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.
Do we even know the actual number of discrete data providers are involved in CRUTEM? Jones has pointed at USHCN as a major one, but do we have an actual count of how many there are? Not how many stations –how many providers?
Do we know if they provide their data in a consistent format? Or, if not, how many different formats they do provide in? For example, there could be 1,200 stations. . . 100 providers. . . . 65 formats (numbers pulled from thin air for example purposes).
I’m still struggling with how a guy like Steve McI could do what he does how he usually does it, if he doesn’t have the right to redistribute data. One thought that occurred to me is if you have links to all the data sources, you could provide the links to get the data you can’t hand out yourself. But it seems to me that quickly becomes untenable if there are too many links, and too much pre-processing of different formats into one consistent format to front end your subsequent data processing.
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.”
Leif, I don’t know if you are trying to be funny or are just making things up (the started by these folks… part). Anyway, the Stockholm Initiative in question was not started by the International Social Security Association. What most, but not all, of the founders have in common is that they have studied or held academic positions at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.
geo (07:03:33),
Good point. But I can’t get over the impression that Jones is simply offering excuses to cover his bad data and sloppy/non-existent record keeping, rather than proposing reasonable solutions to what is apparently a minor problem, if that. A formal request to share data with M&M would have made his position look reasonable now. Instead, he acted as if M&M were enemies, instead of scientists looking for the truth of the matter.
And the actions and comments of the CRU folks don’t instill confidence that they can not share information, when they share it with their friends.
Have any of them simply asked for a waiver to share the data with other scientists? No. They hide behind putative “agreements,” which they haven’t posted as requested by a number of different individuals.
It comes down to whom you choose to believe. Personally, I don’t believe Jones. His emails show him to be devious and conniving, as do his recent vague responses under questioning.
But he does get some sympathy from me, since it is clear that he is only one of many in that clique who acted in the same way.
Toho (07:16:16) :
Leif, I don’t know if you are trying to be funny or are just making things up
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119035028/abstract
At a meeting of the ISSA Bureau in Stockholm in 1996, the International Social Security Association under the author’s presidency launched what became known as the Stockholm Initiative…
Jones and Acton have weaved a tangled web. At Bishop Hill, AJStrata has an interesting idea about all the other countries now figuring out what Sweden has about the machinations of the UEA. And, bottom line, Jones hasn’t got raw data anymore. The temperature record, HadCru, underlying so many papers, is not replicable, and thus, should not and cannot be used.
We are starting over. And it’s about time. Much time has been utterly wasted by the jokers at UEA.
==========
Leif, play the ball, not the man.
================
Toho (07:16:16) :
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.”
I wonder where you get this from too? It is my impression that SI is a group of volounteers, just like us, trying to fight the warmista’s ? Just like many here do.
So, it seems to me you try the warmista-approach. “Its Big Oil (or Big Insurance) , so dont listen to them!!!”
Not good.
My two cents,
Jones is still trying to lie is way out of jail, and this time the Swedes caught him trying to put their moniker on his adjustments.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12964
I wonder how many other nations are now rechecking their correspondence with CRU and MET and checking the data?
“Jan Pompe (16:24:26) :
Does it alter the fact that contrary to Phil Jones testimony to the hearing in the commons that Swedish climate data is public domain?”
Have you looked at their site? Their public domain data is from 1961 to 2008, mainly – sometimes less. their are 2 long term sets for upsaala and stocholm – derived like CET.
I am plotting all of the sites Jones used (only anout 50% are on their web page. Currently this is showing 4degC/century rise. when I get board with adding others I will give a link.
/harry
“Leif Svalgaard (15:18:59) :
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.”
If corbyn has found the holy grail to climate, then with vast fortunes resting on AGW or noAGW shouldnt he be forced to reveal his methods (with suitable payments perhaps)
As many have said – “!free the data – free the code!”
/harry
“Willis Eschenbach (22:38:16) :
The existence of agreements saying you can’t redistribute the data clearly means that without such an agreement you can redistribute the data …”
Willis this is wrong! If the copyrighted info page ina book gets torn out and lost, it does not mean that the book can be copied.
Jones has been proven correct in his assumptions that some WMOs will not give him the right to release data. Some have said “no”. if they then change their mind and say jones can relese whatever he had provided he acknowledges that the data is modified after he has made his statement he cannot be blamed for his assumption release was forbidden.
Harry Lu @ur momisugly 8:54:34
Read up a little more on this, like at Bishop Hill and ClimateAudit. Jones and Acton have muddied the water perhaps just enough to escape but the polluted waters are very apparent to all of the world’s climate services, as AJStrata has so perspicaciously noted.
Transparency, replicability. These are like water to the Wicked Warlocks of East Anglia. It’s melting them.
==============
kim (07:47:05) :
Leif, play the ball, not the man.
You got to tackle the man to get the ball, but I don’t know which man you talking about.
kwik (07:47:11) :
I wonder where you get this from too? It is my impression that SI is a group of volounteers, just like us, trying to fight the warmista’s ? Just like many here do.
I gave a link. I don’t go by ‘impressions’. Here is another link:
http://www.ubuntu.upc.edu/civil_society/actors/8/eng
Maybe there are many Stockholm Initiatives floating around out there so you can pick the one that is most palatable 🙂
And flying monkeys type out back page New York Times ads.
====================
Harry Lu (08:54:34),
You’re re-framing what Willis said, which was that if no restriction on sharing the data exists, it can be assumed that the data is public.
I would like to see all agreements posted on-line that CRU entered into with each separate government, with dates and signatures. Because that is what Jones is now claiming: that there were specific agreements – not general boilerplate restrictions.
The S.I. press release is a dishonest smear job. It is headlined “Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry.” People can read Jones’ testimony in different ways and are free to agree or disagree that CRU has done its best in recent months to make data available. But to spread this sort of inflammatory “press release” is base. By all means debate how best to make complex data sets publicly available, but leave off the character assassinations.
Mike @ur momisugly 9:22:53
It’s obfuscation by UEA. They can’t make the data public; it’s gone. And now they are trying to blame others for their deficiencies. Nobody is assassinating their characters except themselves. Oh, what tangled webs they’ve woven.
=======================
Leif @ur momisugly 9:14:24 I was referring to your reference to an ‘advocacy’ group. It’s ‘what do they say’, not ‘who said it’.
================
kwik (07:47:11) :
I wonder where you get this from too?
Yet another link:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/SP-Discussion-papers/Pensions-DP/9807.pdf
It is possible that the S.I. is trying to disguise its roots.
I’ve little doubt Jones and Acton will skate on this little trick. But they’ve lost the faith of the world’s climate services.
For what, I ask?
========
Leif Svalgaard (09:14:24) :
“Maybe there are many Stockholm Initiatives floating around out there so you can pick the one that is most palatable :-)”
I think that is exactly what you have done, Leif. In a very arrogant way, if I may say so.
Here you have the SI;
http://www.stockholminitiative.com/eng/about-us/who-we-are/
And the impression I had, was from correspondence over time, not just a random link on the Internett.
OK you lucky people
Here are a couple of plots showing what the swedish met office is offering.
The top plot shows a spageti plot of most stations with 1961 to 2008 data intact.
The second averages these all togeter
Note that Upsaala was experiencing warmth during the LIA unlike the rest of Europ. (or perhaps measurement problems?
Note that the slop of the data for the bulk of the stations 1961 to end is 4.4degC per decade.
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/9820/sweden.png
This data is all from SMHI page
http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/dataserier-for-observationsstationer-1961-2008-1.7375
Google translate works wonders.
Smokey: “Instead of complying, Jones and his cohorts stonewalled at every opportunity.”
That’s obvious from the emails, and the behaviour was unprofessional and high-handed. However, if you want just desserts, I think Jones has suffered plenty in the past few months in terms of reputation.
“Now they’re playing word games to try and explain why they refused to cooperate with requests for data – data that they provided to their pals, but not to other scientists:”
Perhaps. But technically they are correct. The communications from SMHI confirm the previous understanding of an agreement that CRU would not release the original data.
The way I see it, very bad blood developed between the parties for a number of reasons, leading to Jones’s stonewalling. That’s not very creditable, but not criminal, and I think understandable in view of the various charges being made against climate scientists, although I’m probably biased in their favour.
What should happen now is that the scientific societies should produce a set of protocols on data sharing, so that from now on everyone can know the score.
kim (09:41:02) :
Leif @ur momisugly 9:14:24 I was referring to your reference to an ‘advocacy’ group. It’s ‘what do they say’, not ‘who said it’.
I think they consider themselves an advocacy group, and what is wrong with advocacy groups [as long you know they are that]? Washington DC is crawling with them. Here is more on international/transnational advocacy groups: http://law.ubalt.edu/downloads/law_downloads/ILT_01_2_1995.pdf
I do not consider it an attack to mention what things are about. Amnesty International is an advocacy group, for example. What is wrong with that?
Harry Lu (08:54:34) : edit
Harry, you’re not following the bouncing ball. Plain vanilla datasets cannot be copyrighted, they can only be covered by explicit agreements. In the absence of such an agreement, all bets are off.
w.