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.
James F. Evans (13:09:48) :
And at least partly why “modern” astronomy is in crisis, too
Yeah! let’s return to 19th century Astronomy.
Get over it, Evans, there is no crisis, Astronomy is in a Golden Age, right now. Do a bit of self-education.
REPLY: Ditto that – Anthony
Hey Mosher,
Finished your book last night. I’ve been a lurker (since about 2005) at CA, very occasionally at RC and mostly here lately. I have to say that I enjoyed the book quite a bit. Since I’ve been exposed to much of the debate, it read like a mystery novel to me. Well done.
“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.”
You might be surprised to know that’s not hugely far from my view. The radiative physics is clear, the magnitude of feedbacks less so. AGW sceptics would, to my mind, be much more credible if the adopted your stance. All there is to argue about is feedbacks because, as you say, the physics IS clear. We probably just disagree on the magnitude of feedbacks. You really could do with stressing your view to quite a few here….
Now, back to my question. It is this. Many AGW sceptics point to the cost of measures to tackle AGW saying the science isn’t proven so we should wait/do nothing. I can see there is a cost in acting, and that if the science is wrong that money would be wasted. it’s a view I can see people might reasonably have.
I can also see that if the science is right then we need to act to mitigate AGW, and soon. If the science is right (please just go with this, I know everybody here ‘knows’ the science is wrong, 100% wrong, unquestioningly wrong, daftly wrong, of course you all know that, but you might be wrong…) then there is also a cost if we listen to sceptic voices and don’t act. Now, (yes yes!, I also know I’m all the things I’m called as well) all I want to do is to get people to accept that other possible reality viz if AGW sceptics are wrong and we do what they want they will cost the planet BILLIONS. That, in my view, is another reasonable view to have.
Thus, it seems to me there is a case for sceptic opinions to be spotlighted just like you want Dr Jones and accepted science to be – if either POV is wrong it has vast costs. The vigour of responses to this suggestion makes me think I might have a point. So, Steve, what will your response be? So far I’ve been on the receiving end of name calling, dismissal, patronisation and rudeness and the odd considered reply. Can you bring yourself to admit I might have a point, that if you AGW sceptics are wrong listening to you will cost us all BILLIONS?
Indiana Bones (08:39:04) :
Good list. Leave out cold fusion. There is lots of evidence of LENR.
—
Ah, but it’s the PERFECT example of a theory whose baseline experiment was not sufficiently repeatable to be taken credibly. There’s a reason that researchers in the area no longer use the term “cold fusion.” That’s an example of science working.
When researchers go back to the drawing board, they can come up with a more refined approach that does deserve scientific backing. That’s how I feel about AGW. I’m not saying that it’s impossible. I’m saying that the science they’ve done up to now is in no way convincing. That doesn’t mean that they can never convince me if they start doing things properly.
steven mosher (10:24:42) :
Smokey (06:09:20) :
I noted an early use of the word “robust” there!
(John Daly. Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:03:09)
Steven- Thanks for a great post, and Anthony, thanks for providing lots of thought provoking “troller logic”. You can feel the pressure of the AGW masses.
I have read the entire list of comments and have several questions and comments based on all of this interesting interchange of ideas:
1. Would you rather be a skeptic or a sceptic? My preference is skeptic, as the term sceptic always reminds me of an underground container filled with bad smelling “Global Warming”. A word about “Leech” fields might also be appropriate here, but that could be construed as an ad hominem comment!
2. Do you think that Pete and Leech went to different schools together?
3. We know Al Gore invented the Internet. I also suspect he has also invented new methods of “deep earth temperature measuring” ! The one thing I would like to know, did Al invent algorithms? (This is probably an old joke.)
4. Finally, and most important, how do we get these “unsettled science” discoveries communicated to the politicians and the MSM?
Peter Hearnden
I know everybody here ‘knows’ the science is wrong, 100% wrong, unquestioningly wrong, daftly wrong, of course you all know that, but you might be wrong>>
As a lukewarm turned skeptic I resent that remark. I don’t “know” that the science is “wrong”. What I “know” is that the data is innacurate, missing or possibly fabricated, I know that the conclusions are misrepresented at best and grossly exagerated at worst, and I know that the predictions of the climate models based on the just mentioned data and conclusions fail to predict the emergence of a cooling trend, let alone quantify warming. That is not science, it is “science”.
As for a return to your argument, if the tax payer were to accept doomsday predictions at face value and fund mitigation strategies even 1% of the time, we would be flat broke in days, and incapable of responding to an ACTUAL emergency when it arises.
If someone screams FIRE! at the top of their lungs in the middle of the night, I am very likely to jump out of bed and check for a fire. If I kicked out the window and crawled naked into the back yard without bothering to check for smoke, flames, heat… you know…. EVIDENCE OF AN ACTUAL FIRE I would have a lot of broken windows and some very amused kids.
I’ve been following Steve Mosher’s developing account of this over the months and I have to say I’m impressed. It is one of the few analyses to a) follow the evidence closely and b) to allow the evidence to unfold. Plenty have jumped to conclusions that may have been more or less correct, but that correctness doesn’t obviate the logical fallacy and evidential insupportability (heh heh) of the jump, which you could call a Hockey-Stickian approach to Jonesian processual analysis.
There. I said it!
Peter Hearnden (14:11:46) :
“I can also see that if the science is right then we need to act to mitigate AGW, and soon”
I disagree strongly. The effect of mitgation is zero, or very near to it, if you are to beleive the climate models. Why ruin the worlds economies to achieve a 0.5 degree difference?
EdB, could you please provide evidence in support of this predicted economic ruin. What’s good for the goose and all that…
Steven Mosher:
“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.”
Gosh, Mr Mosher, I think you just killed Peter. Since he was hardwired not to attack those who believe in AGW, his circuits have melted.
Peter Hearnden (14:11:46),
You keep mentioning the science. You do understand that CAGW is money- and power-driven propaganda, but it’s surely not science. How can it be, when there’s no way to test or falsify their claims?
Even those pushing the CAGW scam know it’s a scam. Pachauri racks up millions of frequent flyer miles, and twenty thousand people fly into and out of Copenhagen, Bali, etc. Al Gore has multiple mansions and is a big owner of Occidental Petroleum, and he wastes more energy than a hundred working families use.
If those people actually believed what they’re trying to sell us, wouldn’t they be traitors to the human race for their profligate consumption of fossil fuels, and their enormous emissions of carbon dioxide?
See, Peter, they know the truth: CO2 is an inconsequential, harmless, minor trace gas. The problem is that the AGW lobby has been hitting everyone over the head 24/7/365 for many years, informing them they are bad people for emitting “carbon,” and that runaway global warming is right around the corner – unless we hand over a major part of our national wealth to the totally corrupt UN.
So even though the IPCC, and Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Rajendra Pachauri, Barack Obama, Al Gore and all the rest of the climate alarmists know they’re trying to sell us a pig in a poke, the general public has been frightened by all the scare stories – none of which stand up to scrutiny.
You can say “But what if…” about anything. That’s what these climate scamsters are counting on: your fear, which they have instilled in you with their constant propaganda.
If you want a real “what if” to worry about, an asteroid just missed the Earth by only 40,000 miles in January [for comparison, the moon is about 240,000 miles away].
But the payoff from setting up an asteroid defense is chump change compared with the $trillions that Cap & Tax would take from us and put into the CAGW scammers pockets.
I’ve found that those who know less of human nature are the most credulous and prone to be taken in financial scams. Ask yourself why the UN, Al Gore, Michael Mann and the rest act like there’s no problem whatever, while insisting there’s a climate catastrophe headed our way.
@Peter Hearnden ‘So, to re phrase my questions, suppose (just suppose, OK?) AGW science is right and we see 2-4C global warming for a effective CO2 doubling. 2-4C warming is a lot, it’s something that will cost humanity a lot – BILLIONS, TRILLIONS probably.’
Says who? Ah, but of course IPCC, or rather WG2 and 3. That is what the IPCC models actually do, they, simply put, suppose stuff. That’s why they call them scenarios, and stories. Do you even try to understand what that means.
IPCC never considered much of anything else than a negative effect after they agreed on the assumption that the possible effects in their scenarios would be negative. They don’t calculate the checks and balances, like for instance the negative effect isn’t offset by the calculated positive effect a doubling of CO2 will have for the Chinese people, and the Indian people, in upping their crop yield to support a doubling of their population into a middle class society. Neither do they calculate the positive effect the melting of glaciers have in parts of those two countries. More than a third of the population of Earth live in these two nations, and if they started to hunger en masse, it wouldn’t exactly be cheap to bail them out to protect the world economy.
Suppose that a doubling of CO2 concentration gives 4C degree warming in 90 years’ time. The only two things that there seem to be any type of consensus on is that it will probably become more cloudy, and we’ll probably have more precipitation. The ice won’t automatically melt just because the average temperature ups 4C degrees, but if it rains some more it’ll probably be good for hungry people, but only, of course, if irrational climate fantasies hasn’t spent all the money to put en end to the use of farmland for actually farming food.
This is probably a really stupid question and I apologize in advance. Has anyone ever reversed the predictions? Meaning: with the data available have _historical_ temperatures been “predicted” by various codes? Would that not be an excellent way to validate the code, to check its ability to function forward? Or am I hopelessly dumb?
Peter Hearnden (14:11:46) said:
Can you please specify the mechanisms whereby it is going to cost the planet billions, or rather, the people living on the planet?
That is, what is going to happen and what is it going to cost to recover from that?
Jaye (14:06:03) :
Hey Mosher,
Finished your book last night. I’ve been a lurker (since about 2005) at CA, very occasionally at RC and mostly here lately. I have to say that I enjoyed the book quite a bit. Since I’ve been exposed to much of the debate, it read like a mystery novel to me. Well done.
Thanks.
Peter
We probably just disagree on the magnitude of feedbacks. You really could do with stressing your view to quite a few here….
The best I can do is to point people to RTE. i think scienceofdoom does
a nice job.
In my mind if people would look at RTE and see that it is sound science the arguments would shift to feedbacks. I know this: I cannot convince anyone of RTE by questioning their motives or screaming “oil money”
Mr Heardnen
“The vigour of responses to this suggestion makes me think I might have a point.”
I don’t think you should draw that conclusion. 🙂
The mode of discussion in WUWT consists of free exchange of ideas (in rough hewn rhetoric sometimes). You might get a lot of responses. You shouldn’t read anything about that – in reverse psychological fashion.
Regards
peter:
“I can also see that if the science is right then we need to act to mitigate AGW, and soon.”
On this we may disagree. Judith Curry has passed me an interesting book on different approaches to the problem. That said I think we know enough to start some mitigation and adaptation programs.
Uncertainty doesnt mean you dont act.
To Peter:
Those advocating a course of action bear the burden of proof and persuasion. It seems the Pro-global warming faction wants us just to take their word for it. If the skeptics end up carrying the day with the policy-makers, and nothing is done, it will be because the pro-global warming group has ultimately failed their burden of proof. The conseqences that follow (real or imaginary) can’t be blamed on those wanting to test the alleged proof; it will be upon those who failed to persuade.
Peter Hearnden (14:11:46),
It is a conceit of the greatest magnitude to even consider that we mortals are in any position to ‘save the planet’ Even if we had caused CAGW, by our ‘greed and stupidity’ during the industrial revolution we do not have the knowledge or ability to control the earth’s climate.
Canute demonstrated to people like you so long ago that even he, the king, could not stop the tide from coming in. Yet some still hold onto this conceit that we can control the weather. To rush off and spend trillions of dollars to eliminate carbon emission is quite certainly going to destroy our economies and most likely kill millions of people in the process. All this is because the so called climate scientists think that co2 emissions have caused global warming. THINK.
The method being considered to ‘control’ the emissions is an economic one. This has already been proven to be a goldmine for the scam merchants with absolutely no evidence of a reduction in co2 emissions. This shows the level of intellectual application so far .It is a pathetic solution to the (non existent) problem imposed by politicians. SOLUTION! Give me strength.
And you Peter go along with this. You should watch the donut not the hole.
Doug.
John Wolf (15:35:50) :
This is probably a really stupid question and I apologize in advance. Has anyone ever reversed the predictions? Meaning: with the data available have _historical_ temperatures been “predicted” by various codes? Would that not be an excellent way to validate the code, to check its ability to function forward? Or am I hopelessly dumb>>
No such thing as dumb questions. If there were though, they would all be mine.
You are in fact correct. In order to validate a model one of the techniques is to predict temperature backward in time and see if it matches the records. The problem is that you have to have a record to match it to. We don’t have enough actual measurements over a long enough period of time (and what we are finding out now is the ones we do have are tainted in one way or another) so what some have done is buiild long term “reconstructions” based on everything from ice cores to tree rings to lake sediments. Much of the current controversy surrounds recontructions that appear more intent on matching the model they were meant to test than in matching the actual earth temperature. None of the models (that I know of) backward predicted the medieval warming period, but Briffa’s tree ring hockey stick data shows the mediaval warming period never existed, so the models got it right. Well Briffa’s tree ring reconstruction has been pretty much trashed given only one tree on the whole planet produces that result, but there’s lots of other reconstructions that don’t get much play in the media and all show the MWP:
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
John Wolf (15:35:50) :
I like it!
CodeTech (02:14:32) :
This is a very good summary, and I’d like to add my own thoughts (sorry if this is rambling).
An excellent post and too my eye – not rambling at all, and well worth reading.
Bingo, Moshpit, I found my use of ‘Piltdown Mann’ on 3/18/06 at the tail end of the 3/5/06 Humphrey thread at Climate Audit. For a couple of years I thought I’d invented it, but then checked the search function at CA and found a reference several months earlier, which I can no longer find. I suspect it was you then, but I don’t remember for sure.
======================