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 (15:26:49) :
>>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.”
I see. So basically you are against the scientific process and don’t really care if what Jones and Co. are saying is true or not despite the implications this has for the world. Ok.
>>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.
And they do. Sort of the entire point.
———-
No, I’m not against the scientific process, but I am against politically motivated efforts veiled as science, and I am against judging Jones’ work without evidence.
What seems strange about his results?
Phil Jones is corrupt and dishonest. The four corners of deceit (media, academia, sciences, and government) are loaded with people who are dishonest and corrupt. Ever wonder how they live their lives? They believe that the ends justify the means. They are all perverted and pathological. May they all burn in hell. Every last one of them. They have destroyed the culture. They are perverse. They are corrupt. They are dishonest.
Wren (19:03:01),
You have absolutely zero understanding of how the scientific method is designed to work.
It is incumbent upon even those putting forth a new hypothesis to do their level best to find anything possible wrong with it. In other words, to be skeptical, and to falsify it, if they can. Whatever is left standing is accepted science.
Had the promoters of the CAGW hypothesis followed the scientific method, their reputations would have remained unsullied. There is nothing wrong or dishonorable in having a hypothesis falsified. What is wrong is subverting the scientific method in return for money and fame. The result isn’t science, it is politics based on the Big Lie, repeated endlessly to a public that doesn’t even understand what “carbon” means.
You presume to know everyone’s hidden motivations when you state that the reviewers wanted to find flaws they could use to discredit Jones’ research and malign him in the public eye for political purposes.
There may be some schadenfreude now, but that’s simply the result of being lied to for the past fifteen years. And even that would quickly evaporate if Jones decided to come clean. But he’s still in denial, just like most of his apologists.
Had Jones, Mann and the rest been open with skeptical scientists [FYI: the only honest kind of scientists] from the very beginning, instead of stonewalling over a hundred FOIA requests, and refusing to share their data and methods, and strategizing about how to game the peer review process, and how to punish journals and board members who didn’t fall into lock step with their planetary catastrophe fantasy, they wouldn’t need to be backing and filling now in a desperate attempt to extricate themselves the reality that is closing in on them.
=====
I don’t think the scientific process means if a scientist is unwilling to cooperate with those he doesn’t trust, his work has no merit. Nor do I think the scientific process means if a method hasn’t been revealed, it’s wrong.
The National Research Council concluded the main point of Mann’s work was supported by other evidence.
Re: Peter Hearnden (Mar 1 14:42),
“I’ve listened to Dr Jones speak. I can assure you all he’s not a witch”
Does he float in water?
Wren, you seem to be arguing with yourself regarding how you quote. Who said what and what is on first?????
Wren (20:07:57):
“I don’t think the scientific process…”
You continue to use that vague term, “scientific process.” If that’s what Phil Jones is engaging in, I can think of shorter words that more appropriately define what he was doing to the taxpayers.
What I was referring to was the scientific method, which has been completely ignored by Jones, Mann and the rest of the rent-seeking government and university pro-CAGW climate scientists.
The scientific method doesn’t require a litmus test to establish someone’s motivation when they request data and methods. It simply requires genuine cooperation. That cooperation is what is missing from what passes as climate science.
Re: Another Brit (Mar 1 16:31),
“If the CRU has only 3 members of staff, where did all the funding go?”
Another half-truth (or even quarter-truth). CRU has only 3 members of staff who are paid from UEA general funding. The rest of the staff receive their remuneration as a consequence of outside funding (ie grants for specific projects). Unfortunately, this is the way most science is funded these days. It leads to a great deal of mediocre science because of the “publish or perish” pressure it generates. Who would want to be a scientist with no guarantee of employment when your current project funding runs out? No wonder they all give the answers their political masters require.
PS, on the pressures on scientists these days, this article is an excellent expose. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5221
The gift that just keeps giving, Jones had me laughing, with testimony like this who needs critics? Public education looks like a failure to me, the scientific method is not taught anymore it seems. None of them asked????? Too much. Watch, the elected rats will be throwing their trusted science authorities under the buses by June. The emails, now this testimony,science? We don’t need no ……. science. Trust us. 2010 is going so well. This farce is over just the clean up to do.
So let me get this straight. The journals never asked for any of that data?
So peer review was done . . . uh . . . how?
Wren (20:07:57) :
…
=====
[1] I don’t think the scientific process means if a scientist is unwilling to cooperate with those he doesn’t trust, his work has no merit.
[2] Nor do I think the scientific process means if a method hasn’t been revealed, it’s wrong.
[3] The National Research Council concluded the main point of Mann’s work was supported by other evidence.
[1] Why do you need to “trust” – the facts will stand or fall on their merits.
[2] An “unrevealed” method may indeed be correct – but how would anyone else know that. By revealing the method, others may then check it. A revealed method will stand or fall on its merits.
[3] Who’s evidence would that be – “one tree in yamal” Briffa?
You appear to lack a robust endoresment for the independent checking of data and methods. Could you please suggest an appropriate method for discovering false ideas as an alternative to the independent checking of data and methods.
JRR Canada (20:43:14) :
The gift that just keeps giving, Jones had me laughing, with testimony like this who needs critics? Public education looks like a failure to me, the scientific method is not taught anymore it seems. None of them asked????? Too much. Watch, the elected rats will be throwing their trusted science authorities under the buses by June. The emails, now this testimony,science? We don’t need no ……. science. Trust us. 2010 is going so well. This farce is over just the clean up to do.
Western culture is rapidly approaching a cross roads…
We need to make a choice between the following principles. Independence vs Dependence; Individual Freedom vs State Tyranny; Genuine Inquiry vs Authoritarian Dogma… oh it’s the same old war isn’t it. We keep having to fight it.
Those who lust to rule us just won’t go away will they.
Smokey (20:34:31) :
Wren (20:07:57):
“I don’t think the scientific process…”
You continue to use that vague term, “scientific process.” If that’s what Phil Jones is engaging in, I can think of shorter words that more appropriately define what he was doing to the taxpayers.
What I was referring to was the scientific method, which has been completely ignored by Jones, Mann and the rest of the rent-seeking government and university climate scientists.
The scientific method doesn’t require a litmus test to establish someone’s motivation when they request data and methods. It simply requires genuine cooperation. That is what is missing from what passes as climate science.
—————–
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.
re: Richard Lawson (11:53:10) :
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979
Thanks, Richard, this link does work here. And, you are right that an Egyptian IP address is a hassle.
evanmjones (20:47:49) :
So let me get this straight. The journals never asked for any of that data?
So peer review was done . . . uh . . . how?
1
03
2010
Graeme From Melbourne (21:00:39) :
Wren (20:07:57) :
…
=====
[1] I don’t think the scientific process means if a scientist is unwilling to cooperate with those he doesn’t trust, his work has no merit.
[2] Nor do I think the scientific process means if a method hasn’t been revealed, it’s wrong.
[3] The National Research Council concluded the main point of Mann’s work was supported by other evidence.
[1] Why do you need to “trust” – the facts will stand or fall on their merits.
[2] An “unrevealed” method may indeed be correct – but how would anyone else know that. By revealing the method, others may then check it. A revealed method will stand or fall on it’s merits.
[3] Who’s evidence would that be – “one tree in yamal” Briffa?
You appear to lack a robust endoresment for the independent checking of data and methods. Could you please suggest an appropriate method for discovering false ideas as an alternative to the independent checking of data and methods.
=====
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. Still I think the best policy is transparency, providing it’s not a one-way mirror.
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
[a] Trust him, who needs details and after all you don’t want to hurt his feelings by doubting him.
[b] Insist on receiving details.
[c] Check to see if his last name is “Madoff” and call your lawyer.
Wren (21:27:04) :
Just saw this post.
Wren (21:27:04) :
…
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. Still I think the best policy is transparency, providing it’s not a one-way mirror.
Then why not insist on “independent checking of data and methods” for the Hadley CRU data?
It would allow for the science to move forward.
You appear to assume that requests to check their data is politically motivated, do you have evidence to back up that assumption of political motivation?
Pamela Gray (20:27:42) :
> Wren, you seem to be arguing with yourself regarding how you quote. Who said what and what is on first?????
No, Who’s on first, and What’s on second. I Don’t Know’s on third.
This whole debacle is exposing just one tiny corner of a much broader scandal about how science is now done. The article by Henry Bauer Science in the 21st Century: Knowledge Monopolies and Research Cartels, discusses the broader issue, looks at a number of other examples, and discusses possible ways out.
PS, link for that article is http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_18_4_bauer.pdf
Graeme From Melbourne (21:38:58) :
Wren (21:27:04) :
…
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. Still I think the best policy is transparency, providing it’s not a one-way mirror.
Then why not insist on “independent checking of data and methods” for the Hadley CRU data?
It would allow for the science to move forward.
You appear to assume that requests to check their data is politically motivated, do you have evidence to back up that assumption of political motivation?
——–
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.
evanmjones (20:47:49) :
So let me get this straight. The journals never asked for any of that data?
So peer review was done . . . uh . . . how?
How?
By using peers with the same political leanings,
with the same ethical standards,
with the same regard for the scientific process,
with the same lack of statistical skills,
with the same penchant for obfuscation,
with the same………. umm…..no, you’ve got me. How?
RockyRoad (13:01:39):
Reply to Robert of Ottawa (12:25:25) :
——-
Please do not elevate climate science to the level of Cold Fusion.
😉
——-
You are right! At least Pons and Fleischmann followed the scientific method.
1) Pons and Fleischmann shared their data.
2) They followed the scientific method and shared their data.
3) Others could not replicate their results thus ‘falsifying’ their claims.
CRU on the other hand don’t share data because it was “standard practice” not to do this. What if Pons and Fleischmann said it was standard practice not to give out data; they would have been totally ignored by the scientific community.
“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.