Guest post by Steven Mosher
In Climategate: The Crutape letters we tried to avoid accusing Professor Jones of CRU and UEA of outright fraud. Instead, based on the record found in the emails, we argued a case of noble cause corruption. I enlarged upon that charge at Pajama’s Media . Commenters took me to task for being too soft on Jones. Based on the extant text at that time I would still hold to my case. No skeptic could change my mind. But Phil Jones makes it hard to defend him anymore. On March 1st he testified before Parliament and there he argued that it was standard scientific practice to not share data. Those who still insist on being generous with him could, I suppose, argue that he has no recollection, but in my mind he is playing with the truth and knows he is playing with the truth.
In 2002 Steve McIntyre had no publications in climate science. He wrote to Jones requesting temperature data. The history of their exchange is detailed in this Climate Audit Post. Jones sent data to McIntyre along with the following mail:
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
We should note these things: Jones sent data. That was his practice. Jones is aware of the problems in releasing this data. Jones believes that these monthly averages should be released according to GCOS [WMO resolution 40] rules. In 2002 his practice is to release data to a total unknown with no history of publication. And Jones releases the data to him knowing that there are issues around releasing that data.
In 2004 Warwick Hughes exchanges a series of mails with Jones. In 2000 Jones appears to have a cooperative relationship with Hughes. In 2004 the record shows the following
Dear Jean Palutikof, Dr P.D. Jones,
I was just reading your web page at; http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ and wish to access the station by station temperature data, updated through 2001 referred to on your CRU web page; http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow as
“Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used.” Where can I download the latest station by station data which is a foundation of Dr Jones et al published papers ? Note, I am not asking about the CRU gridded data which I can see on your web site. Looking forward to your help,
Best wishes,
Warwick Hughes
Warwick,
The station data are not on the CRU web site. If you look at the GHCN page at NCDC, you’ll see they have stopped access and cited WMO Res. 40 for this. To my mind this resolution is supposed to make access free. However, it was hinted at to me a year or two ago that I should also not make the station data available.
The gridded data are there as you know.
I would suggest you take this up with WMO and/or GCOS. I have raised it several times with them and got nowhere.
Cheers
Phil
As Jones points out he believes that WMO Resolution 40 should make access free. Jones also says that he himself has taken up this issue with them. One can presume he took it up because he wanted to give access to data. Further, he knows that there may be agreements that preclude release of the data.
The start of 2005 is a critical point in the story line. Jones had cordial exchanges with Hughes in 2000. Jones shared data with McIntyre in 2002 and in 2004 Jones believed that the data should be shared. In 2005 he has been transformed. In January of 2005, McIntyre published a paper (MM05) critical of Mann. As luck would have it at this time former CRU employee Wigley sent an email to Jones about a flyer he has received that discusses FOIA. At this stage no FOIA have been sent to CRU. But Wigley and Jones are concerned about skeptics. What ever willingness Jones had to share data is gone. Again, Jones shows a clear understanding of the existence of agreements:
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them.
At the start of Feb 2005, Jones’ attitude toward data sharing becomes clearer and also contradictory. Some people can get this data in violation of agreements, while others who ask for it using legal means will be thwarted.
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott [Rutherford]. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [McIntyre and McKittrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
Two weeks after the publication of MM05, prior to the issuance of any FOIA whatsoever, Jones contemplates destroying data rather than sharing it. But read closely. Jones sends this data to Scott Rutherford. So what’s the standard scientific practice? The data is covered by confidentiality agreements. Jones shared it with McIntyre in 2002, and now shares it with Rutherford in 2005. Jones knows it is covered by agreements and he’s questioned those agreements—except when he finds it convenient to hide behind those agreements. He violates them as he pleases. He shares data as he pleases. And if he is pushed to share it he contemplates destroying it.
On Feb 21, 2005 Keith Briffa sends Jones a mail with a list of editorials that are critical of Dr. Mann for not releasing data. Jones replies to Warwick Hughes’ request for data that same day:
Warwick,
Hans Teunisson will reply. He’ll tell you which other people should reply. Hans is “Hans Teunissen”
I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data – which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.
You can get similar data from GHCN at NCDC. Australia isn’t restricted there.
Several European countries are. Basically because, for example, France doesn’t want the French picking up data on France from Asheville. Meteo France wants to supply data to the French on France. Same story in most of the others.
Cheers
Phil
Jones has changed his attitude about the WMO. Prior to the publication of MM05 Jones believed that the WMO guidelines would make the data available. Moreover he argued with WMO that it should be released. Now, Jones changes his tune. He argues that he will not release the data even if the WMO agrees. His concern? Hughes will find something wrong with it.
When it comes to deciding whether to share data or not, standards have nothing to do with the decisions Jones made and he knows that. He knows he shared confidential data with Rutherford while he denied it to McIntyre and Hughes. He knows he regarded the confidentiality of those agreements quixotically. Violating them or hiding behind them on a whim. This was scientific malpractice. Lying about that now is beyond excuse.
April 2005 comes and we turn to another request from McIntyre: There is a constant refrain amongst AGW defenders that people don’t need to share code and data. They argue that papers do a fine job of explaining the science: They argue that people should write their own code based on description in papers. Here is McIntyre’s request. Note that he has read the paper and tried to emulate the method:
Dear Phil,
In keeping with the spirit of your suggestions to look at some of the other multiproxy publications, I’ve been looking at Jones et al [1998]. The methodology here is obviously more straightforward than MBH98. However, while I have been able to substantially emulate your calculations, I have been unable to do so exactly. The differences are larger in the early periods. Since I have been unable to replicate the results exactly based on available materials, I would appreciate a copy of the actual data set used in Jones et al [1998] as well as the code used in these calculations.
There is an interesting article on replication by Anderson et al., some distinguished economists, here [1]http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2005-014.pdf discussing the issue of replication in applied economics and referring favorably to our attempts in respect to MBH98.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
When you cannot replicate a paper based on a description of the data and a description of the method, standard practice is to request materials from the author. McIntyre does that. Jones’ “practice” is revealed in his mail to Mann:
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE “DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE” SCARE
Date: Wed Apr 27 09:06:53 2005
Mike,
Presumably you’ve seen all this – the forwarded email from Tim. I got this email from McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I’m concerned he has the data sent ages ago. I’ll tell him this, but that’s all – no code. If I can find it, it is likely to be hundreds of lines of uncommented fortran ! I recall the program did a lot more that just average the series. I know why he can’t replicate the results early on – it is because there was a variance correction for fewer series.
See you in Bern.
Cheers
Phil
Jones does not argue that code should be withheld because of IPR[Intellectual Property Rights]. It’s withheld because he is not sure he can find it and he suspects that it is a mess. More importantly Jones says he knows why McIntyre cannot replicate the results. Jones does not argue “standard scientific practice” to withhold code; he withholds code because it’s either lost, or sloppy and because it will allow McIntyre to understand exactly how the calculations were done. This is malpractice. Today when questioned whether people could replicate his work from the papers he wrote Jones “forgot this mail” and said they could replicate his work. And we should note one last thing. Jones again acknowledges sending data to McIntyre. So, what exactly is Jones’ notion of standard practice? To share or not to share? What the record shows is that Jones shared data and didn’t share data, confidential or not, on a basis that cannot be described as scientific or standard. He did so selectively and prejudicially. Just as he refused data to Hughes to prevent his work being checked he refuses information that McIntyre needs to replicate his published results. At the same time he releases that data to others.
That’s not the end of the story as we all know. In 2007 the first two FOIA were issued to CRU for data. One request for a subset of the data was fulfilled after some delay. The larger request was denied. By 2009 it became clear to McIntyre that the CRU data had also been shared with Webster. When McIntyre requested the very same data that Webster got from Jones, CRU started again with a series of denials again citing confidentiality agreements, inventing the terms of those agreements ex nihilo. Webster could have the data. McIntyre could not.
What the record shows is that Jones had no standard scientific practice of sharing or not sharing data. He had no consistent practice of abiding by or violating confidentiality agreements. He had his chance to sit before Parliament and come clean about the record. He had an opportunity to explain exactly why he took these various contradictory actions over the course of years. Instead he played with the truth again. Enough.
I think Steven has seen the light at last. I said some time ago what he has now come to realise. Well done Steven.
Peter Hearnden (07:59:33) :
“I’m asking why if we need to scrutinise every last letter and figure of Dr Jones’s output because he might be wrong and it might cost us BILLIONS if he is, why we should not scrutinise ever letter of AGW sceptic output because it might also be wrong (ie the AGW science might be right) and doing what AGW sceptics want us to do (which is nothing) might also cost us BILLIONS in climate related costs. Could you please consider that?”
Peter, I have considered “that”. Once again, the sceptics don’t have to have ANY output. It is up to the AGW theorists to PROVE their hypothesis. Without ANY proof, then the hypothesis remains a “what if”. Unfortunately, we don’t have enough resources in the world to prevent EVERY “what if”. Therefore, we have to be sure that the “what if” is more like a high probability. So far the AGW hypothesis remains a “what if”.
What if an asteroid were to hit the earth? What if a gigantic earth quake were to happen and the whole west coast of the USA were to separate from the mainland? What if a large number of volcanos were to occur at nearly the same time and send the earth into a new ice age? Boy, this “what if” game is fun!!
Sorry, I won’t spend a penny on a “what if”. There are too many other KNOWN and PROVEN threats to mankind that need tax payer dollars LONG before any cent is spent on a “what if”.
So, you see, I have considered it.
Steve (Moshpit),
You sure know how to throw a WUWT post party. Lively time here. Thank you and thanks Anthony & the Mods.
But, where are the capering gnomes? (to go along with the, well, you know who) There aught to be capering gnomes. Wait, don’t bother ….
With apologies to Judy Collins.
John
Vid S (08:18:11) :
“Coming from quantitative economics, I have no problems reading the average ‘climate science’ paper. That said, I would like to see Jones et al digest an average Econometrica publication (given that the IPCC can’t even interpret a p-value properly).”
Hope springs eternal! Maybe after climatologists admit that they can’t accurately predict the next 100 years’ climate, econometricians could perhaps admit to the limitations of modeling infinitely more complex human interactions.
Hmm so we had a good sampling of world “temperature” 150 years ago ? That must be a joke.
Anyway playing the “what if” what about if we had spend the Global Warming Money trying to advance science that predict earthquakes? Maybe would lead to nothing or maybe we would have saved hundred thousand of lives.
This is, I hope, not an ad hominem attack but is not Peter Hearnden the internet version of the man who used to walk round our local town in the fifties with a sandwich board proclaiming: “The End is Nigh!” ?
” Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
When will you people get off the backs of people like Dr Jones and leave them to get on with their research? ”
That assumes that Dr Jones (and MBHSH etc) are capable of science. The evidence clearly shows they are not. You call it research? Well at least you didn’t call it science which is a good thing because it surely is not.
Boris (04:25:50) :
“steven,
You assert that Jones’ attitude changed with the publication of MM05, but you are forgetting one very important event from 2005: Congressman Barton’s fishing expedition into the lives of climate scientists, which was essentially an attack on scientists (remember that Barton wanted not just details on the science, but details about the personal lives of Mann and others.)”
Boris. That is a fair observation, but chronologically challenged. I think it would be a beneficial to do a much more detailed chronology of this era. I don’t think Barton’s committee met in Jan or feb of 2005. One of the things that appears evident is that Jones didn not feel the heat the same way Mann did. Thru the course of the mails it is clear that Mann feels beleagured . He calls for help. Says he cant do this by himself. That is what makes that feb21 2005
mail from Briffa or Jones so interesting. It was like Jones to the rescue.
So, Mann felt like he was under attack. If Jones felt some sympathy for Mann that’s to be understood. But that doesnt change what he said to Parliament.
If he said ” look, mann was under attack. I thought the attacks were unfair.
I put my personal loyalty to Mann above my scientific practices. I defended my mann. I got caught up in his drama.” I would have no problem.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM with Jones explaining why he did what he did and explaining that they felt like they were under attack. But That’s NOT what he said. that’s what other people say. Let jones say it. Let Jones say that he sacrificed his scintific principles to defend his mann.
“Whether McIntyre was working closely with Barton or not–he seemed to be. So why would scientists share data with someone perceived as being part of the witch hunt against them? Thus, Jones started treating McIntyre differently, and while he may not have been justified in his actions, they are certainly understandable given the circumstances.”
Again, if Jones offered this defense my story would be different. And you focus on Mcintyre but forget Hughes. My story up to today has been “jones felt under attack; jones hid data as a result”
NOW, jones says he hid data as a part of a standard practice. he had a chance to say what you say that. he didnt. He could have said ” I refused data to Hughes because of a Barton investigation that hadn’t happened yet.”
I have no issue with somebody who wants to explain their behavior as a
reaction to a “perceived” attack. But they dont make that defense. You make that defense. They make a defense that is at odds with the facts.
stephen richards (11:32:03) :
“I think Steven has seen the light at last. I said some time ago what he has now come to realise. Well done Steven.”
Jones is very convincing.
mikef2 (11:15:01) :
Maybe 0.7C is actually only 0.4C
The difference between the current warm period and the period that ended around 1940 isn’t much more than 0.4C. I wouldn’t be very surprised if at least half of that turns out to be spurious (due to UHI and airports). Not much left to be explained by CO2 then. The next 10 years may give us more data to work with. If we get another 0.5C (or more) of warming, I’ll reconsider AGW theory. I just hope we don’t get 0.5C or more of cooling, even if it debunks AGW theory…
Henry Pool — I think there is nothing wrong with adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
That’s not the same as knowing, and knowing trumps any form of assumption, whether from the Hockey Team or from you. If it’s not OK for the Team to assume, it’s not OK for you.
For all we know (which isn’t a lot at this point) increasing CO2 could well be a nasty precursor to an ice age for reasons we have yet to discover.
The Team can be wrong, but that doesn’t make you right.
johnnythelowery (11:16:25) :
Steve Mosher: You believe in AGW? What……0.6c over_______years? How many years? What degree? Using thermometers acccurate to a +/- of ___________ F?
At every reading? What part of the 0.6C is AGW and which is natural? As you don’t have the raw data….how can you be sure? Or do you?
1. Radiative physics is sound normal science. RTE are “correct”
If you want to talk about the record and the accuracy or lack thereof, this is not the thread. If you want to talk about the accuracy of thermometers, this is not the thread. It’s also not a problem. I used to think so, but working through the problem analytically showed me otherwise. If you want to talk about the influence of GHGs versus natural variation, this is not the thread.
If you want to talk about GCMs, this is not the thread. I hang out at other places where we have those conversations. You are welcomed to join them.
Ps. you can all blame the “precautionary principle = pascals wager on me”
hehe. moshpit.
Theo Goodwin (05:33:29) :
This article is wonderful. It presents a smoking gun. In fact, it presents ground zero after the nuclear explosion. The hearings in Parliament have had a beneficial result. This article is that result.
When UEA finish their inquiry I intend to do the same. That inquiry is set up as a whitewash. they will not address all the issues. I refuse to participate in that.
They have no skeptics on the inquiry, no lukewarmers. So they will do their whitewash. we will get more statements from CRU. then, if they are not honest, the story will go on. They left Boulton on the board. That is the lever.
“James Chamberlain (07:32:41) :
I find it interesting that all of the alarmists, including the trolls on this site, acuse the skeptics of the very sins that they have committed and are committing. It reminds me of the cheating girlfriend. Once confronted with her crime, she yells at you and insists that YOU are or were cheating!”
This was an irony I noted early on.
Leif Svalgaard (09:28:30) :
James F. Evans (08:12:48) : “Astronomy used to be considered the “Queen” of the sciences — no more, now, it is in crisis.”
Dr. Svalgaard (09:28:30) wrote: “Apart from the queen being Mathematics, Astronomy is not in a crisis. On the contrary, e.g.”
http://www.physorg.com/news186667261.html
Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard, you provided the perfect example to illustrate my point that astronomy has employed a priori theories and then “massaged” or manipulated subsequent observation & measurement to make the theory fit the data.
The link Dr. Svalgaard provided discusses the age and size of the Universe, these two ideas flow from the so-called “big bang” hypothesis of the “beginning” of the Universe supposedly 13.7 billion years ago.
The so-called “big bang” theory controls astronomy at present: Want a grant with the purpose to falsify the “big bang”, most likely you won’t get it. Try to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal falsifying the “big bang”, and likely it won’t get accepted for publication. Apply for a teaching position at an astronomy post graduate school and disclose you reject the “big bang” theory — forget it — you’ll likely never get the job.
But the so-called “big bang” theory is the epitome of the a priori theory:
Catholic priest Georges Lemaître announced the idea in 1927. “Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’.”
Just 4 years before Edwin Hubble confirmed that the Universe went beyond the Milky Way galaxy. So, at the time Lemaître annouced his idea there was not in any way, shape, or form sufficient empirical observation & measurement to demonstrate his idea was anything other than a hypothesis, if not down right speculation.
Indeed, there is substantial evidence that Lemaître came up with the idea for religious reasons:
As related by Hannes Alfven (1908 – 1995), 1970 Nobel Prize winner in physics:
“‘I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed the theory,’ he recalls. Lemaître was at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo — creation out of nothing.”
There are numerous observations & measurements that falsify the theory.
But astronomy ignores the falsifications and “messages” the observations & measurements it can to make the evidence fit the a priori (an axiom before any observation and measurements have been taken) theory.
In Dr. Svalgaard’s link “gravitation lensing” is used as justification for determining the age and size of the Universe. Even taking “gravitational lensing” as valid, for the sake of argument, the analysis & interpretation concluding this leads to a valid determination of the age of the Universe, and, thus, when it “began” is questionable at best.
It’s really an educated guess, if that, which in scientific terms, is no better than speculation which isn’t science.
Yet, astronomy is dominated by this Creationist idea, the so-called “big bang”.
Perhaps, because the this foundational tenent of astronomy is as much, or more, a religious idea than anything rooted in Science, anybody who challenges the “big bang” is in for the same treatment that AGW proponents reserved for what they call “deniers” (Yes, this label has religious conotations, too).
So, yes, there is a religios tenor in the “faith” of AGW proponents for their idea, and now readers know why the same is true in astronomy.
If you know the history it puts things in proper perspective.
And at least partly why “modern” astronomy is in crisis, too
kim (04:36:45) :
Boris 4:25:50
The Barton Committee came about because the Piltdown Mann’s Hockey Stick was crook’d, not because of any sort of ‘attack on science’ as envisioned in Deep Climate’s deeply paranoid head.
===================
Kim. if you use Piltdown mann, please credit moshpit.
Screwtape UK (11:00:42) :
Although, It already seems predisposed to whitewash the CRU and Jones, I certainly hope that Anthony, Steven Mosher and other guest posters, including Prof Ravetz, will be making submissions to the RUSSELL Inquiry.
Different strategy. I’d rather let Boulton discredit himself.
BernieL (04:38:23) :
The main point Mr Mosher makes is very important to push out there right now.
Much press gives it that Jones consistently refused requests for his data.
Such a claim can be defended by policy, rules, protocol and even by the lesser crime of not wanting others to take a royal road to publication by lifting all CRUs hard work.
Mosher’s point is that Jones inconsistently refused requests for his data.
This is a lot harder to defend especially when clear patterns start to emerge in the inconsistency.
*****************************
Yes. people need to look at the exact practice. He shared it; he didn’t share it. He violated agreements; he upheld agreements. Standard scientific practice cannot be used to defend this. Post normal practice?
You see with Values in conflict, jones faced a dilemma. Uphold his scientific ethics or save the planet from skeptics who he thought wanted to manufacture doubt. By sacrificing his scientific ethics, he created more doubt than any skeptic. As someone who believes in AGW, I find that upsetting.
people on the AGW side dont like this argument.
Peter Hearnden (02:39:23) :
“Dear Peter.
Steven Mosher is not a public employee and not remotely subject to FOI requests. You really should have some understanding of the process involved.”
Dear ‘Jeez’,
If what people like Mr Mosher say is wrong it might cost the world billions because climate change science will have been right all along but we didn’t listen to it and sort the problems when we could because we listened to the Mr Moshers of this world.
**************************
problem for you peter. I believe in AGW. I don’t challenge the science of radiative physics. you think I’m wrong about that?
one of the lovely things about being a Lukewarmer is that the arguements against “skeptics” don’t work against us.
” Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
…because it might cost us billion if he’s wrong so his science needs infinite testing, then it’s also the case that if you’re wrong it might also cost us billions and so everything about you should be public knowledge. ”
My disconnect from alarmism is exemplified in the following analogy.
Consider a disease, say a bacterial or viral infection. We only bother about a disease when there are symptoms and we don’t like them. Our bodies are full of bacteria and viruses that might mutate from harmless/symptomless to serious/unpleasant but we don’t spend billions and billions just in case to prevent any possible mutation because we just don’t know if, what and when and how serious before we have symptoms.
When there is a disease with unpleasant symptoms we try the following
1. Find ways to eliminate (cure and prevent) the disease.
2. Find ways to ease or eliminate the serious/unpleasant symptoms.
There is a default way to achieve option 1. that is kill everyone with the disease. Not a pleasant or ethical option. Or we can prioritise human research effort into finding a cure but only when we know the symptoms are relatively unpleasant vs other disease priorities. We also address 2 while we research 1. In fact addressing the symptoms is often adequate and people live a ‘normal’ symptom free life with the disease while research continues.
Often, with diseases, spread will be quick once a mutation has occurred so we may get a pandemic that cannot possibly be addressed quickly enough.
Using the above as a sceanrio for considering AGW as a disease (or lurking virus/bacteria with no current bad symptoms). What are our current unpleasant symptoms? I don’t know any. Will it mutate into something nasty. I don’t know, nobody knows. If it does what form will the nasty symptoms take? Nobody knows. Where will the nasty symptoms occur? Nobody knows. They just guess. As climate is chaotic so such predictions will be chaotic (unpredictable).
If we do get nasty AGW symptoms they will manifest themselves in some way, somewhere and affect some people….but spread far more slowly than a global pandemic. And there will be countless opportunities to address the symptoms while science continues to try and understand the AGW disease development and spread.
So it’s not a case that we act all or nothing now. ie Not to stop people starving by starving them to death eg consequences of biofuels on food production.
So here we are with scientists with publically financed, ‘disease’ related data and being unwilling to share it.
You bet I’m a sceptic and I want to see the data and methods independently analysed not only for temperature predictions and reconstructions but those analyses that predict bad stuff. eg even if the Arctic was ice free, what’s bad in the general scheme of things and why? And they don’t seem to predict much good stuff for some reason. The stuck record is that things will get worse, get worse, get worse…..
@Jeez: I quoted Johnson’s statement, and gave him as the source, because I didn’t want Heber Rizzo to think you originated it.
But I didn’t think and didn’t say that you were claiming to have originated it. I thought you were just innocently quoting a saying that’s been floating around for centuries. People have just assumed it to be a bit of anonymous folk wisdom, not realizing that Johnson originated it.
sm 13:09:50
Heh, moshpit, at one time I thought I’d invented that term ‘Piltdown Mann’, but in checking at Climate Audit I found that I’d not been the first. Independent, anyway.
I think you should free the phrase, but I’ll remember to credit you in the future. It is a memorable phrase, and I’ve been pretty free with it for around 4 years.
==============
“He even says that he knows why McIntyre isn’t getting the same results — something that climate scientists would know but McIntyre doesn’t. Should he bother taking the time to teach McIntyre how to do it properly, spend time formalizing and explaining the code, and deal with the media and people who listen do McIntyre? Or should he do climate science?”
This is another fact challenged assertion.
1. Climate scientists would “know” this thing but Mcintyre would not.
A. The issue at hand is a question of statistics, not “climate science”
B. Climate scientists have no specialized understanding of stats. Witness
Michael Mann’s mis use of PCA decentering. A flaw pointed out by
McIntyre and confirmed by the inventor of the technique.
C. If a paper describes the steps as 1,2,3 and you in fact did 3,2,1
its not a climate science problem
2. he should not bother to take time to educate McIntyre.
You miss the point. Jones testified that others don’t have problems
replicating his work. Mcintyre did. he did because Jones left out a step
in the description in the paper. Next, What most people don’t know
is that Briffa and Osborne were also struggling with mann’s work. They
were preparing a paper critical of mann. They had to request data from him. He passed it on and told them not to let that “dirty laundry” fall into
the wrong hands. On the verge of writing a paper critical of mann, they
stopped. Jones came to mann’s defense. Then obsborn tried to help solve
the problems between mann and McIntyre, again thwarted. Finally, you challenge mcIntyre’s abilities. Wigley, Jones friend and co worker, disagrees with you and thought that mcIntyre had some excellent points WRT mann
and thought that mann’s work was a mess.
3. he should not take time formalizing the code?
You miss the point. Nobody is requesting this. Mcintyre did not request this. If Jones said ” I did not share code because it was a mess” I would have no problem. If jones wrote to steve and said.. “here is the code, its a mess dont ask me questions about it” I would have no problem. Jones didnt do that. I am focusing on what jones said.
4. he should spend time dealing with the media?
No.
here is your logic fail. I am saying that jones should have shared data and code so that he could “get back to doing science”
Instead he acted capriciously. Now, he is not telling the whole truth about that.
So, should jones talk to the media or do science? he should do science.
Share data; share code. If he did science to begin with he would be in
a different place today.
“I recall the program did a lot more that just average the series. I know why he can’t replicate the results early on – it is because there was a variance correction for fewer series.” -Phil Jones, “scientist”
This explains quite a bit of the global warming scare I think.
If I recall, I remember reading that the earlier temperatures had been artificially lowered in order to exaggerate (or help create) the warming trend.