors he has earned the wrath being heaped upon him. He is not telling the truth. He continues to obfuscate. The funny thing is, the more you read the emails and put them in context the worse it gets, not better.
Vincent (02:31:00) :
Wren,
“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 welcome independent checking as long as it is not politically motivated? And who decides if it is politically motivated? Do you have a court of science that all requests for data sharing must go through? No, that would be too absurd for words. So the decision as to whether the request for data is politically motivated, must come from the scientist who holds the data……
=====
Hold it right there! I said I do not like politically motivated nit-picking. I did not say the decision as to whether the request for data is politically motivated should come from the scientist who holds the data.
I do not like politically motivated nit-picking because as a taxpayer it interferes with work I am funding. FYI law should not be a license to harass and impede scientists funded by government, but the law can be used that way. I hope the solution is complete disclosure of data, methodology, codes and whatever else is needed to check the work of scientist. But will it be?
I’m out of time. I’ve enjoyed the discussion, and wish everyone well.
This is really weird news:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-01/russia-canada-won-t-reveal-data-climategate-school-says.html
“Canada and Russia are among nations that won’t allow the U.K. university at the center of the “climategate” leaked-e-mail dispute to release their temperature data, researchers at the school said.”
Are they nuts? All Russian data is in public domain and can be freely downloaded.
Can someone confirm that UEA scientists really said this? Because I only see a single article in Business Week without any references to other sources and I couldn’t find anything about this on UEA/CRU sites.
Reply: I watched much of the interview. Jones definitely said this. Here is a link to the full official video of the proceedings. ~ ctm
Wren (01:49:11) :
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.
The e-mails weren’t hacked, they were on an open server. And if you don’t like Inhofe and Morano, you can vote for their opponents.
What’s wrong with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Nothing — whaddya say we start with the correspondence between [insert names of The Usual Suspects] and the EPA that led that agency to declare CO2 an industrial toxin, regardless of how — or what — produces it?
FYI there are 20 reasons FOI requests can be denied under UK law, most of which are not national security reasons.
Twenty-three, actually, six of which deal with British national security and defense, ten with discovery of the information by other means, two with law enforcement operations, one with personal information, one with the Queen’s communications, two with parliamentary and legal privilege, and one with commercial or industrial secrets. The point is, the FOI requests were made because the data was *not* available through other means — even though it should have been available under the provisions of the Environmental Information Act.
Which it wasn’t.
Nick (12:29:22) :
Not many scientists here, are there?
I am.
I do al lot of reviewing (it’s most of my work) and I always get the raw data so if I wish I can replicate the results.
Untill the CRU-mails I wasn’t realy skeptic about AGW; I thought Jones et. al. knew what they were doing and that everything was properly reviewed.
Then I saw the mails, and then I read the first draft of COP15 and then I started to study.
The CRU-mails woke an army.
“Jonesgate” was, is about “Jones”.
The Government trusts until the Government is embarassed.
The matter that is NOW the focus of the Government is a discheveled, absent-minded, PhD who apparently never should have been in charge of anything bigger than his own desk.
Whoever the leaker or group of leakers were that released the files to the World, they were apparently less concerned about the past and more concerned about the present and future of UEA and the CRU. It appears more true as each day passes that they were right.
It’s the little things that screw you up!
It’s really not about Freedom of Information. This is a timeless Human drama.
confusion between peer review and scientific method. they’re not the same thing. peer review means someone has gone through the paper looking to see if it makes sense or has obvious faults or that the author is missing the obvious in that they screwed up. This is not the scientific method which calls for duplication of the experiment to determine if the results can actually be duplicated. The reviewer may not have the equipment, time, resources, or perhaps even the skill and knowledge necessary to duplicate the experiment and/or the subsequent analysis of the data. In the climate arena, it’s pretty evident that those involved in many peer review activities did not have the basic understanding of the advanced statistics being used (and more imporantly in some cases – being abused) and failed to find gross faults with the results.
Well, I just finished watching the Commons committee hearing in full.
I agree with the Guardian’s Fred Pearce common that “the Commons committee tiptoed round embattled scientist and sidestepped crucial questions”
I am American and am completely unknowledgeable about British gov’t hearings and British political nuance. Someone from Britain please give me your assessment. Please.
To me there was only one committee member (out of six) who asked the right questions with a very convincing tone. It was the man who was second person to the left of the committee chairman (from camera view). That gentleman was right on target almost consistently. No one else was even close to the targeted questions at the relevant issues. Some of the committee members seemed sympathetic to UEA/Jone and the poor AGW.
The only credible persons interviewed were Lord Lawson and the former ICO head guy who went through the laws. For a person solely focused on the legal bureaucracy he was pretty sharp.
Jones was in pathetic condition and the guy with him, university’s vice chancellor Prof Edward Acton , looked incredibly mousy. Neither came across very well and I sensed the committee’s discomfort with their testimony.
I do not have an overall good impression of the hearing based on what I saw through Yankee eyes. But to bolster my waning confidence in justice I guess there are statements (such as IOP, RSS, RCS, etc, etc) submitted to the committee that were not discussed at the hearing.
The answers by the gentleman who will chair the the independent inquiry into UEA/CRU did not give me any confidence of an outcome other than complete vindication of Jones and CRU. Some please convince me that I got it completely wrong there. The guy seemed really goofy.
John
Wren
“I do not like politically motivated nit-picking because as a taxpayer it interferes with work I am funding. FYI law should not be a license to harass and impede scientists funded by government, but the law can be used that way. I hope the solution is complete disclosure of data, methodology, codes and whatever else is needed to check the work of scientist. But will it be?”
Do you see how your words are loaded with judgmental phrases? Requesting data becomes “harassment.” You complain that this wastes the time of the scientists whom you are funding through your taxes, but seem oblivious to the astronomically larger sums that are being spent or proposed on the basis of research whose data is not made available, because it might waste your tax dollars.
Hopefully someone has carefully saved permanent copies of the entire set of submissions to the Parliamentary Committee, and the video of yesterday’s committee meeting. The vigor of the submissions, combined with the cautious, milktoast questioning of the witnesses, must further erode any remaining confidence in the global warming hypothesis among the general public and government elites around the world.
Phil Jones had a pretty tough and PUBLIC grilling yesterday from the science and technology committee, some of whome were clearly sceptical of his scientific methods.
When are we going to see Micheal Mann subjected to a similar interview?
“Wren (00:14:52) :
Inhofe is a U.S. Senator and Morano worked for him, so both were paid by taxpayers.”
Fair enough, but are they “adjusting” climate data, do they have a vested interests in “homogenisation” or “green technologies” or “carbon trading” or “tricks” or do they even have the data Jones et al have “aquired” to release in the first place? No. And what of the other two you mention?
Epic fail on your part!
Is Phil Jones a trekkie with his attempt at a Vulcan handshake?
Just because someone worked for another, does not invalidate their thoughts. Indicting by association is an age old fallacy of the leftists that holds no water. They always assume their motives are pure … When nothing is farther from the truth.
Merit is how science is validated, just on the merits. Else we would have to disqualify everyone who is contributing who was promulgating the AGW hoax, now wouldn’t we?
Government is evil and is in general looking out for it’s own good, like the desire for never ending higher taxes. That clause comes with all research grants, doesn’t it.
Open science solves most of these problems … not science in a closet, like Jones is pushing.
Wren, the nice thing about science is that it doesn’t matter who looks at the data. The data is the data. Reality doesn’t change based upon who looks at it.
Neither does the truth. If we really are warming, nothing that Steve does is going to change that. Nor will publishing the data that allegedly shows we’re warming.
Of course, if the data doesn’t really show any warming, well, that WOULD be a good reason to hide it from skeptics.
And, btw, if you wished to have any intellectual credibility, you too would be a skeptic. One should ALWAYS be skeptical of any science that is being used to redistribute income. “Trust me” doesn’t count. “Show me” does.
Wren, if you come back have a look at the following Sites that relate to The Russians taking Offense at HadCrut temperature results for Russia. Hadley and CRU share their data.
The first shows a blog repeating the Russian’s claim – http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d16-Russians-accuse-Hadley-Centre-of-falsifying-Russian-temperatures
The second shows Deltoid Refutation of the Calims in the Blog and says the russian data proves Hadcrut were right, look at the Graphs – http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php
The last one is the Russian Paper itself, you may not be able to read Russian, but just look at the Graphs – http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf
If that doesn’t convince you nothing ever will.
@Paul Daniel Ash (18:58:44) :
“Is somebody going to go do the analysis at some point, or are you just going to keep badgering scientists?”
Right, because according to you we should stop questioning those who make huge claims for proof of their claims. Again you are putting the burden of proof in the wrong place and your failure in logic is plain for all to see.
As long as these scientists maintain their extraordinary claims, they should be badgered for proof of them. I would ask nothing less of a crazy man on the street much less a professor of climatology at a major university who is a core author on IPCC reports, and neither should you.
@Paul Daniel Ash (18:58:44) :
It is painfully obvious you that you are either blind or can’t read what is written on many of the Threads on this Site, there have been many posters who have analysed the RAW data and found it does not match the NASA, NCDC, GISS, CRU or Hadcrut values. Just how much more analysis do you need, the whole world’s results I suppose, but then you still won’t believe, will you?
See my post to wren above.
A C Osborn (09:10:27) :
Wren, if you come back have a look at the following Sites that relate to The Russians taking Offense at HadCrut temperature results for Russia. Hadley and CRU share their data.
The first shows a blog repeating the Russian’s claim – http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d16-Russians-accuse-Hadley-Centre-of-falsifying-Russian-temperatures
The second shows Deltoid Refutation of the Calims in the Blog and says the russian data proves Hadcrut were right, look at the Graphs – http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php
The last one is the Russian Paper itself, you may not be able to read Russian, but just look at the Graphs – http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf
If that doesn’t convince you nothing ever will.
======
It convinces me I need to read Russian to know what’s in the graphs. I don’t read Russian.
Has McIntyre checked the data in the Russian paper?
Kevin (07:42:31) :
I thought he looked like he was rapping. Phil Jones the rapping vulcan.
Wren (19:03:01) :
“I’ll bet that wasn’t because the reviewers wanted to find flaws they could use to discredit your research and malign you in the public eye for political purposes.”
No, it was because I was modeling pressure transients in contained combusting gases — and we didn’t want to die or worse, fail. 🙂
The answer to critique is full disclosure. If you have people attempting to discredit you, show *exactly* what you did. If anyone can replicate it, then no-one can (reasonably) dispute it. Anybody hiding anything in science (except for privacy or security reasons) is rightly suspected of charlatanism.
Jeremy (15:16:52) :
“Standard Practice”
L-O-L
===
I’m not so sure about Jones’s claim of “standard practice” – or about any of his claims, for that matter; but, I digress …
From what I’ve read, I’m inclined to think that Jones’s practice (which has often made less than perfect) gives a whole new meaning to “standard deviation” 😉
Dave McK (20:04:49) :
“What they do not want questioned is the fundamental fraud. That fraud is the very concept of ‘global temperature’ that even many skeptics have been drawn into accepting as meaningful”
====
I’m a relative newbie to the “climate wars”. My gut feeling was always that the idea that human generated C02 as *primary* cause of “climate change” fka global warming, was very much a stretch: How do these “climate scientists” know that it’s *our* minuscule contribution of C02 rather than the much greater naturally occurring C02 (not to mention the multitude of various and sundry other influences) that is the demonic culprit?!
And since deciding to research the issue for myself (about 2 weeks BC – i.e. Before Climategate) the concept of “global temperature” (which is presumably an “average” derived from a number of “adjusted” datasets … not to mention “projections”, fka “predictions”) was very puzzling – and had me saying to myself, “So what?”
Thank you, Dave McK, for validating my non-scientific skeptic perceptions!