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;
Researcher produces paper that says sky is purple. I don’t agree, but it doesn’t much matter. Other people in the color of sky discipline can dispute all they want, and I still don’t care. Some of them say it is red, others orange and some blue. I don’t care.
Then someone says that BECAUSE the sky is purple, I have to give some of my money to someone else. Now I care. Show me how you concluded that the sky is purple. Show me how you concluded that this is a problem. Show me how my sending money to someone else will fix that problem.
MY profession has nothing to do with it. My work has nothing to do with it. The only way anything I have done personally that has ANYTHING to do with it is IF I have done research on the matter that refutes your research AND I use it to refute yours, in which case my research needs to stand the same tests as yours.
But when the conversation is limited to YOUR research and MY money, then yes, I want to see every last line of code, raw figure, methodolgy and possible other explanations. If you are right, you can have my money. If you are wrong, you can’t. If you are wrong and knew you were wrong and lied about it to try and get my money… I have a cell for people like you.
This is getting really silly. (OK, it was silly before. This is just another level of silliness.)
Was Jones being highly professional? No, probably not. And I don’t excuse him for it. But what is the *correct* solution to the problem?
The problem here is harassment by people who don’t know what they are doing. Climate scientists study climate science. They understand what the data means, how it is gathered, what the processes are, what standard methods have been built up in past works and why, the lingo, etc.
Then people come along who have no idea how climate science works with question after question, perform poor analysis of data because they haven’t bothered to learn how to do climate science, full of biased analysis to get a result they want, and then advertise results that differ from the reported results. And the media and public often can’t tell the difference.
This, to a scientist who knows what they are doing, is “noise”. It is an annoyance to have to go and explain climate science and analysis processes to people who clearly don’t know. Should we burden every scientist with becoming a teacher to every skeptic, or is the onus on the skeptic to learn the science first? This typically isn’t a problem in science since there generally isn’t a movement by non-scientists to discredit scientists in a particular field. Climate science seems almost unique in that sense.
You can see this in the article itself. Jones first wants to make data as freely available as possible, though limited by international agreements. As he gets harassed more, and becomes more aware of the poor analysis and public consequences of M&M’s crusade, he becomes more resistant. Now, instead of doing science, he must teach people how to do proper analysis. He even says that he knows why McIntyre isn’t getting the same results — something that climate scientists would know but McIntyre doesn’t. Should he bother taking the time to teach McIntyre how to do it properly, spend time formalizing and explaining the code, and deal with the media and people who listen do McIntyre? Or should he do climate science?
If somebody else who studied climate science wanted the data and code, it’d probably be quite easy to get. It’s amateurs with an agenda that get in the way of people doing their work that is the problem. What is the *right* solution?
I’m not sure I wouldn’t do what Jones did myself. “Noise” is an annoyance. The onus is on skeptics and deniers to become educated in climate science first, *then* and *only then*, are their objections worth paying attention to. So how do we get then to do that?
Peter Hearnden, please try this on:
Climate scientists have said they’ve collected some data, done some analyses and calculations and, as a result, have strongly recommend governments shell/continue to shell out gobs of taxpayers’ monies.
Among many others, Mr. Mosher has effectively said “Fine, but in all those analyses and calculations, you scientists have said that 2 + 2 = 5, you endlessly keep trying to justify that notion, and you are being caught demonstrably fibbing in addressing this questionable fact.”
Please explain what it is exactly in Mr. Mosher’s complaints that needs to be scrutinized.
Peter Miller (05:45:15) :
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.
I’ve not had a post of mine deleted for a while, so, yes, I, at least, am allowed my opinion.
Now, whether the modest number of AGW sceptical views on pro warming sites is evidence of censorship rather begs the quesion why there are so few sceptical (of AGW scepticism) views like mine on this site, does it not? I think it’s more to due with polarised views than censorship, myself.
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. Now, if we follow the AGW sceptic ‘do nothing’ approach I think it’s fair to ask the AGW sceptics to justify their position in great detail – since doing as they (you want) might have a very, very great cost. The thing is whatever we do, or don’t do, might well have a very great cost and thus, if the argument is about money (and it clearly is) should not AGW sceptics be under the kind of searing spotlight they so happily want to hold science? So far all I’ve seen in various excuses for AGW sceptics not to be so held to account, and (of course) more than a few comments directed not at my questions but at me…
“Dashing.Leech” – absolutely! A post I wish I’d written….
“b_C (07:00:11) : ”
What ‘Dashing.Leech’ said.
Seems reasonable to assume that anything publicly funded should be available to the public. As with any contract there are conditions built in. If the project impacts on areas of security/IPR etc. then info will likely not be available. I don’t think the station data relates to security/IPR though. Where it gets to be a problem is what tools/processes are used to manage such data and thats where IPR hits. Then there is the numpty who constructed and authorised the contract(s). Apart from that I cannot understand why a pile of Fortran (whatever) should be hidden from the public. If it were me I would be proud to show my work..and take any useful comment. If that improves things..so much the better. Weren’t we all taught that?
don’t feed the troll
Henry@gaz
My problem with AGW is this: The basic science is wrong and I suspect most people here are with me on that.
We know that Newton’s laws are right because we have proved them right in a number of different applications. We also know that Svante’ Arrhenius law or formula was proven wrong and we are still looking – & waiting for the relevant research that would give us the right formula.
Not that it matters anymore to me, (because I am now 100% with Willis on the papers he has written – global warming is improbable because earth is a giant water cooling plant, & global cooling is more probable – as the historical records will show you ), but at this stage I am not even sure that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. For a greenhouse gas to be a what it is, the warming properties must be more than its cooling properties.. Namely, CO2 also has certain cooling qualities, i.e. having a number of absorptions in the 0 to 5 um band it must cause cooling by deflecting sunlight. They recently determined new absorptions of CO2 even in the UV range. So CO2 is a bit similar to ozone. This is all stuff that nobody realised before. This radiation from the sun deflected by the CO2 is so apparent that our equipment can measure it as it bounces off the dark side of the moon back to earth.
So if you say to us that CO2 causes global warming (the main theme of AGW) you first have to find us the right formula from the right data from the right testing that everyone must be able to verify…
Having a little fun: http://i49.tinypic.com/2m6wynn.jpg SFW, unless you work at EAU.
In reply to Dashing.Leech,
Your post is nonsensical and illogical.
“Climate Science” is bascially a brand-new science. Claiming anyone is an “expert” in it and beyond questioning because no other scientist has any understanding of climate is just plain silly.
Now, if you would prefer to come up with some sort of cogent argument, please do.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
1. Observe phenomenon
2. Make hypothesis attempting to describe phenomenon
3. Design experiment to test hypothesis
4. Gather data
5. Analyze data
6. Determine if hypothesis is rejected or potentially confirmed
7. If hypothesis is rejected, return to step 2.
8. Provide experimental design, raw data, analytical parameters, results and conclusions to other scientists.
9. Encourage other scientists to attempt to replicate your results.
10. If other scientists are unable to replicate your results, return to step 3, or possibly even step 2.
What you seem to be arguing for is a complete rejection of the scientific method. What do you advocate? Rule by “experts” and un-questioning acceptance by the “masses”?
To all anti sceptics: The following quote by Steve Mosher should explain all sceptics concerns in this matter.
“The issue is worth $1 trillion a year, the amount that many environmentalists consider the appropriate sum to throw into the fight against global warning. With such astronomical sums at stake, getting the science right would seem to be at the heart of the discussion.”
If you can’t agree with this-you are beyond help.
Dashing.Leech (06:56:13),
So, you’re claiming a statistician trying to understand a statistical analysis of climate data is “noise”. Do you have any idea how silly this sounds? Could you make a worse argument for your case?
Unfortunately, what we see here is the level of understanding of those who support AGW. Peter obviously doesn’t understand the scientific method. Leech doesn’t understand that climate science is really a multi-disciplinary field and WAZ has no clue about what the skeptics have really been saying.
I realize they get this nonsense from pro-AGW blogs. But for them to come here and expose their ignorance is quite amusing.
In reply to Peter Hearnden,
There is no use in SUPPOSING anything. Humans (at least sane ones) do not act on mere supposition. Sane humans require reasonable proof.
If, as you suspect, the AGW scientists are indeed correct, it is up to THEM to properly follow the scientific method and allow other scientists to either find support or rejection of their hypotheses. That is the way that science works.
Science is NOT “Assume X is true, then discard all data which calls X into question and only retain data which supports X, and then act as if X were true.” That is not science at all, and if you believe that it is, you have no understanding of the philosophy of science.
If AGW theory is indeed correct, then we should certainly act upon it. However, it is perfectly sane, reasonable, and expected that we all request that the science behind it be completely sound and defensible before we do anything whatsoever.
Your point of view seems to be, “What if the sky were to fall tomorrow! Even if we have no valid evidence whatsoever, we had better spend trillions building a giant sky-support structure!!!”
Thanks, but no. Provide me with real, falsifiable science which provides reasonable evidence of your claim first, then we go from there.
I expect we will see more and more CAGWers coming here. Although most are still in “denial”, the next stage is “anger” as we saw from Peter H. This is one place to vent that anger. Peter starting to get into “bargaining” by asking for FOIAs for skeptics.
The process continues just as predicted.
I find it interesting that all of the alarmists, including the trolls on this site, acuse the skeptics of the very sins that they have committed and are committing. It reminds me of the cheating girlfriend. Once confronted with her crime, she yells at you and insists that YOU are or were cheating!
Here’s the original quotation, from Samuel Johnson:
Roger Knights
I can distinctly remember the discussion when I came up with my statement and when, and it appears to be simply coincidental to the one you cited. I’m not saying this out of hubris. I am just being as factual as I can be. I’m not the most erudite person and have never read Samuel Johnson.
It is just as derivative of you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. The words understand and understanding make it look like plagiarism, but I don’t really think that’s the case. Maybe I just channeled Johnson.
Re: Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) :
Peter, It isn’t the responsibility of a skeptic to prove anything. It IS the responsibility of those who support the hypothesis of AGW to provide the proof that the hypothesis is true. If the hypothesis can’t be proven to be true, then the null hypothesis (there is no AGW) can’t be rejected.
To date, I have seen no proof that the hypothesis of AGW is true at the 95% confidence level. The gobal average temperature forecasts projections based upon the AGW hypothesis that I have seen do not correlate very well with actual temperatures being recorded. This convinces me that the the AGW hypothesis can not be accepted. No need to prove anything else.
A friend of mine has the following definition of the word “expert”
X is the unknown quantity, and spurt is a drip under pressure.
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?
Incidentally, who are you Mr Mosher? If you think it’s right that everything about Dr Jones should be public knowledge because it might cost us billion if he’s wrong so his science needs infinite testing, then it’s also the case that if you’re wrong it might also cost us billions and so everything about you should be public knowledge.
Therefore I demand you place on public record all your scientifc notes, workings, jotting, e mails, code (every scrap) and papers for the last ten years. All of it, everything, every last word , figure and number. If you don’t do that i will be demanding it by FOI and I wont desisit, I’ll shower you with FOI request for a decade.
Get it?
——–
Hi Peter, I “get it” from seeing your previous postings on this site, that you are a person who is convinced he is right. Because I have seen you on other threads I know that you know what the arguments for and against AGW are about. However, nobody needs to explain anything to you, because you won’t listen anyway. These comments are about your character as displayed by your comments on various threads. If your feelings are hurt so be it. I believe you are being mischievous and are attention seeking.
As far as I am aware, IF something needs to be done to lessen a problem caused by AGW if it is proved, I and many other sceptics of AGW will happily approve spending on that problem AT THAT TIME.
However, can you show me where there is a problem occurring now from AGW? You can’t because there isn’t any. So why should any of my money be robbed from me now to set up false schemes to mitigate non existent problems which may or may not occur in the future?
So if you are proved right, then AT THAT TIME I will be happy to pay for the problem.
You have been told many times that proper scientific method requires the AGW proponents to prove their case.
Dashing.Leech (06:56:13) :
This is getting really silly. (OK, it was silly before. This is just another level of silliness.)
Was Jones being highly professional? No, probably not. And I don’t excuse him for it. But what is the *correct* solution to the problem?
The problem here is harassment by people who don’t know what they are doing. Climate scientists study climate science. They understand what the data means, how it is gathered, what the processes are, what standard methods have been built up in past works and why, the lingo,
Then people come along who have no idea how climate science works with question after question, perform poor analysis of data because they haven’t bothered to learn how to do climate science, full of biased analysis to get a result they want, and then advertise results that differ from the reported results. And the media and public often can’t tell the difference.
————
You are simply parrotting the latest memes from the AGW camp which are quite untrue and have been proved untrue.
Jones had a duty to release data full stop. If he had done that, he wouldnt be in the pickle he is in today.
dashing.leech — Should he bother taking the time to teach McIntyre how to do it properly, spend time formalizing and explaining the code, and deal with the media and people who listen do McIntyre? Or should he do climate science?
What abject nonsense. Jones is paid by the public, meaning every iota of data, code and such needs to be published openly. McIntyre either gets it at that point or doesn’t, and it makes no difference. Certainly McIntyre is entitled to his opinion. Full disclosure means that Jones isn’t obligated to say anything at all; the work does that for him, leaving Jones free to pursue science unfettered.
Meanwhile, McIntyre et al asked questions and asked for data etc because these weren’t available, yet your post suggests that the rationale was to disrupt the work of Jones. This smacks of wholesale swallowing of Al Gore’s specious “make work” claims.
Just to be clear: McIntyre et al were forced to ask questions because data etc that was supposed to be open was not. It wasn’t the other way around. Only an idiot would buy that argument.
“He even says that he knows why McIntyre isn’t getting the same results — something that climate scientists would know but McIntyre doesn’t. Should he bother taking the time to teach McIntyre how to do it properly, spend time formalizing and explaining the code, and deal with the media and people who listen do McIntyre? Or should he do climate science?”
Very good… now lets analyze that statement.
He KNOWS why McIntyre can’t replicate the results… because there’s undocumented steps in the process (and a rather arbitry step at that.) If the process is not thoroughly documented so that other people can easily repeat the experiment or analysis, it’s not science.
Dashing_leech and Peter Hearnden: Your writings indicate neither of you have any understanding of science, how it is done, how it is evaluated, even what it is.
You both would be well advised to return to school, preferably a good institute of higher learning, and work to a serious degree in a scientific discipline. Then come back and talk to us about climate science and Phil Jones.
What you don’t get, or more likely won’t accept, is that you are being talked at here by people who have done exactly that. People with as much or more scientific education and training than Jones et al, even in their own specialization, who are critical and choose to disagree with this particular perversion of climate science. These same people are telling you the CRU science is faulty, as is the environment in which it is carried out. You choose to believe the myths, instead. Most here, with professional circumspection, don’t. And you know what? Their collective scientific wisdom is greater than that of Dr Jones, et al, even within climate science.
Leech, your offhanded slur on McIntyre only demonstrates you don’t understand the mathematics underlying the analysis, or indeed, the research.
As a biologist, I know that the tree proxies used are worthless for the climate purpose they are being used for. Your “climate scientists” evidently don’t, but then none of them are biologists either. So perhaps you can explain how it is that your climate scientists, without training, can conduct good science in areas they are not familiar with, and others, who do have the expertise, can’t criticise them? How exactly does that work?
Remember the adage: “its better to be silent and be thought a fool, then to open one’s mouth and prove it”.
Quit wasting everybody’s time.
Peter Hearnden (07:03:13),
I very much enjoy your posts, since they’re so easy to deconstruct. For example, you say:
“…suppose (just suppose, OK?) AGW science is right and we see 2-4C global warming for a[n] effective CO2 doubling. 2-4C warming is a lot, it’s something that will cost humanity a lot – BILLIONS, TRILLIONS probably.”
Leaving aside the risible term “AGW science,” I would like to point out that there is no empirical evidence showing that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. The physics is straightforward, but the planet isn’t cooperating, meaning that the effect of CO2 has been vastly overestimated.
There are endless opinions expressed in the pal reviewed literature, and there are two dozen supercomputer models that can’t ever seem to get it right. But there is no real world evidence that CO2 is anything other than a harmless and beneficial trace gas. So your supposing is just that: speculation based on zero evidence.
Yet you advocate spending immense amounts of new taxes, based on your “what if…” speculation. Contrast that crazed world view with the very real likelihood of an NEO impact such as an asteroid on a populated area.
For less than has already been spent “studying” global warming, an effective defense can be established. But the True Believers in the empirically baseless CAGW conjecture don’t care about actual, preventable threats. Instead, they fervently believe what their religion tells them to believe: that $trillions must be raised through increased taxes and much higher prices [due to the proposed requirement for carbon credits], and spent on what is nothing but a supposition (“just suppose, OK?”) being promoted by entities pushing the CAGW agenda.
When you start putting your energy into demands for action against the very real threat of an object from space hitting the Earth, instead of demanding action to create a grant-fueled wealth transfer scheme, I will start to view you as a rational thinker – rather than a CAGW true believer who uses ‘projection’ to try and blame skeptics for Phil Jones’ self-inflicted troubles.
That goes for the Dashing.Leech, too. Mr Leech, like yourself, still fails to understand how the scientific method is designed to work. Since neither of you can seem to grasp such a simple and straightforward concept, the likely explanation is cognitive dissonance; a condition that strongly resists treatment. As Dr Festinger points out, the CD-afflicted believe that the flying saucers are still coming, only the date of their arrival has been changed.
Henry Pool — My problem with AGW is this: The basic science is wrong and I suspect most people here are with me on that.
You’d probably be surprised.
As with any number of skeptics, I can’t imagine that humans *don’t* have influence on the climate — certainly humans affect every other aspect of their environment. Nor can I imagine that spewing a great deal of CO2 into the atmosphere as an open ended experiment is particularly clever. We humans certainly need to examine this in some detail.
My skepticism begins and ends with the concept of “catastrophic.”