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.
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.
To CodeTech
“I don’t remember where my epiphany was”.
I do – it was on the island of Corfu last summer. Took a bit of light reading on holiday – a book debunking Global Warming. That finally opened my eyes as to what has been going on and the rest is history as they say.
I’m a physicist/engineer so I feel a bit silly that it took me so long really. And I certainly don’t like being made a fool of.
@Peter Hearnden (03:13:12):
I do ‘get it’ what you mean. Skeptics also have a responsibility – and for what data they produce, e.g. by McIntyre or A.Watts; I believe data is publicly available.
I see the problem thus:
Climatologists say: In our expert scientific opinion, the world will end if you don’t spend trillions, but we won’t show you fully how we worked it out, partly due to shoddy coding.
The skeptics say: No data, no action. What data exists fails to support AGW.
Should society spend trillions “just in case”, remembering that there is a huge opportunity cost to that money. If Climatologists turn out to be right, are skeptics to blame? No, climatologists should have provided the data.
The AGW science may be rotten to the core, but the AGW social movement, that wants to regulate CO2 and impose huge costs on us in doing so, is alive and well.
We need to keep pushing until the edifice of AGW is toppled in the public square, and its believers either realize their errors are shuffle off to something less harmful, like UFO’s.
The question that I know will never be properly answered is this:
“How do we get our money back?”
> $50 billion, down the drain.
So Gore not only invented the internet, he invented one of the greatest apocalyptic cult scams in history.
I seriously doubt that anyone will ever again call Jones, Gore, Mann, etc., etc., etc., (and a whole bunch more) liars about AGW. They invented it and they sold it to a lot of people, kinda like The Ponzi Scheme Greatest of All Time, Good Ol’ Bernie Madoff. But they never lied about what they were selling. Bernie, however, now looks like a one day flash in the pan, and a 6 year old pickpocket compared to these guys (and their loving ‘Elected’, “MSM”, and Hi-Fin Wizzard friends).
Nope they never lied about any of it. They called it “Anthroprogenic Global Warming” and that is exactly what it was. It was entirely manmade, entirely their own invention –with a lot of help from a lot of stupid people.
They’re going to walk! No court in the world is going to convict anyone for telling the truth and accepting money from fools who just want you to take it and do anything you want with it.
Now the fact that everyone except the Chinese and Indians (and a couple other countries) have gone broke in the process is another story. “Ponzi” will still apply to the Madoff variety of theft. But the new word to define civilizations that are extinguished by such colosial schemes will no doubt be “Gored”.
To CodeTech
“I don’t remember where my epiphany was”.
I do – it was on the island of Corfu last summer. Took a bit of light reading on holiday – a book debunking Global Warming. That finally opened my eyes as to what has been going on and the rest is history as they say.
I’m a physicist/engineer so I feel a bit silly that it took me so long really. And I certainly don’t like being made a fool of by the likes of Jones et al.
On warmist/alarmist websites, I believe sceptic comments are rarely if ever posted. Censorship is rarely a sign of innocence.
Consequently, I hope the writers of these warmist comments here will at least acknowledge they are allowed a fair hearing, even if almost nobody agrees with their comments.
It is all a matter of professional courtesy – however, the concept of ‘professional’ is one that warmists and sceptics will never agree on. Sceptics say that practices that would never be allowed in other branches of science, should not be allowed in ‘clmate science’.
The warmist/alarmists supporters argue that these practices are sound and should be allowed.
Never the twain shall meet.
It is not just Jones (or Pachauri) that has to go. That would be just window-dressing – another whitewash.
The corruption of climate science is so pervasive that “tinkering with the details” will not work.
All the corrupt information must be publicly discarded, and we must start afresh.
The information that is clearly corrupted is:
1. ALL the surface temperature “adjusted” records from CRU, GISS and NCDC.
2. ALL the IPCC reports.
3. Almost everything written on climate science since ~~1995 in Nature, Science and Scientific American, among others.
Yes, it IS that bad.
If we really want to clean up climate science, we must start with a big broom.
Peter Hearnden – here’s a deal for you.
We give the same level of funding to the skeptical side as is currently granted to the alarmist side…and then we subject both sides to the same high level of scrutiny.
How ’bout that?
Ken Hall (01:32:32) :
“Climate science is a unique scientific discipline where research begins at the conclusion and works backwards, selectively adopting (and manipulating) evidence to fit the conclusion. Where the hypothesis never changes, but the evidence changes instead to fit the hypothesis.”
I propose recognising new discipline in human enquiry for which the CRU et al will be acknowledged world leaders – Ecneics
As a matter of principle anybody who is publicly funded should make his work and all of it available to the public without any constraints and everybody who is not publicly funded may make his work available to the public as his own choice , so the solution for mr jones would be NO MORE PUBLIC FUNDING since he is clearly advocating his second choice . He wishes to have a choice , well be a man , be brave and stand up for yourself and do not ask others for a penny or more .
Mr Hearnden and Gaz need to spend some quality time reflecting deeply on the raison d’etre of the insurance industry and its success, seeing as how they both are stellar representatives of their target market.
We’ve just spent many years listening to the four horsemen ride through the country yelling “the British are coming, the British are coming”, and once again, they’re having to be tossed overboard as clearer heads prevail.
Now that collection of mixed metaphors, Peter, is an ad hominem…
standard practices!? we don’t need no standard practices!
truth!? we don’t need no stinking truth!
Gaz,
“You so-called sceptics are tying yourselves into knots trying desperately to prove that the intrumental temperature records are wrong,”
If anyone is being tied in knots it’s so-called scientists like Phil Jones as they try and unsay today what they said yesterday. Very sad.
We “so-called sceptics” are not trying to prove anything. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there who are trying to follow the scientific method, and are insisting that other so-called scientists do the same.
This is not some whim that has been pulled out of the hat by oil industry shills. We are talking fundamental principles of science and these points are being made by the Institute of Physics, the Royal Chemistry Society and the institute of statisticians. Namely, all data, methods and codes must be available in order to replicate alleged results, otherwise it’s not science.
You complain that sceptics are asking for all these datasets that make up the temperature records hoping to prove Jones et al wrong. We already know he is wrong. The paper he co-authored with Wang on Chinese UHI is as wrong as can be. Why wouldn’t you want this and others placed under further scrutiny. Why should this all be kept behind locked doors? That’s not science, it’s superstition.
The animosity expressed by Phil Jones pre-dates his lack of cooperation with Steve McIntyre: click
“Standard Scientific Practice to not share data” “Dr. Jones” Has now officially proven he is incompetent to pass a 9th grade science class or a high school graduation test. UEA and anyone associated with him should be profoundly embarassed.
In reply to Peter Hearnden,
No, we don’t get it, because what you are saying is illogical and nonsensical.
I know enough about Steven Mosher to know that he believes the following:
1. The world has warmed since 1850.
2. Man MAY be having some influence on how much it has warmed.
3. We do not KNOW the exact influence that man has had on the warmning, because it appears that the “science” behind all of this has been shoddy, at best.
4. We need real, falsifiable science in order to determine what influence (if any) man has had, and the magnitude of this influence.
5. If it does indeed turn out that man has had measureable (non-insignificant) impact on climate, then solutions should be formulated.
So what I believe Mr. Mosher is advocating is a simple return to the scientific method. What about this request would require him to release every scrap of anything he has ever done? Certainly, if he has climate-related research, such a request pertaining to said research would be perfectly reasonable in order to test his hypotheses.
I don’t think anyone particularly wants to know if Phil Jones has a birthmark just to the left of his navel. However, when it comes to his “climate research”, it is perfectly reasonable (and even expected) that other scientists would want access to the unadulterated raw data, and any code that was used to manipulate that data. That is simply how science actually works.
In closing, I don’t presume to speak for Mr. Mosher, so if I said anything out of line Steve, please correct me 🙂
Thanks Codetech, for your thoughts.
My “alert”started with a reprint of a talk Fred Singer gave at a small college up in Michigan, Hillsboro is it?
I sent a transcript to a friend who was proselytizing the CAGW pitch in Alabama and got back a tirade of “..in the pay of big oil.” “..was in the pay of big tobacco.” “..hadn’t published peer-reviewed science in years.” “..Wasn’t his discipline.” “..all objections had been de-bunked.” “..Science was settled.” “..consensus of 2500 scientists.” And so forth.
It was amazing.
As I’ve subsequently discovered, I now had a single document containing virtually every type of nonsense attack on anyone having a shred of doubt about the veracity of the CAGW concept.
I wrote back that none of these objections precluded Singer from being right.
No answer.
Peter Hearnden (04:34:50) :
“No, I’m not trolling, I’m asking question that I think need answers. Again, I suspect nothing will convince you otherwise either but it happens to be the truth.”
Peter, the truth is, skeptics will release all of their data, the method they used to get there, along with a long explanation, every detail…….
…..reason being, they will be dis-proving this manipulated science and nailing them to the floor.
You whole premise is moot.
Prof Jones’ testimony reminds me of a policeman with whom I spoke 30 years ago. He was investigating a theft of my property. I asked him how he knew when to chase someone down. His reply: “If he runs, you got him.”
If, on the one hand, we are seeking bore hole data from an oil company, which data is used in prospecting for oil, it is legitimate to assume that the oil company has a proprietary interest in that data. Such was the case in the original investigation of Chixculub (sp?) [the massive meteorite strike in the western Carribean]. The oil company is a private firm. It is in business to make a profit. It does not want to give its proven reserves away to another oil company.
On the other hand, when we seek the data which underlies a report or publication made by a publicly funded organization, which report will serve as the basis for public policy, that data MUST be released in its entirety, so that other researchers can duplicate [or not] the analysis.
The oil company need not release its core data. The oil company will stand or fall based on the accuracy of its analysis. If they are wrong they go broke.
The publicly-funded document must have all raw data released, since the accuracy of the report depends on independent verification of the claimed results. If the report is wrong we (the Public) go broke.
A number of recent posts on wattsupwiththat have made clear the observation that the documents provided by Prof Jones cannot be replicated, nor his conclusions confirmed. The emails were bad enough. But the Fortran coding– what a preposterous collection of undocumented fudges. Adjust a rural Alaska site upwards to make it correspond to a heat island? Adjust a rural Virginia site to make the older temperatures colder? Post claims about vanishing glaciers in the Himalayas, when most of the glaciers there have not been documented?
Where did the mystical Fortran tables come from?
I have worked in Fortran. Specifically, a program to simulate the flight of a sounding rocket. Tables are used to encapsulate ground experiments, such as thrust, drag, and so on. But each table is sourced.
And the Fortran tables in Crugate are not sourced; they just show up.
Just like the little boy who observed that the Emperor had no clothes, Mr Mosher has no need to prove himself.
It is Prof Jones who must supply the proof, and he is apparently unable to do so.
“veracity of CAGW concept” isn’t quite right.
We don’t know about its veracity, do we?
We do know that scientifically developed evidence in support of this concept isn’t there yet – if it ever will be.
Sorry
I’d suggest all global warming alarmists like Al Gore, Hansen, Jones, Mann and even Peter would be smart to hire some good lawyers. With people committing suicide based on your claims, you are now open to civil lawsuits. If these claims are found to be fraudulent, it won’t be pretty. I have no idea how many people have killed themselves, but I could see some lawyers looking to get rich. This could be the biggest lawsuit ever.
It is a bit surprising to see so many get distracted by the shallow claims of “Peter.” Steve has done an excellent job pointing out Dr. Jones’ wandering definition of shared data. This evidence along with his testimony before Parliament is legally and morally damning. But the implication of malfeasance resides not only with Jones, but with the whole global warming movement.
What we are demonstrating in these various investigations is how a hard core of operators, Jones, Briffa, Hansen, Mann etc., commandeered climate “science” to meet their agenda. That this unambiguous coup d’etat was not glaringly obvious to learned societies, academia, independent press or government officials, speaks volumes to the depth of corruption. Otherwise the climate charade demonstrates the willful manipulation of human behavior simply to titillate an audience. Both cases constitute a crime.
Now that we have evidence indicting Jones and UEA, we next must see the IPCC explain their collusion in the fraud. And from there we must clean up the U.S. EPA, and various government agencies that blindly embraced the “climate change” agenda. It is a very large iceberg that Dr. Jones stands on. And the heat has only just been turned up.
“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!”
to put it simply, isn’t this an argument to *not* do anything now? You stated that to combat AGW it would cost billions. I would presume the ‘skeptic’ view is to do nothing. In that case, should AGW be evident and the result is damaging, then it will cost billions.
This seems like the better course of action, based on your argument is to actually do nothing.
Unfortunately, a lot of AGW supporters fall back on the precautionary principle. It’s easy to do, something that the majority of people are very susceptible to, and something that people like Al Gore and the media love. It serves as smoke and mirrors to mask the fact that the science is shaky to say the least, and, as currently being discussed, rife with potentially fraudulent and morally reprehensible behavior.
” Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
One long ad hom, science content zero.
When will you people get off the backs of people like Dr Jones and leave them to get on with their research? ”
That is all you got to dazzle us with a counterpoint to Steve Mosher’s guest post?
Come on Peter,
try the old fashioned idea of posting a counterpoint to what Steve wrote and leave out the counterproductive whining.
You can do better than that.
I am always hoping to read a good counterpoint to help broaden my understanding of the topic.That you failed to write,instead increases my belief that you have no good replies to make,thus make a spectacle of yourself instead.
By the way can you tell use where his MISSING data is from his past uninterrupted research?
LOL.