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
If anyone wants to see my submission WITH GRAPHICS, then it is here:
http://www.climatemice.com/submission.htm
rbateman (12:04:13) :
“Professor Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of UEA, told the committee that it was not possible to make the entire international data set available because of a “commercial promise”
Bring on the next question: To whom was this commercial promise made?
And what gives a publicly-funded institution the right to sell public info to a commercial enterprise (as if it were true) for profit?
Seems to me that even if a priate entity gives anything to a public institution it then becomes public by default, including the info of private donation to a non-profit public inst.
======
No, everything given by private entities to public institutions does not become public. Business survey responses are an example of data that are not public.
Since much of this work is being done on the taxpayer’s dime and to influence public policy, then all data needs to be available.
That the data wasn’t available by “standard practice” shows this was advocacy of a political agenda not open scientific research.
What might that political agenda be?
February 25, 2010 (Fox News) — Bali-Hoo: U.N Still Pushing for Global Environmental Control
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587426,00.html
“Despite the debacle of the failed Copenhagen climate change conference last December, the United Nations is pressing full speed ahead with a plan for a greatly expanded system of global environmental governance and for a multitrillion-dollar economic transfer scheme to ignite the creation of a “global green economy.”
U. N. documents spell plan for “green global governance”.
Lord Monckton was absolutely right.
Money quote from Fox News report:
“But the major topics [at the Bali conference] are a global system of governance and what amounts to the next stage of a radical transformation of the world economic and social order, in the name of saving the planet.”
If you value United States of America sovereignty, please read the Fox News report provided by link in total.
Remember, these are U.N. documents that spell out the political agenda.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, scientific papers are just that: writeups, figures and analysis, not raw data dumps. Scientist do share data with other scientists (though not always, and not as much as they could or probably should – see this report from the Committee on National Statistics for more info on that), but it’s not automatic.
Is this an ideal state of affairs? No, I don’t think so. At the same time, the harrumphing and shock about data sharing seems a bit overblown to me.
“Prof Jones said a ‘deluge’ of Freedom of Information requests last July had prompted the unit – which has only three full time staff – to try and get more of the data released.”
Surely when a department applies for research grants STAFFING is included in the budget. Considering the millions obtained by this unit crying poor regards staffing is a but on the nose isn’t it?
gcb (12:07:55) : I did my undergrad in geology some years ago. There, it was standard practice to hide your data – but ONLY until you’d published your research, because you didn’t want to get “scooped”.
Exactly! That’s how it is done in physics too and we all understand the submission from the Institute of Physics.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
Sometimes, however, physicists are so afraid of being scooped that they publish a preprint to the http://xxx.lanl.gov/ server. But in physics the whole point in publishing is to demonstrate to others what you did and how you did it – for physicists unfounded claims are completely pointless! Imagine Einstein stating that that the speed of light is constant without an explanation, now what can we learn from that?
To me it seems that the most intelligent scientists are not working in the mainstream climate science establishment…
Prosecute them all for fraud
as Phil likes to say
Cheers
Yet another example of Post Normal Science. It’s amazing how after the first PNS object was discovered, many more follow in quick succession – a bit like hunting for extra solar planets.
We should thank Professor Ravetz for giving us the tools to make these observations.
Nick,
Yes, there are MANY scientists here. Several that are published.
How about you?
Nick (12:29:22) :
Not many scientists here, are there?
Standard practice is to outline the initial hypothesis, assumptions, and data, provide a guide of methodology, and conclusions. It is not to provide all of the interim and explicit calculations and values. You don’t release tables of processed data and explicit code.
==========================================
1) Introduction: outline hypothesis
2) Materials and methods: e.g. where you went for observations, or the design of your lab experiments with all recipes for all ingredients/solutions; statistical methods used
3) Results: what happened, from day one; raw data, tables; workings of statistics; etc
4) Discussion: discuss one’s findings, contrast and compare to those in the literature
Thats how I was taught to write scientific papers, and woe befell us if we had elements of discussion in other sections, and if methods had any results in it – and if the results had not everything in it which had been done.
Might be a tad old-fashioned, and it certainly was not climate science, but not publishing all the data was simply unthinkable.
But then again – pace Phil Jones today, not doing it this way is a ‘fact of life’ in climate science. Perhaps that is why so many of us have such difficulties with the ‘science’ part of his subject.
Nick (12:29:22) :
Not many scientists here, are there?
Standard practice is to outline the initial hypothesis, assumptions, and data, provide a guide of methodology, and conclusions. It is not to provide all of the interim and explicit calculations and values. You don’t release tables of processed data and explicit code.
Peer review doesn’t work by taking all of a scientist’s numbers ‘along the way’ and running them yourself – you aren’t testing their methodology, you’re simply doing what they did over again. Peer review means you look at the methodology, and using the same assumptions and initial data, designing and running the analysis yourself. If your conclusions are the same, then you validate the paper. If they are different, you inquire where and how your methods and analysis differ. If you cannot reconcile the differences, then in all likelihood the conclusions are not robust enough to pass peer-review.
Is this harder than simply running a carbon copy code and analysis? Yes.
Does it actually test the robustness of the conclusions, rather than simply whether you can also make carbon copy code and conclusions? Yes.
THAT is how peer review, and science, works.
FTA: “According to the University of East Anglia (UEA) much of the data could not have been released without the permission of the countries which generated the information – and that while the majority had now allowed the figures to be released, a handful had refused to let CRU publish it.”
There are datasets I have accessed that come with a non-disclosure agreement. I cannot just release it. It’s like ripping a CD and uploading a torrent to the web: sure, I could do it, but I am going to have some legal action taken against me. Is that how I would like it? No, datasets should be free. But that’s the way it is.
———–
I agree. I believe there is much misunderstanding about FOI law.
Now everyone knows that they refused to release the data.
Thats a victory.
@Hal (11:55:36) :
“Wow…Phil Jones looks old in that picture.”
The picture of Phil Jones is much like his science. Data withheld.
John Peter (11:40:57) :
Here is something about this on BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8543289.stm
“Professor Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of UEA, told the committee that it was not possible to make the entire international data set available because of a “commercial promise”.
If such data is the property of a sovereign nation, and that data has been obtained via taxpayer dollars, it seems odd they would be making “commercial promises.” If the data has been paid for by a private entity, such a demand might make sense. The purpose of government funding this type research is to SHARE it with the academic community worldwide.
This rings very hollow.
Nick (12:29:22) :
I’ll refer you to the practice of reproducible results.
But on the facts of the jones case, As I laid them out:
In 2002 prior to ANY publication by steve mcintyre, Jones provided
Mcintyre with temperature data. In his letter, he shows that he had
an awareness of confidentiality agreements covering this data. he shared
the data. that was his practice. that is the record.
From 2000 to 2004 Jones has correspondence with warwick hughes.
that coorespondence shows that Jones was aware of agreements and thought that WMO guidelines should allow its release.
In 2003 Mcintyre publishes a paper critical of Mann.
In Jan of 2005 MM05 is published. It is critical of mann.
Contemporaneously, Wigley ( in jan 2005) asks Jones about a flyer he
has received on FOIA. Wigley is concerned about releasing code. Jones
is concerned and complains about Hughes asking him for data. Jones
says that if FOIA is invoked, he will destroy the data.
On feb 21 2005, keith Briffa forwards a collection of editorials to
Jones. These editorials are critical of mann for not sharing data.
On feb 21 2005, Jones refuses Hughes request and says that EVEN IF
the WMO orders him to, he will not share the data. His reason?
NOT scientific standards. His reason? he thinks Hughes aims to find mistakes.
In 2007 Willis Eschenbach issues the first FOIA for the data. he is refused.
Reason? not standard scientific practice but rather, Jones argues that the
data is already available, except for 2%.
In 2009; McIntyre becomes aware that Jones has shared this data with Webster. he asks for the same data. he is refused. Reason? Not scientific
standards, but rather confidentiality.
When the mails come out we find that Jones has also shared the data with
Scott Rutherford.
So, simply. Jones shared the data with McIntyre in 2002. Jones
shows an awareness of these agreements
Mc publishes 2 papers critical of Mann, one in 2003 the other in 2005.
After that Jones changes his practice. he will share this confidential data
with Rutherford and Webster, BUT he refuses to share with Eschenbach and Mcintyre, citing confidentiality in both cases.
the record shows that jones had a practice. It was not a standard practice.
it was not a scientific practice.
Those are the facts. deal with it. If Jones wants to say its not standrda to share, then why did he share with Rutherford and Webster? If he wants to hide behind the agreements, then why didnt these agreements matter with rutherford and webster?
Actually there is a sense in which Jones is correct — for example, pick some scientific finding not connected to climate science, call up the scientists, and ask for all their raw data. Sooner or later you’ll realized that they aren’t going to give it to you in any helpful form. Their reasoning is (not that they’ll admit it to you) that if you’re not qualified to understand it then it’s a thankless task, and if you are qualified then they are just creating more competition for the next round of grant money. The article “Big Science Poker Game” at
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5221
explains how non-profit researchers acquire this attitude.
Al Gore and other warmists have cited published statements of the National Academy of Sciences to buttress their continued defense of AGW. I sent the following message to NAS but don’t expect any prompt reply:
I’ve been trying to find on your site any evidence of your organization investigating possible fraud in your climate studies. UEA and CRU in Britain are exposing troubling instances of unscientific methods being used in their climate data, covering up data, and freezing out researchers with contradictory viewpoints. Whatever the shabby nature of British science, please tell me that nothing like this can happen in the hallowed halls of the American science community?
By the way, entering “climategate” in your search engine comes up empty.
Robert of Ottawa (12:25:25) :
Is the CRU working on Cold Fusion in their spare time?
————
Reply:
Please do not elevate climate science to the level of Cold Fusion.
😉
Nick (12:29:22),
Your explanations are at odds with the scientific method. And that seems to be the central problem in government-funded science: we’re supposed to take their word for it. Trust them. Is that it?
WRT the confidentiality agreements.
I currently have an FOIA appeal into CRU. Many people argue that CRU cannot share the data because of these agreements. That is wrong on the law.
Both the FOIA and EIR law allow CRU to BREAK the confidentiality agreement if the release is in the public interest.
More importantly, CRU do not have a “blanket” right TO ACQUIRE confidential data. The FOIA guidelines dictate that they SHOW the following: they must demonstrate that the data is NECESSARY to their mission.
The result of my FOIA on this revealed that they did no analysis to show
that confidential data is NECESSARY. In fact if you look at Jones testimony, he argues that it is not.
DirkH (12:18:23, It is called the Journal of Irreproducible Results and may be found at jir.com. I don’t think that they will refuse any submissions from Jones, et al, not because they are not reproducible or because they are not funny (they are) but because they lack humor which is a strict requirement for publication in the JIR..
In the 1980s the US government was criticised for obstructing scientific information availability with a view to denying it to the USSR. The politically correct view was that this was unacceptable interference with science. Whatever the wisdom or otherwise of that, it has mysteriously been replaced by exactly the opposite view. It is now fine to publish work like the hockey stick, which affected policy on a global basis, without providing the detailed data and procedures which would permit replication of this work.
Seems a bit odd to me, but I was just in Vancouver for the games, and it seemed that all of the people who were protesting and opposed to the games were hardcore environmentalist types. Eco-terrorists just hate life in general I guess.
Until thus statement from Jones- essentially a lie to justify the unjusitifiable, I retained a degree of sympathy for someone who felt himself “under pressure”.
With this lie, Jones has revealed his true colours- those of a cheat and a charlatan.
He is s a disgrace to the scientific community.
Nick,
“Peer review doesn’t work by taking all of a scientist’s numbers ‘along the way’ and running them yourself – you aren’t testing their methodology, you’re simply doing what they did over again. Peer review means you look at the methodology, and using the same assumptions and initial data, designing and running the analysis yourself. If your conclusions are the same, then you validate the paper. If they are different, you inquire where and how your methods and analysis differ. If you cannot reconcile the differences, then in all likelihood the conclusions are not robust enough to pass peer-review.”
Nice exposition. Now point me to where all that you say was done in respect to, for example, peer review of MBH98 and MBH99?