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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why can’t I watch youtube videos in work, dammit!
REPLY: Your local network permissions/firewall may prohibit it. Nothing I can do. – Anthony
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.
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”
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.
@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!
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
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.
@ur momisugly 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
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.
When will Micheal Mann be subject to a similar interview from US politicians?
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.
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…♪♪♪
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.