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.
Dr. Svalgaard
Ref your insistance that the sun has nothing to do with ‘it’ (whatever ‘it’ is:-) This should brighten your day:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLAUn4Gy92ss
PS: I guess they ought to put “Climate Change” under Geology as a minor field of study. It seems to have nothing to do with the weather or solar physics, as you’ve always insisted.
Smokey (06:09:20) :
Good find.
Henry@ur momisugly G.L. Alston
I think there is nothing wrong with adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Any biologist should be able to tell you that it is good for growth and acts as fertilizer for forests, crops, etc. Anything you have eaten today is dependant on CO2. The historical record also shows much higer CO2 levels in the past.
As you would have noted from my post: I think the warming properties and cooling qualities of CO2 are pretty much a tie.
I can also do a simple experiment that would prove that AHF (the heat that we produce together) is much more than the heat that can possibly retained by the 70 odd ppm’s of CO2 that were added to the astmosphere since 1960.
However, I have now come to believe that global warming as such is improbable, because earth has its own water cooling plant with built-in thermostat. I have also noted that since 2003 the tables (on the sun) have turned and that global cooling is becoming a real possibility.
Gaz (03:29:38) :
“This is all really sad.
You so-called sceptics are tying yourselves into knots trying desperately to prove that the intrumental temperature records are wrong, the UHI effects that have been allowed for are biasing the data, that the satellite records are wrong, that all the different proxy reconstructions are wrong, that the temperature data you think are rubbish show the world is cooling, that the glaciers aren’t retreating, that the ice caps aren’t losing volume, that the ice shelves aren’t disintegrating, that the saturation argument wasn’t disproved 60 years ago, that species aren’t migrating their habitats, that growing seasons aren’t changing, etc etc etc.”
Gaz. I am not a skeptic. That line of attack will not work with me. I don’t believe the temp record are wrong. I believe they ought to open and verifiable. For me this is not an issue of right and wrong data. It is an issue of public trust. You can whine that people should trust Jones, but they don’t. Judith Curry and others like me have been banging the drum for open access for the last two years. Everything you say about the changes is true.
All the more reason to get this episode behind us by answering critics directly rather than hiding.
jeez said:
Here’s the original quotation, from Samuel Johnson:
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.
Thanks, I’ll file both; yours as “jeez’s version”
@ur momisugly Pascvaks (10:07:53) :
“Ref – Leif Svalgaard (09:12:59) :
“_Jim (07:58:55) :
“The wild, unkempt hair, the jacket, open shirt/no tie…”
____________________________
But those glasses!!! Yuck!!!
That old farmer he’s standing next to reminds me of a fella I used to go fishing with. Called him “Granddaddy”.”
Big smiles :))
After reading this account it is clear that Phil Jones is in a group of people whose lives are not governed by any guiding principles. Every decision is based on the idea that each issue is “gray” and must be considered independently of all others. How one feels about the issue is more important than any principles that may apply. The result of this is a life history when opened to public scrutiny appears inconsistent and contradictory.
These are the people who accuse more principled people of “black and white” thinking and unable to consider gray areas. They misinterpret consideration of principles first for black and white thinking.
Phil Jones may indeed be a very nice and good person, but just not a very good scientist due to his unprincipled nature.
I have no problem with Steve Mosher or his post but I do disagree with one of your comments.
“. By fighting over the issues in this the CAGW crowd have kept this issue alive longer than they had to.”
I think you are wrong here Steve. The flaws and errors are so systematic and one directional in bias that I think an honest surface temperature record with UHI and land use corrections that have some basis in reality, would eliminate most of the warming of the last 150 years. It would at least make it obvious that recent warming was not unusual, and may well criple if not destroy their entire cause.
I think the obfuscation and stalling is deliberate and at least on a subconscious level caused by this realization. It is very easy for scientists just like anyone else to fool themselves if the belief is strong in one particular direction.
Pascvaks (10:23:38) :
I guess they ought to put “Climate Change” under Geology as a minor field of study.
This would not be a bad idea considering that “Geology (from the Greek γῆ, gê, “earth” and λόγος, logos, “speech”) is the science and study of the solid and liquid matter that constitutes the Earth.”
What does the WMO say about data sharing?
IANAL but I don’t see where this supports the hoard and stonewall data policies that CRU developed
What difference does it make who Steve Mosher. Lets just say Steve Mosher is no one and knows nothing(like me say). If Steve’s hypothesis is correct, it’s correct, irregardless PNS aside for a minute. What Jones is saying is:
…..I believe in AGW, therefore, you should too because of who I am Trust me. Pay up…..
Aside from the truth, as best can be determined, Jones is no one either. In fact.
NO ONE IS ANYONE. Put the facts on the table.
I don’t see that mosher has anything to worry about from an foi mr hearnden I have no doubt that fenton comms or al gores 300mil have chcked out every nook and cranny of his and any other major skeptic and if there was anything even slightly dubious it would be promulgated everywhere. The fact that there is no such outcry imho opinion proves there is no evidence. Apart from romms accusation that macintyre was once on the same continent as barton(or something equally ridiculous) I doubt very little of their past or present activities is not already known. Anybody ever taken your trash away on the wrong day mosh?
………….and, truth be known, skeptics don’t care if the world is cooking to boiling point or not. That is not what we are about. We are just not going to tolerate lies, BS, and corruption of the cherished idea of Science as an empirical
seat of physical truth.
What is left unanswered so far in this whole mess is the critically important question.
We ALL (yes, even the so-called “deniers”) know that the world has warmed since 1850. 1850 is widely recognized to be towards the end of the Little Ice Age. To me, it would be mightily inconvenient if the earth had not warmed since then.
Most of us skeptics also acknowledge that it is POSSIBLE that human contributions to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere COULD be contributing to warming.
The problem is, that despite what all of the models purport to show, the REALITY is that from 1850-2010 the earth has warmed approximately 0.8 degrees celsius, or on average 0.05C/decade. What has not been answered are the following questions:
Is 0.05C/decade anything to worry about whatsoever, especially when we have been emerging from a little ice age?
Are the global historical temperature records even accurate? If so, how accurate? Even if we make the GENEROUS assumption that they are accurate to +/- 0.5C (and I do believe that to be a very generous assumption), that yields a range of 0.3C warming over 160 years (completely insignificant noise) to 1.3C over 160 years (well above insignificant noise, but still must be evaluated for human contribution percentage).
Has this warming trend, or an even stronger warming trend, happened in the past? (we don’t really know, this is one of the areas where the data and conclusions have been dodgy… from recent studies I have seen, this sort of warming trend is not outside of normal variation however.)
Is the earth warmer now than it ever has been before, or have we been warmer (perhaps far warmer) in the past?
Is the CO2 content of the atmosphere alarmingly high, or has it been higher (perhaps even much higher) in the past? (I have seen some studies that show it was on the order of 1000ppm (or 1 part per thousand, or 0.1%) in the past at times.)
I have also seen studies that warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels yield more abundant and productive plant life, which leads to more prosperous and healthy animal life. If this is indeed true, would this be a good thing?
What other variables are “forcing” climate. Are the other variables far stronger than CO2 as a forcing, or are they weaker? Is there ANY scenario under which CO2 can be shown to be the CONSISTENTLY dominant force controlling climate and temperature?
Until we have answers to these questions provided by falsifiable hypotheses which have undergone rigorous (or to use the CAGW term, “robust”) testing using the scientific method, we cannot draw any conclusions, much less formulate any policy whatsoever.
Thanks Steven for a nice clear and concise post about Dr. Jones involvement in the Climategate scandal.
Clear evidence that the man is guilty as charged and can no longer be considered as a scientist, along with the rest of the CRU crew. I find it quite ironic that the whole CAGW scam is based on data which has proved, in the fullness of time, to be worthless.
The CAGW Climate Scam is also having a disastrous effect on the UK political scene, where our politicians are already seen as dishonest, following the Iraq affair (reason for war based on more dodgy data) and fiddling expenses paid by the tax-payer revealed in another data ‘leak’.
PeterB in Indianapolis (06:23:55) :
Thanks Peter. You have my position represented fairly accurately.
They call me a skeptic. I believe in AGW.
They say the mails don’t change the science. I agree, they erode trust.
They say I attack the man. I quote the man’s words.
It must frustrate them.
Although, It already seems predisposed to whitewash the CRU and Jones, I certainly hope that Anthony, Steven Mosher and other guest posters, including Prof Ravetz, will be making submissions to the RUSSELL Inquiry.
Gaz (03:29:38) :
“This is all really sad.
“You so-called sceptics , etc etc etc.”
___________________________________
You’d be very surprised at how much the people here believe about the points you’ve listed (and many more). Stick around and read between the jokes and sarcasm.
Though I do believe that the vast majority might agree that Jones, Mann, Gore, Pachauri, and many others aren’t what they claim to be and are only out to feather their own nests; and accomplish a political objective -the redistribution of the world’s wealth according to their own formulae, a’la Marx.
Wondering Aloud (10:39:00) :
I have no problem with Steve Mosher or his post but I do disagree with one of your comments.
“. By fighting over the issues in this the CAGW crowd have kept this issue alive longer than they had to.”
I think you are wrong here Steve. The flaws and errors are so systematic and one directional in bias that I think an honest surface temperature record with UHI and land use corrections that have some basis in reality, would eliminate most of the warming of the last 150 years. It would at least make it obvious that recent warming was not unusual, and may well criple if not destroy their entire cause.”
We will have to disagree on this. I’ll suggest that we pick this discussion
on a science related thread. I’m a Lukewarmer. This thread really isn’t the right place to address your concerns. Simply, though, the land record is but a piece of the entire story. I’ve seen no data and no code that supports
a conclusion that MOST of the warming in the past 150 is spurious.
johnnythelowery (05:00:14) :
How many FOI requests did they get? It seems to me the relevance of the ‘make work’ FOI requests is proportional to the number they received. If they received 5,000 with McIntyre’s being just one, to which they have to respond to emails, taylor the data to the requests, etc. then that is something to talk about. Does anybody know the numbers of requests we are talking about?
2 FOI requests is not ‘make work’. Thx
REPLY: Sixty FOI requests, most for the same thing, which could have been satisfied under a blanket release. – A
Anthony….Thankyou! I suppose the next variable is over what expanse of time? However, given the importance of the issue, the size and extent and cost to industry, and given an employee to do this, does it really matter. He wasn’t going to give McKintyre what he wanted. And that is the end of the story really. Still, nice to know the true facts regarding the ‘make work’ insult. The only one making work is this context is the twit that didn’t provide the basics in the first place.
I eagerly await Jerome Ravetz’ article on ‘Post Normal Standard Practice’
_Jim (07:58:55) :
The wild, unkempt hair, the jacket, open shirt/no tie; it all fits the image one would conjure up for Moshpit …
Ha. That picture was taken on a lovely day trip to “the city of sadness”
Juifen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiufen
I did have a little pendant on. A scorpion.
Actually……Steve Mosher…..I am starting to believe there is something fishy with the temp record. I know you are a lukewarmer, and I frequent Lucias pages so know there are a lot who are. I think I was.
I was quite relaxed about our 0.7C warming…….but recent stuff has me now thinking a big part of it is indeed bogus. I’m steering towards the ‘actually…there is little temp variation outside natural’ and reading Bob Tisdale ENSO stuff makes me think the Lukewarmer bit is more Tepidwarmer…?
Maybe thats why Leif keeps saying ‘it ain’t the Sun’ because maybe it ain’t anything… Maybe 0.7C is actually only 0.4C…..where does that leave C02? Maybe 0.2C….
I’m now starting to look at the sat temps with a skeptical eye too. Maybe Lindzen is right? Theres nothing much to see?
Its fascinating to see how this has evolved.
I do think there is enough evidence now though to put the brakes on for a year of contemplation.
Steve Mosher: You believe in AGW? What……0.6c over_______years? How many years? What degree? Using thermometers acccurate to a +/- of ___________ F?
At every reading? What part of the 0.6C is AGW and which is natural? As you don’t have the raw data….how can you be sure? Or do you?
Is it trending to ‘normal’ or away from ‘normal’.