Video: Dr. Phil Jones Climategate testimony at the British House of Commons

Thanks to Simon at Australian Climate Madness (ACM) the video of yesterday’s testimony by Dr. Phil Jones of UEA/CRU is now online via YouTube, making it viewable by millions worldwide. There are five parts, each of about 9 or 10 minutes. Jones is accompanied by the Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, Prof. Edward Acton. Symon sums up the questioning: “They don’t exactly give PJ a tough ride, do they? To quote the former UK Labour Chancellor Denis Healey, it was like being savaged by a dead sheep…”. Fred Pearce of the Guardian commented that: “…the Commons committee tiptoed round embattled scientist and sidestepped crucial questions”.

Here’s a sampling of what British press has to say. Thanks to Dr. Benny Peiser and his CCNet Newsletter for the roundup.

MPs have quizzed the scientist at the centre of the “climategate” scandal, the first time he has been questioned in public since the row erupted. Professor Phil Jones used his appearance before the science committee to say that he had done nothing wrong. Earlier, critics told the MPs that the stolen e-mails, which appeared on the internet in November, raised questions about the integrity of climate science.

–BBC News, 1 March 2010

Prof Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, is accused of withholding raw data behind his research on global warming.  In emails stolen from the university he asks one climate change sceptic: “Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?” In a grilling by MPs, Prof Jones admitted he had withheld data and sent some “pretty awful” emails. But he insisted it was “standard practice” to refuse certain information to other scientists.

–Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 2 March 2010

Lord Lawson called for scientists to be more open about their methodologies. “The Freedom of Information Act should not have been brought into this,” former Chancellor Lord Lawson of Blaby, a longstanding critic of climate policy, told MPs. “Scientists of integrity reveal… all of their data and all their methods. They don’t need Freedom of Information Act requests to get this out of them.”

–BBC News, 1 March 2010

Also giving evidence alongside Lord Lawson was Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He said that sound science was based on “testability, replication, and verification”. Dr Peiser told the committee: “Of course, if you do not have the data sets or methods then you have to trust the word of a scientist. “You cannot even see if he has done these calculations directly on the basis of solid data, and this is the core of this problem – it is not about the overall science, it is about the process.”

–BBC News, 1 March 2010

The integrity of climate change research is in doubt after the disclosure of e-mails that attempt to suppress data, a leading scientific institute has said. The Institute of Physics said that e-mails sent by Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, had broken “honourable scientific traditions” about disclosing raw data and methods and allowing them to be checked by critics.

–Ben Webster, The Times, 1 March 2010

The body representing 36,000 UK physicists has called for a wider enquiry into the Climategate affair, saying it raises issues of scientific corruption. The Institute of Physics doesn’t pull any punches in the submission, one of around 50 presented to the Commons Select Committee enquiry into the Climategate archive. The IOP says the enquiry should be broadened to examine possible “departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.”

–Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 1 March 2010

The entire 3 hours is available here via Windows Media Player:

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979&player=windowsmedia

Sorry, the MP’s don’t seem to have a Mac/Quicktime link.

Select segments about 9-10 minutes each are available below.

Part1

Part2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
James Crisp

Why can’t I watch youtube videos in work, dammit!
REPLY: Your local network permissions/firewall may prohibit it. Nothing I can do. – Anthony

Henry chance

Thanks for posting this. I watched a part yesterday. It shocks me how much he changed his story from the e-mails. I carefully reviewed the softball questions and it seems to me many had reviewed a lot of leaks e-mails before preparing questions. Very incriminating answers from Jones.
At some point he may not have a criminal verdict but they may still choke funding to his pretend science.

Henry chance

Acton seems to be overly dramatic on one hand and phony on the other.
He says how important he is, how important the UEA is and its research and how important it is to get all information released. Then why did they block release of files?
Graham Stringer (Lab) opened up with a “it’s nice to meet you having read all your emails over the past few days”

Patrick Davis

Errrmm….election year in the UK!!! In fact very soon, May possibly! I’d say a diversionary tactic as there are no worthy partys in the UK to vote for, well, maybe Monster Raving Loony Party, but you may as well vote Tory, Green or Labour IMO.

James Crisp

@Anthony
Sorry, I know it’s nothing to do with you or your site, I was just showing my frustration because I want to watch this but can’t!

janama

if you want to see the whole 3 hours you can view it here – Jones starts after 1hr in.
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979&player=windowsmedia

Henry chance

head of climate at the Met Office Julia Sligo.
When I observed the tone and behavior coupled with her responses, The Queen of Climate Science for the Planet.
Julia seems to look down at people that have the audacity to raise questions and offer even a hint of bad deeds.
All true Scotsmen support her agenda.

@ James Crisp –
It probably will not give you comfort to know that Gavin Schmidt can probably view the youtube videos at work.

Hi,
The interesting evidence was also from Watson who implied that the problem of the Hockey Stick was resolved. Unfortunately no one asked him which way it was resolved

Pascvaks

Jones is to Brown as HealthCare is to Obama.
Even though you’re failing
Even when you can’t find
A better way to procede
Because your eyes are closed
And your fingers are in your ears
You are telling the truth
When you say you can’t see anything
And you can’t hear anything, either.
The root of all evil is stupidity.

Neil Hampshire

When will Micheal Mann be subject to a similar interview from US politicians?

R. de Haan

James Crisp (06:02:11) :
Why can’t I watch youtube videos in work, dammit!
REPLY: Your local network permissions/firewall may prohibit it. Nothing I can do. – Anthony
James,
Simply switch to the Firefox brownser.
If that does not work, Firefox has Add On’s like Down load helper 4.7 which allows you to down load and safe Youtube video’s to your hard disk and watch them off line.

JonesII

The integrity of climate change research is in doubt
Translation: The integrity of the Progressive Agenda for a Global Government is in doubt…so we gotto make all this show and see if we can fix it”
♪♪♪ We and Mr. Jones
we got a thing going on…
we both know that it´s wrong
But it´s too much strong to let it go now…
We gotto be extra careful
that we don´t build our hopes up too high…♪♪♪

Vincent

I don’t like Acton’s histrionics at all. He comes across as a deceitful showman. He keeps claiming how he’s longing to release data, but when data is not released he blames a handful of countries.
He confesses to being a historian and not a scientist, and yet presumes to give a lecture on the overwhelming robustness of climate science. That in itself should be cause for alarm. Hopefully Acton will get his wish soon, and we will see all this data in the public domain. Then the work begins.
I was pleased to see the Labour MP dragging Jones over the old Warwick Hughes issue – you didn’t want to give Warwick the data because you he only wants to find something wrong with it. Other than that I don’t see much value to the whole charade. I don’t know the name of that young man, but when he asked Jones if he thought his actions would be vindicated by the committee, then I knew we were in whitewash city.

Watching and listening to Profs Jones and Acton reminds me of how venal and hubristic senior university staff can be! I thought the questions, although generally mildly phrased and enunciated, were quite searching, giving Jones and Acton considerable room to incriminate themselves. I have interveiwed miscreant schoolboys over the years who were more convincing than these two!

Straight-eyed Mary

The Guardian article by Pearce is at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry
suggestion: the story include that link.

Jones kept saying that the “products were available” over and over again. So I guess according to him there is no problem. When pressed for the underlying data, he said that it was available at NASA ans NOAA. Phil, you idiot! We don’t trust you. I want to be able to take YOUR data and confirm that YOUR data isn’t faulty. then take your data and process it with your computer filters to confirm that you haven’t, with your programmes forced results to confirm your hypothesis, then check YOUR programs to be certain that you haven’t manipulated the software. It does me no good to look at your “product” or other people’s data when your behavior is what I trust the least.
Stop referring to other people’s data and your “product”. What a bullshitter!

Larry

With the royal societies of chemistry, physics and statistics standing up for science, perhaps the royal society is feeling its name is too short, and wants to become the Royal Society of Climate Scientists. They could then explain withholding information in the CRU enquiry as standard practice in their line of work.

Brent Hargreaves

Following the advice of Jerome Ravetz here on Wattsupwiththat – “Never forget that you might be wrong” – I had a stroll around the RealClimate site looking for their best shot at validating the AGW hypothesis.
It linked to a “Stand Up for Climate Science” petition, http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?clim4tr&1
and a sad little entry by Phil Jones:
“195. Prof Phil Jones. Thanks guys, I need all the help I can get. Your support is much appreciated.”
I guess he had it coming, but he looked like a frightened old man yesterday in London. Guys, the momentum is with us now: shouldn’t we now concentrate on scientific debate rather than further reviling Jones now that he’s down? Some great victories have been won since Climategate emerged; isn’t it time to look for common ground, to capture the parts of climate science that are agreed by both factions? Please, a little magnanimity. Don’t destroy his dignity.

supercritical

Did you see the Government Chief Scientific Advisor get a bit of a telling-off at the end?
From watching that session I’d say that CRU,UEA, the Met office, AGW theory, are now toast.

VicV

This may be a little off topic, but also sort of not.
Monday, in the comments on the “Royal Statistical Society backs ‘models and data in the public domain'” topic, George E. Smith (17:34:05), replying to Leon Brozyna, wrote:
“I would suggest that the bulk of the ‘scientific evidence’ related to ‘Climate’ or ‘Climate Change’ is not Physics at all; but is in fact statistics.”
I don’t want to argue with that, but maybe scientific evidence related to Climate SHOULD be fed through the physics lens. It seems to me we should thank Al Whore, I mean Gore, for bringing some high-level focus to what we CAN learn about Climate Change… and long-term weather forecasting, as alternative ideas are explored. (Much as we should thank Hitler, Stalin, and Mao for showing us the potential and likely effects of concentration of political power.)
Can any of you climate and/or physics experts (or anyone else with ability) give some feedback on this?:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27343303/Gravity-Causes-Climate-Change
I know I might be behind on this (being a relative rookie here), but I suspect there are more and more rookies on the site these days.

Also the Chief Obfuscator Acton lied when he said that Canada wouldn’t allow the release of the data. That is a complete lie. Canada make no such restrictions. The only thing Cnada would like is the acknowledgment that they participated in the data collection and according requests that data links point sto environment Canada, which make all data publicly available. I know because I use it every day.
This is what those academic scientific dictators do. They nuance lies.

PJB

Jones’ body language at the start of his questioning says it all.
All that needs to come of this is that the raw data be reviewed for accuracy (tyvm Mr. Watts) and then the analyses be performed to see the “accuracy” or lack of same in the models used to predict past and future climate trends.
We need this information so that we will know what is going on. We do not need an agenda-driven exhortation to spend what is left of our quickly diminishing pile of cash.

Gore and The UN IPCC should be forced to give back their Nobel Peace Prize. The flaws in Gore’s film and the errors in the 2007 UN IPCC Report that have been discovered since the award was given should disqualify both parties. Irena Sendler who risked her life daily during World War II to save the lives of over 2,500 Jewish children is much more deserving. Please sign the petition to demand that Gore and the UN IPCC have their award taken away. http://www.stripgore.com

Andrew30

paul (07:40:59) :
“Also the Chief Obfuscator Acton lied when he said that Canada wouldn’t allow the release of the data. That is a complete lie. ”
Paul;
That is just part of the normal progression. Two steps to go…
To the people who have been unable to prove that humans can change the climate:
Remember, when your position is weak.
1. Exaggerate the problem.
2. Attack the messenger not the message.
3. Redirect the debate.
4. Lie.
5. Run away.
6. Hide.

R. de Haan

Mar 01, 2010
‘Gore Effect’ Comes to His Home State
Coldest Winter In 30 Years and Coldest February Since 1979
http://www.icecap.us

David A. Reyes

“it was like being savaged by a dead sheep…”
Oh, the visual! Almost lost my keyboard!
-Dave

Tenuc

Jones is in a dire predicament and looks like a broken man. He knows just what a mess the original data was in and how it had to be massaged to ensure it would fit with the CAGW hypothesis, so better to lose or destroy it than prove his own guilt.
If the world had continued to warm at the pre-1995 rate he would have got away with it, but he has already admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming for the last 15y, so he and the theory of CAGW are now toast, whatever the outcome of this sham of an inquiry.
It will be interesting to see what ‘Plan B’ the politicians come up with.

maz2

Brent Hargreaves said: “Don’t destroy his dignity.”
The “his” is Jones.
Will Jones, Gore, Pachauri/IPCC, Suzuki, Hansen, Mann, et al, accept culpability for this?
“Baby survives parents’ global warming suicide pact
A seven-month-old girl survived for three days alone with a bullet in her chest after being shot by her parents as part of a suicide pact over their fears about global warming.”
“Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7344329/Baby-survives-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html
…-
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013473.html#comments
“Y2Kyoto: Reducing Their Carbon Footprint
One suicide note at a time;”

PaulH from Scotland

Shades of David Kelly and the investigations into WMD. I genuinely hope the outcome is different.
Despite my disdain for Jones’ blackening of British science, I do not wish him ill.
On a related matter, it would appear that there’s a new response to ‘there’s no empirical evidence’ for AGW.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/01/climate-science-video-empirical-evidence-for-human-caused-global-warming/#more-20163
My take is that much of this video is the results of warming, with a bit about radiative forcing. It didn’t address C02’s logrithmic absorption rates or the role of clouds.
I’d be interested to hear others’ assessments on how this provides ’empirical evidence’.

Vincent

Tenuc,
“It will be interesting to see what ‘Plan B’ the politicians come up with.”
Choose from the following list:
Energy security, green jobs, ocean acidification, climate justice, sustainable development, peak oil and clean energy.

RichieP

@Brent Hargreaves (07:33:22) : “Some great victories have been won since Climategate emerged; isn’t it time to look for common ground, to capture the parts of climate science that are agreed by both factions? Please, a little magnanimity. Don’t destroy his dignity.”
Not yet, not yet. Jones will merely be (already has become) the alarmists’ chosen scapegoat while the rest fight on, as deviously and mendaciously as before. It’s far too big and wide-reaching to indulge in magnanimity (decency and reason, yes, always, but we *musn’t be fooled again*). The alarmist ranks may be wavering but they’re emphatically not running yet. Like Virgil said: “Spare the conquered when you’ve crushed the proud”. And there are a great number of very proud and very arrogant Lords of Warming who must be defeated yet. The suicide of the Argentinian couple and the murder and near-murder of their children, all driven by fear of global warming, fostered and generated by people like Jones, Gore, Mann etc etc speaks volumes and certainly hardens my heart against much sympathy for these wicked conmen.
No. We need Nelson now: “”Never mind the manoeuvres, just go straight at ’em.” Magnanimity’s for when they surrender and that ain’t yet.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1254619/Baby-girl-survives-shot-chest-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html

Steve Goddard

Hopefully this will dampen “scientist worship” among certain segments of the population. Scientists are just human beings, with the same frailties and prejudices.

David Waring

A little OT, but the Met Office have given up the unequal struggle with the weather and has omitted to issue a Seasonal Forecast for Spring. The best they offer now is a mid-range thingummy up until the end of this month.

This is all about politics: wanting to do things which we want. What do we want? We want to blame the Co2 (a gaseous fertilizer) as a taxeble pollutant. I’m stunned by the naive “scientists” responding to this trap.

James Sexton

maz2 (08:43:13) :
Brent Hargreaves said: “Don’t destroy his dignity.”
The “his” is Jones.
Will Jones, Gore, Pachauri/IPCC, Suzuki, Hansen, Mann, et al, accept culpability for this?
“Baby survives parents’ global warming suicide pact.”
That, and the deaths in the food riots in Haiti(pre-quake). The denial of energy to the 3rd world nations, (and the subsequent deaths). And the deaths caused by soaring energy costs forcing our poorer people to choose between heat and food during the winter(happens far more frequently than most realize).
While I don’t hold those pin-heads responsible of other people’s acts of stupidity, they just as well as loaded the gun for all. Dignity? There must be a judgment day for those aforementioned people. And many more. Anything less and justice will be stripped of her dignity.

coalsoffire

Forget about Jones. Why isn’t the Inquiry questioning Harry?

@ James Sexton (09:08:39) :
There’s one more thing to add to your list:
‘Clearing rainforest for biofuel plantations releases carbon stored in trees and soil. It takes up to 840 years for a palm oil plantation to soak up the carbon emitted when the rainforest it replaced was burnt. The expansion of the palm oil industry in Indonesia has turned it into the third-largest CO2 emitter, after China and the US. Indonesia loses an area of forest the size of Wales every year and the orang-utan is on the brink of extinction in Sumatra.’
Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7044708.ece
It is beyond ironic that the green AGW proponents, in order to push their carbon mantra, devastate just those environments about which they’ve been preaching to us for years, and are apparently happy for an endangered species to get to the brink of extinction.

Michael Larkin

QOTW?
“Professor Jones’s face was immobile, eyes steady behind wire specs. He seemed, like a dead calm sea, almost glassy. And, like ships in the Bermuda Triangle, questions that got near him just seemed to disappear.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/parliamentary_sketch/article7046005.ece

Green Sand

Well, the historian, Prof Acton is aware of the MWP, wonder when he told Jones about it?
Not only does Acton know about it he now thinks they need to do more research in to it. I assume that this research will be for an Acton UEA history paper, can’t ever see CRU getting funding for it. Or am I just being naïve?
Also I wonder how much of CRU funding kept Acton & UEA going. Seems an awful lot of taxpayer cash for “a very small unit of only 3 full time academics”

Gary Hladik

Brent Hargreaves (07:33:22) : “Some great victories have been won since Climategate emerged; isn’t it time to look for common ground, to capture the parts of climate science that are agreed by both factions? Please, a little magnanimity. Don’t destroy his dignity.”
This isn’t even close to being over. When CAGW is dead and buried, then it’s time for magnanimity.
BTW, the “pitiful” Dr. Jones is still lying; as the comments above illustrate, his testimony included at least two whoppers, i.e. withholding data was his “standard practice”, and Canadian temperature data is restricted. I don’t believe in “magnanimity” for unrepentant liars.

Richard M

Peter Hearnden (07:59:33) :
‘Richard M’ (07:27:03) :
Is it possible we might discuss this without your best ‘argument’ being to accuse people of being ignorant?

To quote a very astute fictional character. “Stupid is as stupid does.” Your silly attempt at redefining the scientific method can’t be called anything less than ignorant, and doing it here … [self snip].

O/T: Anyone else seen this weather is not climate item? In Lajamanu, Australia residents were greeted with a summer fish rain. Yet another sign of the impending climate apocalypse.
http://pastabrain.blogspot.com/2010/03/taleser-tails-from-sea.html

Vincent

Viv Evans,
“It is beyond ironic that the green AGW proponents, in order to push their carbon mantra, devastate just those environments about which they’ve been preaching to us for years, and are apparently happy for an endangered species to get to the brink of extinction.”
It is not so ironic when you realise that these fanatics are motivated only by their hatred of humanity and modern civilization. In this sense, an extinction here or there is simply “collateral damage” as they their war against the rest of us.

rbateman

I wonder if the Big Bang show that had Sheldon digging himself a hole in front of the judge was a poke at….nah.

John Gill

When I first looked at this thread, I wasn’t able to get the link (glitch, I guess) to Prof. Jones’ evidence so I found it independently. Fortunately, the website I viewed contained the evidence of all the other witnesses for the inquiry on that day. It was striking to see how assured Lord Lawson (skeptic) was, even though some of the questioning he faced was pretty hostile, compared to Prof. Jones who looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
It makes you wonder. Lawson came across as someone with nothing to hide while Jones was picking his words very carefully AND appeared to be receiving handwritten advice from some bloke (lawyer perhaps) sitting behind him.
Man have these warmist guys got something to hide!

Brent Hargreaves

Ritchie, James, I share your fury at the obscene fraud that is AGW.
(RichieP (08:54:05) – “… these wicked conmen”,
James Sexton (09:08:39) – “There must be a judgment day…”)
If the Hockey Team didn’t believe their own pseudo-science I’d agree with you that the attack must go on. But listen to the interview Mann gave on 26 Feb – http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michael_mann_unprecedented_attacks_on_climate_research/ and I hope you’ll hear what I hear: this guy thinks he’s just an honest scientist being attacked by irrational savages who try to undermine his solid research and the consequent…. aaaah… apocalypse. Yes, he’s barking mad. Steven Mosher, here on WUWT argues that it’s a case of “Noble Cause Corruption”. Mann is wrong, not evil.
Ritchie, your references to Virgil and Nelson make your point very well, but the historical metaphors I would offer are 1918 v 1945. The allies foolishly took Germany to the cleaners at the end of WWI, and wisely helped Germany back to health at the end of WWII. Fight the disease (self-calibrating data-withholding gravy-train futurological pseudo-science) not the patient.
I suggest that a true victory would be Michael Mann declaring, “Based on the data I then had, the Hockey Stick was good science. But in the light of the new evidence, I agree that recent decades are well within historical range. Maybe the “driver” – if any driver is required – is solar. Whilst we all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we now know that its variations are a consequence of temperature changes, not a cause.”
And they all lived happily ever after 😉

Little John

Its amazing to some of us how caught up in all this we’ve all become. There is a very simple explanation for the entire debate about ‘global warming’.

dave ward

According to the local paper the UEA has vowed to “Learn from the row over climategate” This small article is not available online, so I’ve scanned and uploaded it here:
http://i48.tinypic.com/34nsl7a.jpg

Mike Haseler

Something was odd with this questioning and it has finally dawned on me. The defence being offered by Jones was that “all the information is available from other sources …. it’s all as clear as day, the FOI were totally unnecessary”.
Except, whilst they asserted that it was all very simple and all the information was clear, the committee at the very end of the sessions had to ask Prof Beddington to contact them regarding exactly which data was really public.
Put it this way: “the Science and Technology Committee were forced to make a special request (FOI) to obtain information because Prof Jones had so obfuscated about the information that he had failed to supply it as requested.”