Breaking: Phil Jones got to endorse papers for Oxburgh inquiry

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2010/3/1/1267460767629/-Professor-Phil-Jones-Dir-001.jpg

Dr. Phil Jones of the UEA Climate research unit - Photo: The Guardian

Previously I have said this about the lack of integrity regarding the recent Climategate investigations:

The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?

Now from Bishop Hill we learn that it appears that the Oxburgh investigation let Dr. Phil Jones endorse what evidence (papers he’s published) to review. So let me amend what I said above:

The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. And, to add insult to injury, when you let the accused endorse which pieces of evidence might be a “fair sample”, is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?

This entire mess is snowballing again with UEA, CRU,  and Dr. Jones right at the center again.

Details here at Bishop Hill who writes:

Well, now we know who the redactions were. The contact through with the Royal Society was through Martin Rees – we knew that already. The other redaction, the other person consulted about whether the sample of papers was reasonable, was…Phil Jones.

Now, whichever way you look at it, this is a funny question to put to the accused if one’s objective is a fair trial. I mean, what could Jones say? “You’ve picked all my bad papers”? And of course Jones must have known that the sample was not representative.

Gobsmacked I am, surprised I am not.


Sponsored IT training links:

If want to pass 640-816 exam for your career sake then try out the 70-647 dumps with 650-568 practice exam to pass your exam on time.


Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Chris B

Good grief! It’s worse than we thought.

terrybixler

This seems to be beyond whitewash and moving to fraudulent behavior by the review panel.

H.R.

Gaia better not hear about this. The Brits already suffered enough last winter.

vigilantfish

Time to refresh the literature on my office door, to silence those who are using the Climategate investigations whitewashes to argue with me again. Wow!

This is somewgat unbelievable, even from these characters

Moondawggie

How sweet: an inquiry where the defendant gets to determine beforehand exactly what pieces of evidence may be presented at his trial.
Al Capone would have loved this arrangement!

Leon Brozyna

What a fascinating concept to include in the field of jurisprudence. That would be like a murderer not allowing the introduction into evidence of the gun with which he committed the crime or the eyewitness who saw him at the crime scene pulling the trigger.

My only surprise is that the good Bishop was able to get his hands on the information at all. These “independent inquiries” were nothing more than freak shows. It’s time, and past time, for Parliament and Congress to initiate serious, thorough, transparent and scrupulous investigations.

Much more worse than we thought!!!
Ecotretas

Henry chance

In Mann’s victory speech, he referred to Mother Nature. Hope she doesn’t hear about this.

RockyRoad

No wonder at one point Phil Jones was contemplating suicide. Now that his modus operandi has been firmly established for everybody to see, has that consideration passed? Heaven forbid he should ever have to withstand firm and equitable inquiry!
/sarcasm off…
This spiral flame-out with an inevitable crash at the bottom can only be their own fault. Much as I anticipated it last November, the scene is still excruciating to watch.

James Sexton

Sigh, I was very cynical about these investigations to begin with but I never imagined something this………….stupid. Who made the decision to ask Phil for a fair representation of his work? Who thought his response would be valid? Why did they believe simply redacting his name would prevent people from finding out?
The funny part about this situation is, noting the board was full of academics, isn’t this an objective reflection of intelligence (or lack thereof) in academia? And they’re going to try and convince me they know how to read a thermometer? Simply astounding.

sorepaw

If this report about the Oxburgh inquiry is true, it’s now obvious that the fix was in … and the game is up.

latitude

The irony
A man accused of lying, cheating, and dishonesty…
…is asked to give his honest opinion

Manfred

what is the process in Britain to remove the title from a “Lord” ?

Never mind, Exxon Mobil gave 1 million dollars to a climate skeptics conference, don’t you know…

The ‘Climate Establishment’ in Britain closed ranks to protect their own. However, they thought it best not to do so publicly. They thought they could get away with it – quiet behind-the-scenes manipulation and subtle steering here and there. Now it is coming back to bite them.

Henry chance

This is exactly why they despise the AG investigation in Virginia. The school is stubborn and claims they do not have to provide evidence. They call it a witch hunt.
All memos, correspondence, writings, files, documents are requested.
Jones got to filter requests for production. How convenient.
Jones appears to be crooked.

MattN

I had to check the calendar to make sure it wasn’t April 1….

Ron Pittenger, Heretic

If they were trading stocks or bonds, the SEC would already have them in jail for inside trading. This is beyond shameful, it’s insulting to the intelligence of everyone outside their clique of supermen.

Latimer Alder

@manfred
I believe hanging the soon to be ex-peer by a silken rope is the preferred method.

sdcougar

“Gobsmacked”? ROFL
There are definitely a few ‘investigators’ who ought to be smacked up alongside the head.

David, UK

Jeez. If I wasn’t such a self-deluding, self-aggrandising AGWarmist, I might think these people had something to hide.
BUT SERIOUSLY.
Come on pro-warmers, I’m sure we’d all love to hear what you have to say about this. What? Cat got your tongues?

Britannic no-see-um

This is a good point at which to recall the detailed and erudite thoughts on the Oxburgh Inquiry expressed by Judith Curry:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/

Pamela Gray

“Internal investigation” is a misnomer. An oxymoron. A double negative. And our pejorative for a real investigation.

H.R.

Manfred says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm
“what is the process in Britain to remove the title from a “Lord” ?”
Have him change his name to Monckton and, as we’ve seen here, the AGW netizens will try to take care of it ;o)

Funny, I just heard this comment from a pro-warmer who said…..”meowwwwwwwwww”

I have been critical for years about how we run things in Canada but my god this makes Ottawa look good and Washington look not so bad. That unfortunately is faint praise. I suspect this is the inevitable result of mixing politics and science. That mix is spelled whitewash.

George Tetley

As a Managing Director of a Public Company in Canada, I am about to recommend that anything we purchase from Britain must be canceled, if this is any indication of their intelligence then the quality must be retrospective .
George Tetley

Person of Choler

Robert E. Phelan, July 19, 2010 at 1:44 pm, “It’s time, and past time, for Parliament and Congress to initiate serious, thorough, transparent and scrupulous investigations.”
I don’t know about Parliament, but I do know that Congress will become serious, thorough, transparent, and scrupulous some time after the General Resurrection. Therefore, expect nothing soon.

Ken Hall

To me, this appears to demonstrate that these people at the CRU are guilty as charged. If they need to have such a biased, one sided, investigation where the “defendant” gets to present the case for the prosecution, and the prosecutors are barred from the process entirely, then they MUST be guilty.
If they have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear from a fully open, transparent investigation with ALL the emails and scientific papers and publications being examined properly and independently.
This STILL has not happened.

David, UK: July 19, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Come on pro-warmers, I’m sure we’d all love to hear what you have to say about this. What? Cat got your tongues?
Kitty’s perched there waiting for his share of the crow coming his way…

CheshireRed`

Beyond astounding.

alan

Phil Jones must have presented a “robust” defence of his position, at least behind the scenes. LOL

Dr T G Watkins

Every UK reader must e-mail their MP and those MPs who sat on the “inquiry”, especially Graham Stringer(?) insisting that this be revisited. Suggest that a formal Parliamentary enquiry be set up to examine the “science” of AGW with depositions from both sides of the argument.
Our present coalition government is committed to disastrous energy policies.
It is time this nonsense was stopped.
Very sad to hear S. Schneider has died, my condolences to his family for the sad loss.

Chris in Ga

So it went something like this … “Why should I give you my questionable papers when you’ll only try to find something wrong with them”. Which is of course bovine poo because the inquiry didn’t try to find anything wrong.

Richard

I now leave you, gentlemen of the jury, to retire, to carefully consider your verdict of “Not Guilty”

LearDog

The ‘cheek’ of these people is unbelievable. I mean – really. How utterly stupid of them. Good Lord.
So now – any responsible journalist would HAVE to investigate the cover-up in a true ClimateGATE fashion?
Anyone? Anyone? Hello?
Parliament? You guys got ‘owned’, ha ha ha! It must be so embarrassing for you!

pablo an ex pat

The most amazing thing is that they apparently can’t have seen anything wrong with the way they did it. If they did then surely they’re not so clueless to think that they would get away with it are they ? Surely not, they can’t be that detached from reality can they ? The arrogance of these people beggars belief.
It reminds me of the Enron story, the smartest guys in the room. Just how dumb do they think everyone else is ? Very dumb, obviously.
The statistical edifice that they have constructed isn’t even built on foundations of sand, it’s built on nothing but hot air which has been homogenized to appear much warmer than it actually is. No wonder their balloon is shrinking. Wow.

PJP

Manfred says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm
what is the process in Britain to remove the title from a “Lord” ?

As I remember, it has something to do with the Tower of London, [snip]

Pamela Gray

While investigations need to commence, and I believe Schneider’s influence forms part of the bedrock that sent climate research over the edge, I too send my condolences to Schneider’s family. 65 is too early.

Mac the Knife

What’s all the hub bub about?! We had a fair investigation, where the accused ne’r do well was granted the reich, er, uhmm right to suppress unfavorable evidence and approve favorable evidence to clear himself. Sheeeesh! Now I see why they call you Deniers – You just can’t accept a fair hearing!
/sarc off

Phil Clarke

Come on pro-warmers, I’m sure we’d all love to hear what you have to say about this. What? Cat got your tongues?
Er… have you actually read Oxburgh? E.g.
The eleven representative publications that the Panel considered in detail are
listed in Appendix B. The papers cover a period of more than twenty years and
were selected on the advice of the Royal Society. All had been published in
international scientific journals and had been through a process of peer review.
CRU agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit.The Panel
was also free to ask for any other material that it wished and did so.
Individuals on the panel asked for and reviewed other CRU research materials.

So we already knew that ‘CRU’ endorsed the paper selection – we know now that this was done by the Director of the Unit. Well, I am shocked, just shocked, I tell you.
Bishop Hill is the new Bernstein, no mistake.

REPLY:
And you are a dutiful apologist, make no mistake. You haven’t done a damn thing except whine. Bishop Hill at least does the work while you complain.
And since Dr. Jones was supposed to be “disemployed” from CRU as director pending the outcomes of the investigation(s), how do you reconcile that? I daresay you’d endorse anything coming out of there while being faux shocked. But then faux is in fashion there isn’t it? -Anthony

CRS, Dr.P.H.

Being a lifelong Chicago resident, I thought nothing would shock me….after all, such brazen shenanigans are the rule of law hereabouts.
However, I must admit, this brings our cherished Chicago traditions to the global arena! Quite amazing.
President Obama tried his best in Copenhagen (both for the Chicago Olympics bid and COP 15), but even he couldn’t sully the Europeans as well as Jones did!

dp

It’s a shame but not surprising that Phil Jones lacked the character to recognize this for the dishonesty it is and to refuse to provide that list of evidence. He seems patently incapable of doing the right thing even when it concerns specifically, a search for the truth.
He’s put his legacy in stone: “Here rests Phil Jones’ integrity”. No matter – it was apparantly little used.

RC Saumarez

This simply compounds the scandal. Damage limitation by the University may have failed. The problems with the CRU data, as exemplified by the “Harry_read_me.txt” file, appear to be fundamental and far reaching, but have not been addressed. These issues should be, as they seem to point to flagrant scientific fraud.
I can only suggest that every Brit writes to their MP to protest and the every academic writes to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia to object to the lack of honesty in his dealing wth this scandal since the credibility of British science is diminished by this episode. You might also write to Chris Huhne (the Liberal-Democrat Minister for Energy and climate change) but frankly this would be trying to make a rational argument with a cretin.

Surely by now there must be enough evidence of cheating, lying, illegal procurement and use of public funds to warrent a criminal trial.

mpaul

I think the better analogy would be:
“The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom. The only accusatory evidence that is permitted to be presented is that approved by the accused”.

So, will Moonbat make any mention of this? He seemed rather critical of the reviews.

templar knight

Wow, just wow! This would be totally beyond belief except that it involved the pope of the AGW movement. Can’t have the religious doctrine of the AGW questioned, now can we? If this crap continues much longer, it is likely to cause the death of real science. And that will be a disaster worst than anything “global warming” could ever cause.