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.
As to Jones’ assertion that Canada will not allow the distribution of historic weather data for Canada, he should check out the Environment Canada website: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html , where such data is freely available online from the year 1840 to the present.
Professor Jones’ came over as a little schoolboy who had been caught being naughty and was making unbelievable excuses for his behaviour. Acton came over as some form of alien being doing everything he could to protect his mutant offspring.
This was a typical UK inquiry, the establishment putting on a show to placate the masses, protect their own and basically do nothing.
As is so often the case, a hugely disappointing performance by select committee members. They really are appalling at asking questions. I know MPs have lots of demands on their time, but they could easily have prepaered some much more forensic questions that got to the heart of the issues. Why did they not establish that it is the fortran program that contains the “treatment” of the raw data, the fudge factor, etc, that is needed to properly replicate the work? Jones’ confirmation that this has never been released would then be put in proper context. Why do they not quote the emails that show that the data was in a complete mess? A complete anti-climax I’m afraid.
Who was the person passing notes to Jones. Another climatologist or a lawyer? Can anyone put names to those faces? Their body language revealed more to me than Jones did. Smug smiles and dark frowns.
I wonder what was on those notes? “Don’t use the Word station lists!”
“Don’t mention other proxidata!” mmmm more secrets yet to come.
These ex-scientists still firmly believe in climate change. The idea that AGW could be proven wrong in a scientific paper is impossible for them to conceive. When the politicians talked of people checking or SHOCK disproving the work the faces in the row behind Jones turned incredulous.
Hi guys,
I know it’s a little Off Topic, but I just had a long visit to the Deltoid website, hoping to have an intelligent exchange of ideas; maybe learn why their viewpoint is so different from ours; maybe hear some compelling evidence to shake my view that the AGW hypothesis is based on some sound science but dodgy non-sequiturs. After all, I reasoned, there must be many people in the warmist camp who are educated, sincere and well-informed.
After a brief spell of courtesy, the insults started to flow. One or two people were kind enough to debate the science and gave me food for thought. After finally trying to discuss Popper’s principle of ‘falsifiability’, I’ve given up trying to build bridges. There (as here sometimes) there are angry loudmouths who only want to fight.
I still say that with mutual courtesy and open minds, the two sides can at least agree what is undisputed physics, what the Scientific Method demands, what is undisputed measurement data, and especially what are falsifibility criteria to one day resolve this Great Debate. A bit less ad-hominem, and a bit more honest debate, and a lot more disclosure is surely in everybody’s interest.
Wow, he (Phil Jones) seems very nervous during this interview. He should be. Think of a pharmaceutical company asking society to spend trillions of dollars to combat a plague that their ‘medicine’ will abate. And think of their lead (pharmacist) being caught with their pants down. And, after having the (self serving) scientific evidence that says, ‘trust me’.
I watched the videos and I can’t see what all the fuss was about.
Swift boats!