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.
Is he testifying under oath ? Is it possible that this guy has been absolute ruler of his little puddle, for so long that he simply doesn’t appreciate just how much trouble he’s in.
Maybe some countries have copyright on their data and CRU has been violating the copyright. I know one originating country that requires permission for any data sent out by the second party to be altered. It also requires permission before the data are passed on to a third party. To my knowledge, there is no specific agreement between this country & CRU allowing either of these events to happen, but then I might not have all of the relevant facts.
The Stockholm Initiative is an Advocacy group started by these folks:
http://www.issa.int/ and does not represent the Swedish Meteorological Institute.
The way I read this is that Jones asked for permission to publish the adjusted data as that of Swedin’s. They said, no that is not our record so you can’t show them as our records.
Jones comes back and says can’t show any of their temps.
Those are not the same thing.
If I ask for a photo of you and photoshop you into something that makes you look stupid and then I ask you if I can publish that adjusted photo as if were the real photo (look at the websites referenced, it only says quality controled, which is a very broad term) it is not a real surprise if you said no.
For example, you can “quality control” a photograph by simply removing red-eye or go all out and remove blemishes, add/remove hair and remove/alter other problems which could leave the photo looking nothing like the original.
What they should do if they want to be completely honest would be to ask for permission to post the data as they received it (what was fed into the computer) and also ask for permission to post the results of their processing with big disclaimers saying that this data is CRU data which is the result of processing the raw data in various ways using this code* as described by this peer reviewed paper*.
* are links to the actual code to run the data and a link to the paper or the name of the paper and the journal it was in (with a link to someplace you could obtain the paper)
Paul Vaughan (12:55:18) :
Corbyn’s SLAM (Solar Lunar Amplification Magnetic) process explains Jones’ beloved hadSST (Hadley Sea Surface Temperature):
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SLAMhadSST58a.png
Nonsense.
Btw, it would CLEARLY be much preferable to store only the raw data and then have a separate store of “business rules” that fire off in processing each time to do whatever needs to be appropriately done to it. And, of course, archive the versions of the business rules as they change and make all those versions of the business rules publicly available along with the raw data.
But guess what? That would be a new version of the product, and not what all the foia were about.
Hopefully CRU or Met will move to that kind of processing model.
Where Steve McI is going to have a problem –and likely have to go ’round and ’round with CRU again– is in determining what was done, and why, to get from Swede I to Swede II (and all the other raw datasets).
I can hear him already sighing about that.
If we’re really lucky, then CRU is doing something more like I mentioned about applying business rules to the newest raw data, and then Steve could use the older period raw data (from the Swedes site), apply the business rules (that CRU would have to provide), and arrive at something (hopefully!) like the “II” versions that CRU has been holding onto for the old pre-1990 data.
But if we’ve learned anything about CRUs custody of this stuff, it is that it has been a scandalous mess. I feel near to certain that even if they have/use business rules today for applying to the newest raw data, that if you apply it to the “I” datsets for that old pre-1990 data there will be significant differences in the results you get compared to the “II” datasets pre-1990 data that Jones has been storing.
geo (13:25:01) :
@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!
No, you’re forgetting:
David (13:34:21) :
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.
In his emails covered on WUWT previously, Jones stated he could not give out the data. This was in 2007. To cover his …, he wrote this letter, specifically stating the data would be homogenized, probably knowing he would be refused permission.
BTW, the Swedish data is not as important as Siberian or African, which are sparser, show the most warming, immensely harder to obtain, and probably the original data that was lost.
geo (13:39:50) :
It’s good to see Dr. Jones being exonerated on this issue, as expected.
Obviously what Jones meant was “The Swiss won’t let us release our overly massaged data AND put their name on it.”
Off-topic but this freezing leak may have something vaguely in common with the Climategate leak, at least in spectacular length:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/7368264/Giant-icicle-found-in-Scotland.html
Dessa svenskar måste vara kättare!
A couple of points:
SMHI are very pro-AGW, though perhaps not quite to the degree of the Met Office
They are also rather restrictive about their data. They are an “affärsdrivande verk”, i e a sort of a cross between a government agency and a profit-making business. There is a licence agreement on their site that you are supposed to accept before downloading the data. However given Swedish FOIA rules and Intellectual Property Laws, that licence would almost certainly not hold up in a court.
The SMHI “raw data” are not raw, they have already been homogenized.
what a mess! aren’t these the trust us guys that want the economies of the developed world restructured to save us from… all that bad stuff.
it’s the keystone cops, alice through the looking glass, down the rabbit hole… and it gets worse by the day.
seriously, would you trust these guys to design a bridge, an autopilot, a throttle position sensor, a pressure vessel…
whats left to discuss…
Re: Leif Svalgaard (14:27:19)
If you think Corbyn is wrong, please explain where you think he is wrong.
CRU admitted months ago they didn’t actually know what agreements they had made re confidentiality, just that there were some, and more than they had documentation for. So they were going back around to everyone to get permissions again.
To respond to the foia in a meaningful way, providing just some (even a large amount, but still a subset) of the data would not allow a Steve McIntyre to verify CRUTEM does what Jones says it does.
The value-added “Swede II” dataset is a derivative product of “Swede I” (the Swedish raw). The Swedes own “Swede I”. Both Jones and the Swedes have rights in “Swede II”, so the Swedes need to consent.
I believe Professor Acton to be as culpable as Prof Jones, as it was Acton who included the Swedish as one of the countries who would not allow CRU to release data that originated from those countries. My suspicions were aroused that Acton might just be something of a puppet-master when he turned to Jones during the Parliamentary enquiry and complimented Jones on an answer that was “absolutely spot-on!”. My experience of university Vice-Chancellors is that they generally regard themselves as having God sitting on their right hand and are utterly above the roilings of mere mortals.
I still worry the the Brit politicos are filling the whitewash buckets and selecting their brushes.
Not only that, but this evening (Friday 5th, as I write) our “hero” Al Gore guested the Skavlan talk show, which is a co-production between Swedish and Norwegian TV.
Unfortunately, the talk show host Fredrik Skavlan seemed too taken by the moment to ask any real tough questions. Gore came with some absurd statements, though, like that the “coal lobby” was spending half a billion dollars on “anti-climate” TV advertising or that there are “five anti-climate” lobbyists in Washington for every congressman.
URL:s for the program aren’t up yet, but I’m sure you’ll be able to find them under either http://www.svt.se or http://www.no.nrk (search for “Skavlan”; Al Gore will be in the last third of the program)
–Ahrvid
Correction:
Norwegian TV is of course under http://www.nrk.no (and nothing else).
–Ahrvid
See
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/
for CRU passing data to a third party, namely Peter Webster of Georgia Tech.
Contrast this with the extract from the pdf in the header here from Dr. M. Hulme of CRU “The data will not be used unauthorised for any other project and will not be passed onto any third party.”
Yes, I know the dates are different and the promises are made to different people and might involve different countries, but the point is that each passing day reveals more confusion; and that leads to a loss of confidence in ability.
The primary conclusion is that CRU are fighting a battle to prevent raw data being tabulated alongside some versions of the CRU “value added” data.
They will lose.
@geo – sorry: this is all FAR too confusing.;)
Leif Svalgaard (14:23:43) :
“The Stockholm Initiative is an Advocacy group started by these folks: http://www.issa.int/”
Themselves says as follows;
“The Stockholm Initiative is a politically and economically independent non-profit organization dedicated to promoting rational climate-, energy-, and environmental policies. The Stockholm Initiative combines a broad scientific competence, commitment with society and environment with political, cultural and industrial experience.”
I have given them a tip about this blog, so we will see if there is a response.
@ur momisugly Robert of Ottawa (13:21:49) :
“As is Canadian data. Jones lies.”
I think, in British terms, he would be being economical with the truth, a wonderful phrase:
” It was brought into the contemporary language by the UK Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, who used the phrase during the Australian ‘Spycatcher’ trial in 1986.
Lawyer: What is the difference between a misleading impression and a lie?
Armstrong: A lie is a straight untruth.
Lawyer: What is a misleading impression – a sort of bent untruth?
Armstrong: As one person said, it is perhaps being “economical with the truth”.
What Armstrong left out (perhaps he knew but was being economical) was that the ‘one person’ was Edmund Burke. In 1796 Burke wrote:
“Falsehood and delusion are allowed in no case whatsoever: But, as in the exercise of all the virtues, there is an economy of truth.”
Ouch!
Why not just kick him while he’s down?
SaveE.
Sorry, should have put the url for my last reference
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/127700.html
Dr. Jones lied. In Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden and Denmark) we most often have equal laws and follow equal routines. Nearly all kind og information is public. You can even check what my income was, how wealthy I am and how much I paid in tax last year.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fskatt.abcnyheter.no%2Findex.html