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
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry
Fred Pearce seems to have hit a nerve with the believers, who seem to be getting very worked up in his comments 🙂
I think Jones is going to need a very tall ladder to climb out that hole he’s digging for himself..
>>Wren (14:29:08) :
>>I’m not sure Acton said there were restrictions on the redistribution of Canadian data. Jones said Canada wanted request for their data to made to them.
>>If you can get it from them, why ask Jones for it anyway?
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
You don’t think it would be relevant to see how the CRU, ahem, added value to the raw data?
And this is only the tip of the iceberg!
Interesting times ahead.
Are there any penalties in prospect for people who lie to Parliamentary enquiries?
And are any of the MPs doing the questioning actually capable of understanding the answers for what they are?
I hope the answer to both is “Yes”, but I doubt it.
‘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.’
I though that once a scientist does work for the IPCC, ALL His or HERS research has to made available for review if it is to be included in the IPCC report.
The [snip] gross exaggeration of the small error McIntyre discovered in GISS temp records(i.e.,the correction for1934 and1998) confirms Jones was right to be wary of how data could end up being misused.
Al Gore’s Holy Hologram (14:36:11) :
(Apologies to Spock, et al) Isn’t that sign showing that Jones wants
to live long and prosper (more grants, etc.)? I think those Vulcan
gangs had to deal with a lot of warming too….
*****************
DirkH (12:18:23) :
Isn’t there a journal for unreproducible results?
I only hope one journalist on this planet understands the implications.
*******************
I believe Cold Fusion was put in that one, so this one surely belongs.
Even the Guardian is less than complimentary in their reporting.
“Jones’s general defence was that anything people didn’t like – the strong-arm tactics to silence critics, the cold-shouldering of freedom of information requests, the economy with data sharing – were all “standard practice” among climate scientists. “Maybe it should be, but it’s not.”
And he seemed to be right. The most startling observation came when he was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication asked to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. “They’ve never asked,” he said.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry
“Wren (14:54:16) :
The [snip] gross exaggeration of the small error McIntyre discovered in GISS temp records(i.e.,the correction for1934 and1998) confirms Jones was right to be wary of how data could end up being misused.”
That’s a misuse for you? Of course it was a “small” error, the entire climate science talks about fractions of degrees all the time and spends all their time trying to find an anthropogenic signal in the noise of natural variation. If you ask me, that’s like looking into an old CRT TV with no signal and trying to recognize the face of a deceased one in the noise. Before the correction, 1998 was the teensiest bit warmer than 1934 and the worldwide media machine went into overdrive about it, catastrophe was just around the corner! That’s “small” for you. McIntyre’s discovery BTW was NEVER reported by the MSM. That’s “exaggeration” for you?
Looks like Phil’s throwin’ a ‘Westsidddde!’
They should offer him immunity to spill the beans.
Phil Clarke (13:33:17) :
Not sharing code that’s used to produce the results is just as bad as not sharing data; it makes it impossible to verify said results.
Wren (14:54:16)
Was McIntyre the one screaming from the rooftops “WARMEST YEAR EVAR!!!!!1!!!111!!!!!!ELEVEN”?
If these alleged scientists had any integrity at all they would not have allowed their work to be exaggerated and misused. Hell, they were complicit in its exaggeration and misuse. They didn’t even raise an eyebrow as claim after claim was made in support of not just AGW Theory, but CAGW Hysteria.
I love how EVERYTHING bad that happens is the fault of the skeptics. Just check out Al Gore’s Op/Ed in the NYT – “I represented magazine articles and junk science from advocacy groups as solid consensus science”… “I broke the law by obstructing/circumventing FOIA requests”… it’s all “understandable”, it’s all the skeptics’ fault.
AGW is a faith not a science and I can prove it… just ask any believer how AGW Theory could be falsified and they will not be able to provide an answer.
I think Phil has science confused with scientology.
“Standard Practice”
L-O-L
Phil Jones, you more than anyone else just cast your profession into the realm of pseudo-science.
DirkH (14:33:46) :
“No, not at all! Peer Review is just to weed out weak papers and give the auhor of the paper hints as to where he better strengthen his argument. Experimental replication is completely independent of this!”
Correct, experimental replication is independent of peer review – however (and this is the point I’m making and you have missed ) the best proof of their hypotheses that many Climate Scientists and their supporters can present is “peer reviewed papers”. They are using the peer review process as a substitue for the experimental replication process that is prevalent in other sciences.
The closest that a relatively non-experimental science such as climate science can come to replication is to share the data and methods on which hypotheses are tested.
By not sharing his data and methods, Jones effectively prevents replication tests.
Minor quibble with the Daily Mail article
Both the Times and AP report:
“Phil Jones said the data was withheld because it wasn’t “standard practice” to release it.”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gVrs1hPo4BFwmOm6wbHC_YONVtIgD9E63SI00
Perhaps a distinction without a difference.
Wren (14:54:16) :
You are in denial.
JackStraw (14:48:30) :
>>Wren (14:29:08) :
>>I’m not sure Acton said there were restrictions on the redistribution of Canadian data. Jones said Canada wanted request for their data to made to them.
>>If you can get it from them, why ask Jones for it anyway?
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
You don’t think it would be relevant to see how the CRU, ahem, added value to the raw data?
====
I think it would be highly relevant if my purpose was to find small flaws that I and/or others could blow out of proportion to discredit the “value added.”
It also would be relevant if I were curious about exactly how the value was added, but I doubt I would be unless the added value seemed strange.
NickB. (14:00:48) :
Lost my coffee on that one Nick.
John of Kent (14:30:21) :
” 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.
”
Actually, I am a scientist, or I was until made redundant last year. I worked in the Pharmaceutical industry. Our peer reviewers are the FDA and European regulatory bodies who have the power to shut research sites down / levy huge fines if they find anything amiss in new drug submissions. So yes, in the industry I worked in we had to be prepared to provide, reports, data, and give access if required right back to the raw data, from the lab book and printouts from scientific instruments.
Anything less than this level of disclosure and openness is just bad science. And how come the Pharmaceutical industry gets a bad name wheras the global warming industry was the darling of governments??? Well, it is all about to change!
=====
I don’t think pharmaceutical companies are required by FOI laws to give me their e-mails.
it’s Phil Jones (and Nick) against the world
where is Steve McIntyre? What? won’t be testifying?
What’s a ClimateGate hearing without Steve McIntyre? Why, it’s not a ClimateGate hearing at all!