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.
Peter Hearnden
You are vicious. Jones is or was the custodian of public data. The FOI act only covers public data. If Jones was looking after it, his first duty was to curate it adequately. His second duty was to use it responsibly, and his third duty was to make it available to others by applying the same standards to each request.
Incidentally I am a scientist and all the data I use, the minutes I write, the project plans I construct, are stored properly on my section of the company server. And the dated notebooks I record my daily work in are stored in date order in my office cupboard. That’s the duty I owe to my employer.
This is not an ad hominem attack. This is a totally warranted critique of the scientific standards of the CRU, are run – in a very hands on way – by Dr Jones.
The stakes have been high in climate change. The appropriate thing to do is to insist that all the expensive conferences, scare stories and spending of public money have some sort of rational basis.
What do you think that basis is, now?
Peter Hearndon — I just don’t see why, if the sceptic case is so strong, it can’t be placed under the same scrutiny as the science?
As per Carl Sagan — “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”
The skeptic position is that Jones Hansen Mann Briffa et al are making an extraordinary claim. They’re asking for proof.
By definition, there is no claim being made by skeptics.
Using your logic, you can make the extraordinary claim that aliens are taking over radio stations via your cat. We skeptics say “prove it.” This isn’t a competing claim that your cat is really after TV stations. Skeptics have a much simpler request — you make the claim, then you prove it.
Dear Peter H.,
Shall we all simply overlook Phil Jones’ involvement in the Trillion dollar Global Warming hoax? He now looks very different than the [old] photos of him circulating among the MSM and the Internet, twenty years beyond his real age, IMO. Rather than getting on with his research, the man in this photo appears like he should be getting on with his retirement.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-professor-Phil-Jones-admits-sending-pretty-awful-emails.html
As to the lack of pertinent truth seeking by the parliamentary committee, you have to understand that there is a General Election in the offing and that no party would wish to demonstrate the slavish idiocy of their respective leadership who are all firmly aboard the Climate Change wagon.
“The quote One problem with this is then deciding how many months are needed to constitute an annual average. is a perfect example of why replication based on the published papers is not practical. In this field, there are so many tiny details (infilling, end padding) which have a variety of valid approaches.
The hypothesis of some of the skeptical work is that the series are more noisy than is accepted by the primary work, and that the outcome is more by chance or an artifact of the analysis method.”
It is possible to use a process of interpolation to predict missing data values if some are missing from a set. The bigger the set and the smaller the number of missing values, the better.
There are standard techniques for doing this as the RSS could advise.
There is a need, when using interpolation to note that it has been done and what method has been used.
Its not rocket science and it is fairly simple statistics.
Obviously the use of interpolation does require some caveats to be inserted into conclusions but, even a full data set giving a result at the .001 level has in a sense a built in uncertainty.
I think there is always a problematic gulf between those who want to have scientific “truths” etched on the fabric of the universe and those who understand that the best you can get with staticical techniques in science is some level of probably.
To CodeTech
“I don’t remember where my epiphany was”.
I don’t either, I used to be a warmist, but about 2 years ago it began to dawn on me that something smelt rather fishy about this whole AGW thing.
I’m not a scientist, but when I was young I was taught to think for myself and to ask questions.
I care deeply for the environment, the planet, and all life including people.
But this whole AGW thing is just BS, pure and simple.
Thank you Anthony for this site and all it has taught me.
Nylo (03:02:30) :
Re Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
“Dr Jones should be public knowledge because it might cost us billion if he’s wrong so his science needs infinite testing”
You don’t get it. The reason why his science needs testing is not because otherwise it would cost us billions. His science needs to be testable because OTHERWISE IT IS NOT SCIENCE.
Get it now?
Well said Nylo!
Mike Ramsey
Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) : I just don’t see why, if the sceptic case is so strong, it can’t be placed under the same scrutiny as the science?
JK: You completely miss the point: The skeptics case is that it is up to the warmers to prove their case and they haven’t, at least partly because they are operating in secret. The skeptics are simply asking for a complete proof which has not been forthcoming because the data and methods are secret.
BTW, did you notice that Jones’ complete case for the A in AGW is because he can’t figure out anything else that might be causing the temperature measurements’ recent rise? Why don’t you start by explaining why this is actual proof of man’s causing the recorded temperatures to rise recently. To help you here is the Jones quote from the BBC interview:
The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing
Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) : What has the sceptic case got to hide?
JK: This is a classic debate technique. Accuse the other side of doing what your side is doing. The actual hiding is being done by the warmers’ hiding of data, suppressing publication of opposing papers, asking others to destroy data and refusing FOI requests. Why do you appear to be defending these practices?
Thanks
JK
Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) :
I just don’t see why, if the sceptic case is so strong, it can’t be placed under the same scrutiny as the science? What has the sceptic case got to hide?
I’m sure that this is the case for published articles. Seve McKintyre for one makes all his work available.
The very nature of questioning the science is inviting questioning of your own skepticism. You put up a counter-argument and allow the original scientist in question to respond, in doing so, you must also allow them to view your methods.
It’s a two way process. This may result in refining and improving the method, it may even back up the original science if your own methods are found to be flawed. It’s only with this scrutiny that the science can be trusted.
Reply: Ok, McIntyre may be a little tough to spell, but Steve? ~ ctm
Mr Hearnden
“Every scrap, every jot…should be released etc etc”
Relax … Its just the new meme/strategy whatever you want to call it. I’ve seen the same question at other places. How come we didn’t particularly hear this argument for so many months, or years now?
The others frantic props being erected are:
McCarthy = Inhofe
Intimidating emails, threats to family, death threats, nasty emails
Both these ideas were simultaneously peddled at the Guardian and Scientific American – the UK friends of AGW. Good fun as long as they come up with creative ideas.
Jones somehow seems to think of the gridded anomaly derivations as a blackbox ‘product’, not scientific values. He is ready to give you the ‘product’ or share it with you, if he likes you. He may even give you input to this blackbox – the station data, if he really likes you.
But he does think, even to this date that the nuts and bolts of the black box – the adjustments and ‘variance corrections’ are what makes the raw data into a product and therefore falls under the domain of intellectual property rights.
“When will you people get off the backs of people like Dr Jones and leave them to get on with their research? ” – Peter Hearnden (02:04:34)
Ad hominems are not ad hominems when they are true statements about someone.
The comments about the alleged scientist Phil Jones are valid and appropriate when the individual(s) involved are not being honest or true to the principles of science.
Also, Phil Jones is the one making the extraordinary wild claims soothsaying doom, gloom and our utter destruction with really bad statistics and what clearly is fraudulent science.
Following the principles of science and in particular the Carl Sagan Principle the onus is upon one Phil Jones et. al. to back up their extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence. So far he won’t even release his data when asked. Some scientist that Phil Jones is, he won’t even come clean with ordinary alleged evidence. Phil Jones FEARS the scrutiny of his work. In fact he seems highly motivated to do all he can to avoid the scrutiny of his alleged science work. That isn’t a person following the principles of the scientific method, that is a person with something to hide. Now that wouldn’t be a problem except that he’s supposed to be a scientist working for the public; he certainly has been paid by the public purse. It’s time Phil Jones openly proves his case or retract his claims.
pwl
http://PathsToKnowledge.NET
” Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) :
Remember, if the sceptic case is wrong but we act upon it, then it will be scepticism that costs the world BILLIONS!”
Acting on the sceptic case would mean what? Scrap some supercomputers and fire climate scientists? That would save the world billions, not cost.
Or do you mean that when we do nothing against CO2, temperatures will rise by 6degree C and all the consequences predicted by Hansen will occur? That wouldn’t cost billions but trillions.
Unfortunately, we couldn’t avoid it anyway if CO2 increase had such consequences. Kyoto has led to zero emissions reduction. The thing planned at COP15 would have led to zero emissions reduction – too many nations would have been excempt.
So what exactly do you propose mankind should do? Stop using light bulbs?
OT. Sorry if already posted. Good write up of the enquiry so far: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/02/parliament_climategate/
Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) :
Hello, the personal stuff starts.
I just don’t see why, if the sceptic case is so strong, it can’t be placed under the same scrutiny as the science? What has the sceptic case got to hide?
————–
Reply:
Nobody says it shouldn’t be placed under the same scrutiny. The skeptic’s case is based on the same data the warmist’s is based on (or at least insofar as they’ve been allowed to see it). But I agree with you–let’s see every email (and I mean EVERY email), EVERY document, EVERY calculation, and the basis of EVERY research paper by everybody involved.
“Remember, if the sceptic case is wrong but we act upon it, then it will be scepticism that costs the world BILLIONS!”
————-
Reply:
Could you please supply a list of the $billions that it will cost if we maintain the status quo? I’m a firm believer that seeing food production world-wide increase ~20% is a BENEFIT rather than a cost. But I’m interested in your list. Let’s get definitive about all this money that’s being thrown around rather than running around screaming through the night.
Anway, like I say, the personal stuff has started so I’ll go and do something more productive for a while.
—————
Reply:
I can see your Main Man has taken a big hit here, Peter. I can’t for the life of me see how Global Warming is going to survive this expose`. But to be fair, I’d like to see Lord Monckton, Mr. McIntyre, or Mr. Mosher take the stand and explain their take on the subject, too. You ask for both sides; you should get both sides. I’d also like to see Al Gore take the examination chair and explain his knowledge about the subject, and while he’s there, also how he’s been able to conveniently accumulate all that $$$$$$$$$.$$ from carbon trading. (Do I detect a conflict of interest here? Will Al Gore last a full examination session?)
I’d also like to have Harry the programmer take the stand and explain his comments in the Harry_Read_Me file. Oooooo… That should be good.
This is nothing personal, Peter. Indeed, responses to you here are far lighter than the recommendations of extermination made by Warmers against Deniers in the past several years. But whether you stick around or not, the bottom line is that the science wreck they call Climatology is about to land in the bottom of the canyon of disrepute. My biggest complaint is why wasn’t this miserable excuse for science discovered on the first $billion spent? Who are the so-called “geniuses” that have perpetrated this fraud and who are the enablers that have allowed it to continue? I’m sure the lawyers will want names, dates, places, expense accounts, travel schedules, emails, documents, databases, etc. etc. etc. Oh, they’re going to have fun! The discovery process should be enlightening.
By all means, open disclosure of everything is exactly what you and I want. On both sides.
I’m thinking there aren’t too many skeptics that will dance around the issue like the warmers will.
You want Mann’s records? How about Trenberth’s? How about Hansen’s? You do? Great!
So do I.
We’ve spent at least $50 billion so far accumulating what we have; certainly another $0.1 billion should be sufficient to open all the records. B’golly, it would only be cricket.
We might even find the status quo and the direction the earth is heading is actually beneficial to humanity. You’re going to hear opinion you’ve never been allowed to hear before.
I’m sure we’ll both come away enlightened.
Quote of the day:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/03/quote-of-day-030210.html
Superb piece. Clear. Thorough. Irrefutable. An elucidation of Professor Jones’s (mal)practice which cuts through the clutter. Nothing is vague. There is no innuendo or editorializing to distract from the establishment of the facts. And all done without any grinding of axes. An invaluable contribution to our understanding of the process that we now call Climategate.
The approach here is so well-structured and transparent that if Professor Jones feels himself wronged or misrepresented in any way he will have no difficulty in setting the record straight because Dr. Mosher presents that record so straightforwardly. Therefore natural justice is well served.
@Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) :
Excellent idea. May I suggest taking a good course in logic where you can argue these same points with the professor? Or is that too “personal?”
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe ALL of the skeptics information has been built up from the scraps that the proponents of AGW (“scientists”, Jones et al) sloppily allowed to fall from feeding trough where they were busily stuffing their faces.
Bits and pieces fell through the cracks and were pieced together by numerous, and intially unknown persons from differing backgrounds.
Careful what you ask for: the trail from S. Mosher’s dust bin would most likely lead right back to the key players in this scandalous debacle, Jones, Mann, Briffa, et al.
The key point here is not who is right or who is wrong. The key point is this: is the science right, when did they know it, and why did they lie, cheat and obstruct to try and hide it. Points to which Mr. Mosher has provided us with excellent information. Do you REALLY want all his info, sound to me like he had been holding back.
The piece about the spaghetti Fortran immediately holes the project (any) below the water line. As an ex Gov (UK) Lead Auditor/Assessor on Software QA and related systems I can easily say that reliance on any data/info output from such software tool(s) fails. A number of documents must exist either side of software to qualify it (integrity) with regular assessment. Having over dosed on this Climate scam for too long I have always suspected the process part of this subject. From my experience the last place our Gov employs is its own former research base (not Uni) for software support. Hence I note many major software project (and IT) failures throughtout OGD over some 20 years that would have been identified early. Its a project control issue all the way through and there is no way I would trust a bunch of Uni’s and Gov to handle that. On this occasion we are talking Planet..not NHS/Air Traffic Control stuff although the latter are both safety critical. I hope WUWT et al will ensure that this project is forever sunk or at least independantly and impartially reviewed..some doubt that that will happen?
Vincent (03:06:46) :
Peter Hearnden,
“Thus scepticism needs to be scrutinised as much as science.”
Actually Peter, scepticism IS science – doh!
I have to say with all due respect, Peter, Vincent & others are absolutely right. If somebody puts forward a scientific theory of how something does or does not work, then it is up to that person to provide all the evidence to support that case, not to provide some it, lots of it, or only a small part it, they must provide all the evidence. If they do not, then they lay themselves completely wide open to charges of fraudulent science, it’s that simple. It is not up to the sceptical scientist to put forward a counter theory per se but to be convinced by the argument put by the proponent, without all the evidence there is little or no argument!
Anyway, so far so good in Parliament, but being a grumpy old cynical so’n’so the words, wash, white, carpet, under, & sweep, all reside at the back of my mind! On a slightly different note, I do not like to see people bullied, or intimidated to the point of distress, but if Prof Jones is culpable of malfeasance, then he should be given little quarter over this issue, considering virtually the entire contemporary AGW base is founded upon his teams work. Whilst I feel sorry in part for Prof Jones if he has suffered great stress as a result of this upheaval, that sorrow is tempered by the thought of all the stress he & his team have subjected anyone who did not follow their “teachings”! It will be interesting to see if any come out of the woodwork to testify of such treatment! Quid-pro-quo, etc!
And the house of arrogance comes tumbling down. Looks to me like Jones will turn on his friends soon, and the dominos will start to fall. He does not look like Mann, who can lie to himself and others for all eternity without missing a step
My work emails and internet activity are logged by my employers, of course. I have no qualms over that.
Likewise ex-scientist Phil Jones should have no qualms over his employers – that’s us, the taxpayers – being able to see what he has been up to. His gaunt look shows he has realised his last 20 or 30 years of his career have been an unscientific sham and he will be notorious in decades to come for his poor science, cover-up, and now the lying about it all.
I think Peter Hearnden is yet again playing his game of distraction when he knows it is clear the AGW scam is being exposed. His illogical arguments seem to be a clear avoidance of the issues.
Good post.
It illustrates how Jones changed from a normal, even seemingly proper, scientist to a paradigm-warrior. A result, I believe, of him simply being unable to deal with all the sudden scrutiny of his work.
On the AGWH crowd in general: They knew that the evidence for their hypotheses was flimsy and inconclusive, at best. They knew that if their methodology were to be properly evaluated, eyebrows would be raised. Finally, I presume that none of them (Jones included) wanted to be the ‘weak link’ that would break down the suddenly gained status and creditibility of ‘climate science’ and propel it back to obscurity.
In addition, I’m sure that they were (and still are) convinced that they are saving the world… or at the very least, saving some polar bears. ‘Noble cause corruption’ indeed.
I think I’ll go with Napoleon on this one:
“Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be attributed to incompetence”
..but incompetence it is. And now that the pus is coming out, it is surely time to quit equating climate science and the robustness of its conclusions to that of settled scientific disciplines.
Pete (01:47:41) :
Contempt of Parliament? Although I’m not sure if Jones’ truth-massage is (or ought to be) severe enough for this to be applicable.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=95
Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
First, Mosher’s post is no ‘ad hominem’. He addressed a clear inconsistency between Jones’ statement to Parliament and well-documented facts. As a matter of fact, I think Mosher is being quite generous in his sketching of the motives involved.
Second, there are many scientists who have serious issues with the methodology underpinning Jones’ work. In particular, the amount of ‘opinion’ injected into data, or ‘facts’, is often unclear. Given the prominence and perceived importance of his scientific output, not only for policy (e.g. ‘Unprecedented warming!’) but also for a whole lot of research building upon his data, until these issues are addressed, one cannot simply ‘get off his back’ and ‘let him go on with his research’.
This might be tough on Jones, personally, but that comes with the territory (and the spotlight, and large amounts of public research funds…).
Peter Hearnden (02:56:07) :
?
The use of FOIA requests to get the data would have been unnecessary, had the Hockey clique followed settled practice in empirical sciences and simply posted all their data, codes and methods. The fact that they claim that this is ‘standard practice’ in climate science, is the most worrying element of that entire testimony.
If you take a good look at sites of skeptics, such as McIntyre, you will find all of his methods etc. available. If something is missing, I’m sure he will email it to you. Note that he will do probably do that without receiving millions in public research funds, obliging him to disseminate that information.
As for your last claim (i.e. the ‘BILLIONS’!); the fact that something ‘might’ happen, doesn’t mean that it will. First we need credible evidence that the probability of it happening is in fact significant, which, in spite of all the huffing and puffing, is still missing. Besides, you are disregarding the very high (humanitarian) costs associated with unnecessary action based on the (false) AGWH premise, as well as the opportunity costs of such actions in general.
Peter – deep, cleansing breath. The beauty of the blogs is that all of this is documented, no FOI required.
Steve M merely recounts for you a publically available timeline to highlight the fact that Phil Jones may have perjured himself (was this sworn testimony?) when he described ‘standard scientific practices’.
Its just that simple. Nothing else.
And really – it isn’t at ALL unreasonable (for something of this import) to have someone – PARTICULARLY a sceptic – check your calculations and come to the same conclusion. But as it stands – we cannot do so.
Scientists show their work, and even offer the negative tests to disprove their hypotheses. They should welcome this call for openess.
If they’re scientists.
The point has been made over and over by Lord Monckton and, for that matter Professor Lindzen, (both of whose data and calculations are clearly set out or referenced in their papers) that even if every word of the alarmists temperature predictions were accurate, proceeding down the path suggested would be disastrous. Adaptation if and when required (and it has always been required in higher or lower degrees) is the only sensible course. So no, even if the sceptics are wrong it is still RIGHT not to sink billions in ridiculous, half baked, panicked mitigation schemes which are, in any case, merely a cover for a political transfer of power.