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.
The thing I actually get mad at Jones the most about, is he is the only one who truly understood over the last 20 years what a hash up this was. . . .and he did nothing about it. Sometime in the mid-to-late ’90s when it was becoming apparent how important this stuff is, he should have started rectifying these issues on his own and maybe by 2007 he would have had a product he wasn’t ashamed for the world to see the innards of. Whatever excuses he might make to himself about “1980s standards”, the reality he is he had a long time *after that* to get his house in order, and did nothing.
It is unfortunate that the heads of CRU, NOAA and GISS are ‘firm’ believers in AGW.
My test of fairness and acceptability is to [mentally] reverse the situation and see if people would still regard it as fair.
In this instance it would be to replace all these people with skeptics. It is only processing data, so there should be no bias.
Imagine the outcry there would be about how these new people would manipulate and distort the data to their own ends etc. etc., I would be able to hear the screams from here! Yet we are asked to accept that the current situation is not a problem.
Wasn’t it Prof Acton who made the statement regarding the Swedish data?
Given that the claification from SMHI was dated 4th March 2010 (ie after the 1st March sub-committee), Prof Acton’s account would seem to have been correct as per the 21st December 2009 letter from SMHI.
Prof Jones’s letter forwarded to SMHI 30th November 2009 referred to publication of the CRU data set. Whilst the rationale was clarified on 4th March, the 21st December response from SMHI seemed clear: “SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site.”
Paul Vaughan (14:50:37) :
If you think Corbyn is wrong, please explain where you think he is wrong.
You are wrong in asserting that any one of your two curves ‘explains’ the other. About Corbyn, I can’t comment on something he won’t publish.
The AGW sweater continues to unravel ….
Dr. Jones, the gig is up, your data stinks, it’s all corrupt,
Just resign, relax, let go and let your betters run the show.
And by your “betters”, what I mean is, scientists who won’t demean us,
Folks who gladly show their data, and ask, “Could I do better?”
“Cause if I can, that’s great! Alright! Truth will shine with skeptic’s light!”
Here’s a concept. Listen close. And don’t “homogenize” my post.
Don’t mis-direct. Don’t obfuscate. If you do, you’ll seal your fate.
Tell the world about your science, about it’s arrogance and bias,
About how little that is known of murky complex bio-zones,
Of ocean inputs feebly guessed at, of water vapor’s unknown feedback.
95% sure? Say what? Oh my! Does it pain you when you lie?
You’ve admitted, this is rich, our current warming’s NOT a glitch,
If it was, there wouldn’t be the SAME increases, historically,
Which proves that, yes, we’ve warmed and cooled, so what? Big deal. I won’t be fooled.
But still those Grants keep rolling in, rewarding only those who spin,
Proclaiming loudly, “We can do it! Save the world! Shut down that commerce!”
“Coal is murder! Hansen’s right! Let’s tax the rich ’til the pigs take flight!”
But luckily, despite the yelling, the truth is leaking out, and smelling.
The stench will grow. Corruption taints. I’ve said enough. I rest my case.
.
.
©Dave Stephens 2010
Steamboat McGoo (12:56:41) :
“I’d like to see Jones original request – its specific wording would be of interest.”
The last page of the third link at the end of the article is teh request from Jones.
He is not asking for the original data, but permission to post his massaged monthly averaged data. It is a cleaver way of asking for Sweden’s stamp of approval for his “value added” product.
I can see the reluctance of Sweden, Canada, Poland and perhaps others to be signing their name to CRU’s methods.
tty (14:48:21) :
The SMHI “raw data” are not raw, they have already been homogenized.
+++++
That’s interesting. But what do they give Jones? Both originally for the old period, and on an ongoing basis? There may actually be three datasets here. . .
Jones should have released all data and code, with the caveat that raw data from certain sources/countries, may need to be obtained independently, due to………agreements.
Now he is starting to look evasive.
From the Jones letter:
“We stress that the data we hold has arisen from multiple sources, and has been recovered over the last 30 years. Subsequent 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 current holdings.”
This is a difficult sentence to parse and likely caused a lot of confusion with the Swedes. The only way I can make sense of it is that Jones is saying is that they (the CRU) have modified the data and, as such, the modified data represents a derivative work of the raw data. Jones is asking for permission to release the derivative work and, presumably, to pass it off as the original data. Presumably, they would use a ‘trick’ of language to hide the fact that it is not the original data.
Of course, this is not what people need. They need to original station data. If Jones is allowed to release the derivative work and claim, through obfuscation that its the raw data (they would say something like ‘this is the data that the Swedes gave us permission to release’ without noting that the data had been post processed), then we would be in for *another* couple of years of fighting to make people understand what’s being withheld.
But fortunately the Swedes saw the trick and shut the CRU down:
“It has never been our intention to withhold any data but we feel that it is paramount that data that has undergone, for instance, homogenisation by anyone other than SMHI is not presented as SMHI data”.
Do I have this right?
The Swedes take data which they
massageadjust, they then feed this data to Phil & Co. who furthermassageadjust the data to end up with a dataset?Is that close?
Is there a problem here?
DaveE
So, the cliff-notes rundown now…
0) CRU makes gridded temperature anomaly charts of the globe.
1) Original data is “lost”, Value-added data retained.
2) Bloggers request original data and methods from Jones.
3) CRU Stonewalls and drags their feet.
4) When finally called out, CRU says, “we can’t due to agreements with other people.”
5) Climategate e-mails are leaked.
6) It is at this point that CRU finally asks for permission to release from other orgs who supposedly wont allow it.
7) Other orgs say, “If you only have your manipulated data, then don’t release a thing.”
8) CRU claims before MPs they cannot release their data at all.
9) Scientists fail to call out their peers for malfeasance.
Jones should divulge the homogenization algorithms and any other procedures he’s applied to the temperature datasets he publishes, all referenced against the raw data. Otherwise, his datasets are null and void, completely meaningless, worthless, baseless… let’s see, what other adjectives can I add here to get the message across that Jones isn’t a scientist; he’s a “climate scientist”?
Well it seems to me, that if I am given somebody else’s data (by them; or at least with their knowledge that I have been given it); there would be basically two things I can do with it.
The first thing, would be to use that raw data as is, wihout modifications of any kind, and use it to do whatever studies/analyses/derivations etc might have been my purpose in requesting the data.
In the event I wanted to publish my results, I would certainly want to obtain permission from the originators of the data, to publish my results, and with proper attribution of the data set used in my studies.
The other thing I might do, would be to “process the raw data” to obtain some homogenized derivative data set; for whatever purpose; which might also include further analyses based on the homogenized data. In which case it would seem to me to be appropriate to make it clear in my writings, that I have masticated the original data, and that my results should reflect that and not be ascribed to the authors of the original; other than to acknowledge their sourcing of the raw set.
I would consider it common courtesy to keep the source of the data, apprised of my machinations; so they could have the opportunity to opt out of being mentioned in my publishings, or even to request that they not do so with their data.
I’m sure that scientists routinely pass around other people’s data or results with proper attribution of course; we can’t all go out and replicate all the data sets in existence to explore further avenues of study.
But it clearly isn’t cricket to modify someone elses data, and then publish conclusions based on such modified data; but leaving the impression that the results were obtained from the author’s raw data.
With so much emphasis on statistical mastication of raw data, in climate publications; it would seem that a prime reason for aquiring someone’s data is to make derivatives from it; for some hopefully legitimate purpose.
But it needs to be made clear where the lines of origin are drawn.
@Alexander (14:53:44)
“I still worry the the Brit politicos are filling the whitewash buckets and selecting their brushes.”
It’s going to take a long time to slow this AGW train down. They might try and whitewash CRU/UEA to save face but there is a lot of evidence on the record which demands answers now and they’ll be pretty conscious of the winter we’ve just had. Read any of the comments pages on the UK news coverage and it’s clear what the electorate think. IMO it’ll be a brave and foolish politico who tries to push AGW along right now. All the back up rhetoric will remain available if required but nobody will want to commit to spend spend spend whilst it is clear the fundamental “science is not settled”, especially with the current hole in public finances.
re: Acton – oh, for Spitting Image to do a comeback “Climate Special”!…
You know what this means.
This means that all the raw data is not truly raw at all. This would apply to both Hadcrut and probably the NCDC’s GHCN database as well since we know they all doing the same kind of massaging.
Someone will need to show that the Swedish raw database is virtually the same as Jones’ Hadcrut massaged raw data (just slightly different is probably okay) or we have to conclude all the raw data is useless in terms of being a base starting point.
Doug in Seattle (15:22:30) :
Thanks a bunch! I did not see that. That clears it up.
*Heaves sigh of relief*
I was worried that I would have to slightly alter my “world view” in light of these new factual documents. It now appears that – as you say – it was just Jones being clever…or so he thought.
Australia is happy to have it’s data adjusted – they did it in 1999 – It was done By Dr Simon Torok who at the time was working at the Tyndale Centre at UAE.
Here’s the adjustments he made to Sydney.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Adjusted_Sydney
Here’s the adjustments he made and why.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Adjustments
and this is why the mean temperature chart fro Australia is this.
http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/tmean.aus.0112.7642.png
I must add that I do not believe it was a malicious action on behalf of Dr Torok or the BoM. It was in fact the science of the day and because no one cared about global warming it went unnoticed.
Lying to a parliamentary commitee is contempt of parliament.
‘Any action taken by either a Member of Parliament or a stranger which obstructs or impedes either Parliament in the performance of its functions, or its Members or staff in the performance of their duties, is a contempt of Parliament. Examples of contempt include giving false evidence to a parliamentary committee, threatening a Member of Parliament, forgery of documents and attempting to bribe members. The Commons has the power to order anyone who has committed a contempt of Parliament to appear at the Bar of the House and to punish the offender. If the offence has been committed by an MP he or she may be suspended or expelled.’
From here (amongst others) http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=95
I have written to my M.P. I recommend that any (all) other British readers here do the same with either links to, or including, the SMHI letters.
Well, here’s my take… if a data set has been ‘homogenized’ then as far as I understand, copyright of the homogenized data transfers to the person/organization that performed the adjustments to the data.
Even if the SMHI had advised the CRU that their data could not be released, there was nothing stopping the CRU releasing their homogenized data; because it was now a different data set.
And to ensure transparency, the CRU could have included a supporting statement saying something like “this data set was originally provided by the SMHI and has been homogenized by the CRU. You can request the raw data from the SMHI”.
In fact, in this case the there was nothing apparently stopping the CRU from releasing both the original data set and the homogenized data set; which, reading between the lines of the SMHI’s letter, is something they would have supported.
But as we all know, the word “transparent” doesn’t exist in the CRUs lexicon. Jones continues to lie and wriggle.
The sooner he gets thrown under a bus the better.
Geo: “I am at a loss to understand why the Swedes seem to be calling him out here for making false statements…(1) 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… (2) and then they say he’s fibbing on Mar 5 about what he said on Mar 1?
What’s wrong with this picture?”
Different Swedes are saying different things. The passages prefaced (1) above refer to one group – Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute – the passage prefixed (2) refers to another group – Stockholm Initiative – who are making an unrelated set of claims.
The request by the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute is simple enough: do not release Swedish data on the CRU website for fear of confusion. Is this good practice? Yes it is. Why? Because when people see information on a website they assume that it is “owned” by that website.
Evidence? The confusion evidenced by a number of people here who have assumed that the pdf links in the above story are sourced from the same organisation that produced the press release, exacerbated by the use of the common term “Swedes” in the headline. But not all Swedes think alike.
I don’t know what the official standing in Canada is, but I know that you can go online to the Environment Canada site at this address http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html and pick what ever weather station you want and get the data by hourly. daily, monthly for almost any year you want or you can chose almanac that in my area goes back to 1840. So if nay one can do that on line by them selves from an official government site, I find it highly unlikely that Canada refuses to release its data.
Leif Svalgaard (14:23:43) :
“The Stockholm Initiative is an Advocacy group started by these folks:
http://www.issa.int/ and does not represent the Swedish Meteorological Institute.”
Does it alter the fact that contrary to Phil Jones testimony to the hearing in the commons that Swedish climate data is public domain?
Glad the Swedes drew a line in the sand – ‘don’t you dare call that data from Sweden’.
Kinda OT, go ahead and snip, is ok – But in the REAL world – the datapoints have to tie to the gridded product. One does not get to ‘adjust’ the data to suit one’s ‘tidy story’.
Further – you show the data points and annotate the values. So that one can evaluate the product.
Come on for cryin out loud! I’d get fired for doing what they did.
Has anyone checked out the source of this? I got a very similar email to my “untrusted” email address, saying it was from stockholminitiative.com, but that website doesn’t seem to exist, and it seems to belong to a two-bit hosting company.