PRESS RELEASE
Stockholm March 5, 2010
Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry
It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.
Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.
This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.
All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.
STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden
===================================
They included attached PDF files. which I have uploaded to WUWT below. Click for PDF files:
Request_from_Professor_Phil_Jones_regarding_the_release_of_data_from_the_HadCRUT_dataset__dnr_SMHI_
Data_from_the_HadCRUT_dataset_100304
Sponsored IT training links:
100% pass guarantee on first try with help of best quality 1Y0-A17 study material including 642-456 dumps and 1Y0-A08 practice exam.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jones has no idea whats going on ( he just says stuff) it pretty evident hes still very unorganized.
Trevlig dag! Dr. Jones.
“We stress that the data we hold has arisen from multiple sources, and has been recovered over the last 30 years. Subsequently quality control [?] and homogenisation of these data have been carried out. It is therefore highly likely that the version we hold and are requesting permission to distribute will differ from your own current holdings.”
I.e. Even the “raw” data isn’t the real raw data.
This just proves the whole thing is a con trick. Note they are not saying: “we wish to make available BOTH the raw data and adjusted data”, instead it is ONLY the upjusting data.
Why do they even bother, it is a worthless PR stunt!
This looks like –after some thrashing about– a reasonable solution. The Swedes don’t mind the data being released, they just want it to be clearly identified that at this point while it is “based” on their data, CRU has “done stuff” to it (so don’t blame us!).
And requesting a link at CRU’s site to the real uncorrected Swedish data is both appropriate and helpful to those researchers who want to see the raw and what CRU did to it for the “value added” product.
But since Jones’ statement was on Mar 1, and the letter giving permission was March 4, I am at a loss to understand why the Swedes seem to be calling him out here for making false statements. Perhaps an “english as second language” issue in nuance? Otherwise I’m puzzled. They told him ‘no’ on Dec 21, 2009; he told the world they said ‘no’ on Mar 1, 2010; they tell him it’s okay after all with reasonable provisos on Mar 4, 2010. . . and then they say he’s fibbing on Mar 5 about what he said on Mar 1?
What’s wrong with this picture?
I feel a bit of sympathy for Professor Jones in this regard. If I had received a letter stating
I would have assumed that to be a clear refusal to permit him to release the data. The subsequent letter was of course after the hearing and the latest statement that the statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data is to say the least somewhat harsh in relation to what Professor Jones knew at the time.
So, in short, Dr. Jones lied.
@Geo – they didn’t tell him “no” on December 21: they said they didn’t want their data on his website, but gave him a url when it could be downloaded.
This is interesting.
A lot of scientific data is like that: It’s available for download provided it’s for a non-commercial use. You would have to get their consent otherwise.
There’s a lot of twists and turns to this story.
Dr. Jones may get find himself in hot water, but the question is: Whos hot water?
And if the version of Swedish data he was using is not the same as the Swedes’ version, then his statement of ‘most’ is being evasive….at best.
That’s a good way to tick off your questioners.
I don’t think that amounts to telling porkies to the committee, if they took the first letter at face value. However, it’s surprising they didn’t question the letter earlier, that just shows sloppiness. Clearly the Swedes think the committee was given the wrong impression, hence the second letter,
I can’t find a link to the Stockholm Initiative that works.
I suspect Canada will come around to the Swedish position once they figure out we’re really talking about two different datasets here. What’s on Canada’s website is no doubt the “raw”. . . but that is no assistance at all in verifying CRUTEM algorithms that take place after the “value added” dataset has been created.
The Canadian raw is, of course, very valuable for seeing what the raw is vs the value added to see if it looks like the “value add” dataset is appropriate, logical etc. But *both* datasets (Canadian raw & CRU value added) need to be available to get a real end-to-end view of CRUTEM and its appropriateness.
The Swedes figured that out –hopefully the Canadians and Poles will as well.
Sweden’s data is not helpful as the website linked is in Swedish, naturally.
This is the internet in 2010!
Just wait a bit….. 🙂
I love the line about “processing” by the ARU …
Pamela Gray (12:59:48) :
I’ll bet this made Jones madder than a wet cat! So now it all makes sense. These various sources didn’t want their data released by JONES!
That is a whole ‘nother “peanut butter n jelly samich”, than sayin, “These sources don’t want their data released”.
?
Maybe they didn’t have a problem with THEIR DATA, but what Phil was going to release was his REVISED NORMALIZED version of THEIR DATA.
I wonder how many more country agencies felt the same way
As is Canadian data. Jones lies.
The BBC parliament channel is tonight covering the proceeding of the UK Government parliamentary committee at which Phil Jones gave evidence ( three hours of witness evidence). It is very apparent that the committee is biased towards global warming ( as expected). It gave Lord Lawson quite a rough time and seemed to be looking for ways to cover up the Climategate embarrassment rather than investigate the real issues. very disappointing 🙁
Oldjim,
the data on the site was not the raw data … how hard is that to understand ?
@Leon Brozyna (13:13:26) :
What are you seeing that I’m not? How can he have lied about having permission on Mar 1 when he didn’t get permission until Mar 4?
This looks like pure confusion over how many datasets there are and what happens to them as they go in and out of various products.
I have some very sincere sympathy on that point –it *is* confusing as hell and in fact I’ve mentioned several times we need a darn map of the datasets and processing points!
Either Doctor Jones is lying through his fanatic teeth, or his utterly stupid and didn’t think it was necessary to fact check his facts.
At the rate his going at, he’ll prolly never come out on top.
I wonder can anyone actually dig his grave quicker and deeper then Doctor Jones. Maybe it’s the whip that makes a Jones.
When you find yourself in a hole its a good idea to stop digging!
The tissue of lies and half truths is spinning out of control as each excuse raises new unintended consequences.
Interesting, I don’t think I read that letter in quite the same way as some others have. It might be me misreading it, though.
The way I read it is that the SMHI have now updated / quality checked / reprocessed their data, and that therefore the raw data from SMHI today is different to the raw data decades ago when it was provided to Jones. Therefore, to prevent confusion, they would prefer just the latest data to be available from a single source (the SMHI) rather than multiple versions (which could cause confusion).
This is reasonable enough from a config control perspective, but raises some other questions. For example, Jones claimed some of the raw data was lost. This was very heavily criticised (since it implied there was no way to replicate the analysis at all), but Jones insisted that it was okay because the NMSs had copies of the data.
What seems apparent is that the NMSs may well NOT hold the data as provided to the CRU many years ago under configuration control; so it is possible that all we now have really is the “value added” data with questionable historical processing – and no way of checking what happened to it in the meat grinder.
It also goes some way to show the problems with out-of-date data used by the CRU and Jones’ obfuscation by refusing to provide WMO station IDs. Utterly disgraceful behaviour, and the number of “scientists” defending this is shocking.
(Also note the Stockholm Initiative is not the same as SMHI… there is a big difference between the “value added” commentary of the SI compared to the “raw” response from the SMHI. I’m sure this will be obvious to most though)
“It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data…This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.”
Well, I suppose we are finally going to find out if the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee is really trying to find out the truth or is just preparing a whitewash. Lying to Parliament is a very serious *crime* in the UK; if they do not go after him for this, they are engaged in a whitewash.
And isnt this what Karlen Wibjørn tried to say? When he plotted SMHI data, he got a different result ? And when he complained, he got stonewalled?
Nils Axel Mørners story is also a very inconvinient thruth;
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Phil Jones has been riding in his time machine again. Here he is, using a refusal dated November 2009 to justify his actions in 2007 and 2008.
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When we practise to deceive.
House of Commons don’t like
a) being patronised or
b) porkies