Phil Jones gives a talk at KNMI in De Bilt – meanwhile temperature and paleo researchers are still blowing off data requests

Handy button for climate researchers when confronted with data requests for reproduction of their work

From  Marcel Crok at De staat van het klimaat: Phil Jones: ‘Contact NMS’s for raw data’

Over at Climate Audit there is renewed interest in data availability with McIntyre asking whether journals that don’t guarantee data archiving (The Holocene in this case) should be cited in IPCC reports.

It happened that yesterday Phil Jones of CRU gave a talk at KNMI in De Bilt, The Netherlands, where he also talked about availability of data, in this case the data behind the recently published Crutem4 and Hadcrut4 graphs. The talk itself was pretty neutral, just explaining what had been done to produce these two datasets. However at the end Jones made a statement that is relevant to the long lasting discussions about data availability:

For raw temperature data you have to contact the NMS’s.

NMS’s stands for National Meteorological Services, like the Met Office in the UK or KNMI in The Netherlands. The good news is, as we can also read in his latest Crutem4 paper, that CRU will make all data available. However the bad news is that these data have already been homogenized by the NMS’s and the original data are not available at the Crutem4 webpage.

Jones explained that he and Moberg concluded already in 2003 that the homogenisation of temperature data is best done at the NMS’s. So for Crutem4 whenever possible they used these homogenized data of the NMS’s directly, as can be seen at their webpage.

Now in itself this is a fair approach. If the NMS’s cannot figure out what happened with their stations in the past and how best to control for station moves and instrument changes who else can?

We know that in some countries adjustments to raw data determine a large part of the trend. In New Zealand sceptics fight (see also here) with NIWA (the NMS of New Zealand) over the adjustments made to the raw data. The temperature trend in the raw data is only 0,3 degrees per century while the adjusted data show a trend of 1 degree per century. Jones uses the adjusted NIWA data in Crutem4.  Later this year the High Court in New Zealand will consider this case.

Jones seemed satisfied with the new situation. Anyone asking him for the raw data in the future will be referred to the NMS’s.

================================================================

Anthony: This is particularly worrisome, because as we’ve seen, metadata for GHCN global stations is very poor to virtually non-existent, and from what we know, GHCN and CRU takes very little metadata into account. While the NMS’s may have a better handle on metadata, given the disparity of quality of met services globally, this pretty much ensures that no individual researcher is going to get their hands on a complete set of all data. Phil Jones is essentially blowing off the issue saying “let them figure it out, not our responsibility”. Whatta guy!

================================================================

Crok continues:

In his future answers to sceptics asking for data he can almost copy this paragraph of Joelle Gergis blowing off McIntyre when he requested some tree ring data from her:

This list allows any researcher who wants to access non publically available records to follow the appropriate protocol of contacting the original authors to obtain the necessary permission to use the record, take the time needed to process the data into a format suitable for data analysis etc, just as we have done. This is commonly referred to as ‘research’.

In the case of Crutem4 the raw data in many cases is also not publicly available and anyone interested has to contact each of the NMS’s trying to get these data. There is no guarantee at all that they will release the data.

Now although Jones was very obstructive to data requests from sceptics in the past, I don’t say that Jones is to blame for the current situation. At least he tried to get permission from the NMS’s to release the data as he promised in this Nature article in 2009, which was also covered in several Climate Audit posts (see here for example). In the Nature article Jones said:

“We’re trying to make them all available,” says Jones. “We’re consulting with all the meteorological services — about 150 members [of the World Meteorological Organization] — and will ask them if they are happy to release the data.” A spokesperson for the Met Office confirmed this, saying “we are happy for CRU to take the lead on this, as they are their data”.

But getting the all-clear from other nations won’t be without its challenges, says Jones, who estimates that it could take several months. In addition, some nations may object if they make money by selling their wind, sunshine and precipitation data.

In his new paper on Crutem4 he reports back on this attempt:

In November 2009, the UK Met Office wrote on our behalf to all NMSs to determine if we could release the versions of their monthly temperature series that we held. Of the about 180 letters, we received 62 positive replies, 5 negative replies, and the remainder did not reply.

These results are worrisome in itself. Almost two-thirds of the NMS’s didn’t even bother to answer to a request concerning one of the most important climate graphs in the world. For these countries Crutem4 uses the GHCN data.

===============================================================

The need for a journal that demands all data, (used and excluded) up front, along with methodology, code, and supplementary material to ensure the work is reproducible, before even considering a paper for review is becoming clearly obvious. – Anthony

h/t to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Peter Miller

There’s real science and then there’s ‘climate science’.
Two completely different rules and practices.

ed

Peter Miller
I would argue that the use of Climate and Science in a sentence is definitionally not possible.

Without the raw data being available to all, no reliance can be placed on any conclusion drawn from any study using the unavailable data,
End of story.

phi

“Jones explained that he and Moberg concluded already in 2003 that the homogenisation of temperature data is best done at the NMS’s.”
Once again it should be recalled what the homogenizations are. These are primarily techniques for fully restoring the effect of disturbances on trends. Thanks to stations move, raw series are indeed partially cleared of that.

Alan S. Blue

“Now in itself this is a fair approach. If the NMS’s cannot figure out what happened with their stations in the past and how best to control for station moves and instrument changes who else can?”
Well, the various NMSes have themselves come up with several different and evolving approaches to determining adjusted data -without- knowing systematic and detailed station moves and instrument change data.
Preventing the non-governmental scientists from accessing the raw data can then be reasonably assumed to inhibit yet-more methods of interpretation. Which is a key part in how you realize ‘Hey, that method is better.’

Chuck Nolan

I’ve never read, seen or heard anything from Dr. Phil Jones that shows him anything but a team player. I think this is a weasel move.

Chuck Nolan

Why do they fear FOI?

@ Peter Smith
I’d ammend that to: there’s science and there’s politics. The doomsayers have been around since the begining of human existence, and their goal has never been the advancement of knowledge, and has always been the advancement of an agenda. The agenda usually consists of, “Give us more money and more power and we will wave our magic wands and make all your troubles go away.” Climate Science is just politics. They apparently follow few if any of the rules and practices associated with traditional scientific inquiry, and follow all the rules of the game of politics. Might as well call a spade a spade. Michael Mann and his ilk need not even do any more research, all they have to do is decide which conclusion they want and put it on the ballot. If people vote for it, it must be true!

Kaboom

Without verifiable data, all published theories and conclusions are in essence useless as the burden of proof for their validity is on the author and not met. Nobody should as much as buy a pack of gum based on them.

Owen in GA

I don’t know. We all dump on climate science, but I have heard some disgruntled grumbling from other fields that journals are not doing a good job of making sure the work covered in the articles is reproducible. I think the problems may be systemic in the sciences right now and that has me worried. Of course the only places that I see wild claims bandied about are climate and medicine, but what if some of the other articles that seem to be noncontroversial are based on just as bad analysis methods, but because the conclusions seemed within experience we never questioned them? I don’t know. I hope other researchers have more integrity than what has been on display by some in climate though, because in the end, displays of integrity are all that will save science in the eyes of the public.

Rob Dawg

Homogenization prevents the contents of the mix from rising to the top.

dp

This position liberates them from using any reliable source at all. The reports are unquestionable, the methods beyond reproduction. This is Phil Jones saying “trust me – you have no choice, actually”. Wrong guy for the job, wrong institution for the responsibility. Pull the plug.

Manfred

What an utter crock! The absence of readily being able to undertake repeatability stinks, if this is truly the case. It’s an absolute ‘red flag’. I simply fail to comprehend how climate ‘science’ organises its affairs. How do these folk sleep at night?
In my branch of science, one usually welcomes such requests as both an opportunity to promote one’s ‘important’ findings and to demonstrate the ‘elegance’ of one’s method. One always goes to publication ready to provide such things upon request.

Tom in Worcester

Does anyone know the status of the FOI request from U of Penn/Mann? Here’s to hoping that they reveal some really horrifying behavior on the parts of “Team”. It seems to me that these guys are always “weasling” when it comes to the release of all data. A comuppance would seem in order.
TB

Billy Liar

Chuck Nolan says:
June 1, 2012 at 1:35 pm
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2007-10-31/

ElBobbo

Climate science is an oxymoron. It is better described as climastrology.

Bengt Abelsson

The letter from Professor P Jones to the Swedish “Met Office” was written as to ensure a negative response:
Can we publish your data ? Please note that we may have homogenized it, so it will probably be quite different from your records!.
Not surprisingly, the answer was: No, you must not publish such data as ours.
At that time, it was important for CRU to have such a non-permission because that was what they have said.
http://www.theclimatescam.se/2010/03/06/phil-jones-och-smhis-temperaturdata/
Swedish site. Relevant letters in english.
Shows Professor P Jones: “At least he tried to get permission.. ” Not so – he tried hard to get a NO.

Richard deSousa

Climate science is oxymoronic!

mfo

I completely agree with the need for a new journal requiring total transparency. Dr Felicity Mellor during a talk at the BBC, of all places, suggested that anonymous peer review reports should be made available also, partly to help journalists appreciate any inherent weaknesses in a paper and perhaps as a disincentive to pal review.
Metadata and raw data together with homogenised data from National Meteorological Services should ideally be sent to a central digital repository, available over the internet to anyone, free of charge. Although I distrust the UN, the World Meteorological Association have published a good report on ‘guidelines on climate data and homogenization’:
“When data are quality controlled and/or homogenized, it is always important to document the procedures applied in the metadata. When transmitting a dataset it is desirable to provide both the original and the adjusted data. This will be very helpful for other users who may need to apply a different homogenization approach to meet their particular requirements.
“To recap, homogenization is a difficult but unavoidable task. By properly adjusting a station or dataset we gain a better understanding of climate and especially of climate variability and change.”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/wcdmp_series/documents/WCDMP-53.pdf

Icarus62

If the CRU can acquire and analyse the data then anyone else can too. The fact that we now have numerous global temperature series which all agree very closely doesn’t mean that other teams can’t do their own research and potentially come to different conclusions, so I don’t see that there’s a problem.
REPLY: Go ahead then and try, see how far you get trying to get the base temperature and the base metadata rather than all of the “adjusted value added” products. Let us know how it goes – Anthony

Anthony: This is particularly worrisome, because as we’ve seen, metadata for GHCN global stations is very poor to virtually non-existent, …. Phil Jones is essentially blowing off the issue saying “let them figure it out, not our responsibility”.
I agree this is very worrisome. What CRU and Phil Jones is saying is that “our work will be a big part of global environmental policy, but do not hold us accountable for the raw data.” Meanwhile, the NMS’s can say “we aren’t responsible for policy, so go fish!”
However, I think this is “too clever by half”. At least in some countries there are Inspectors General that can throw a monkey-wrench into the works if such shenanigans come to light and focus.
This is a time for a well-crafted “elevator speech” that can capture the attention of honest politicians and a distracted public being hoodwinked.

Rob Dawg

REPLY: Go ahead then and try, see how far you get trying to get the base temperature and the base metadata rather than all of the “adjusted value added” products. Let us know how it goes – Anthony
Nothing galls me more than the image of dutiful data collectors in the 1930s squinting at 0.05°F plus minus day after day having their direct calibrated observations adjusted upwards to account for UHI effects in the 1990s.

Gail Combs

Owen in GA says:
June 1, 2012 at 2:09 pm
I don’t know. We all dump on climate science, but I have heard some disgruntled grumbling from other fields that journals are not doing a good job of making sure the work covered in the articles is reproducible. I think the problems may be systemic in the sciences right now and that has me worried.
_____________________________
BINGO!
The problem has metatasized to most fields in science. Science is getting a black eye and it is fully justified.
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

….A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.
Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct….

72% questionable research practices and 14% out right misconduct does not say much for the holier than thou attitude of these research scientists now does it?
As far as I am concerned THAT study should be sent to every politician and every scientist with a note that say “SHOW ME YOUR DATA or we must assume you are lying”
At this point that is they only attitude an intelligent person can take.

Interstellar Bill

You already know the Warmistas’ excuse here:
We won’t have any time for our science if we’re doing nothing but handling an avalanche of harassing requests for data, code, or procedures.
After all, we have a world to save and those darned skeptics are slowing us down!

BarryW

Instead of all these attempts to adjust the data, why not just adjust the confidence intervals? Of course this wouldn’t show the warming which they would never admit to. Doing magic adjustments that assume you know what the values are is ridiculous. Without a way of knowing the actual value you need to adjust the data you’re just guessing. That way you could give an honest assessment of the temps taking into account siting, moves and coverage without the fudge factors.

In a 21, 2005 reply to a request for data from Warwick Hughes Jones refused. “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” (Apparently Jones confirmed his reply when asked by Von Storch).
Presumably Jones is buoyed by the self-serving investigations by the University of East Anglia and has moved on from his suicidal nadir.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249134/Climate-change-scientist-I-considered-suicide.html
Willis Eschenbach did a detailed dissection of similar requests for information.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/
It’s no surprise that a PR company called “Outside Organization” was brought in to manage Climategate. The person in charge of the investigation was arrested in July 2011 for involvement in the shameful phone hacking operations at the News of the World. His partner described the CRU contract as “more covert” than others they handled.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/14/covert-operations-by-east-anglias-cru/
Maurice Strong established the IPCC through the World Meteorological Organization. This means the IPCC is effectively the NMS, because each member nation appoints the IPCC members. Jones used the lack of ability to disclose because of control by the NMS members previously, but it was not the first line of defense. He is using it again. The question is how much can a UN member nation refuse to provide data paid for by the taxpayer of the nation? What do they have to hide? National security? I remember stories about using weather as a weapon of war. Is it another case of Weather of Mass Destruction?
It is time other climate related people start looking at what has and is going on. I was impressed by German physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Plus’ confession, but shocked by the tacit acceptance by someone working in the field.
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
Did Jones and others rely on this complacency? It’s time more weather and climate people feel shame and examine what the IPCC have done?

Werner Brozek

Clicking on “Hadcrut4 graphs”, we find this sentence:
Fitted linear trends in temperature anomalies are approximately 0.07°C/decade from 1901 to 2010 and 0.17°C/decade from 1979 to 2010 globally.
So the impression is given that global warming has been accelerating over the last 30 years. However in another article, we read:
No statistically significant warming over 15 years on Hadcrut4.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/no_global_warming_for_15_years/
Is this last statement with regards to 15 years true or not?
Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of Hadcrut4 from April, 1997 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of Hadcrut3 from April, 1997 to December 2010. Then I got the slope of Hadcrut3 from April, 1997 to the present. The difference in slope was that the slope was 0.0037 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0077 from April, 1997 . So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like Hadcrut3, I conclude it would show a positive slope of 0.0040/year over the last 15 years. See the graphs below to illustrate this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.25/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.25/trend
Now as to whether 0.0040/year over 15 years is significant or not, I would like to quote Phil Jones from an earlier interview where he said: “I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.” So while the numbers are a bit different now, if 0.12 C per decade was not significant then over a 15 year period, there is no way that 0.040 C/decade is significant now over a 15 year period.

Yet researchers are glad to use the Surface Stations dataset, ready or not. I guess some people are more equal than others.

Icarus62 says:
June 1, 2012 at 2:43 pm
If the CRU can acquire and analyse the data then anyone else can too. The fact that we now have numerous global temperature series which all agree very closely doesn’t mean that other teams can’t do their own research and potentially come to different conclusions, so I don’t see that there’s a problem.
===============================================
Uhmm….. no, they don’t really. Sure, the final global temp trends agree, but, they don’t collaborate on lying very well. Now, this is very preliminary, but the “new” warming found in HadCrut4 vs HadCrut3 was thought (at least by me) to be because of the addition of Hansen’s imaginary thermometers in the polar regions. And, in part, it probably is. But, a large part of the warming according to HadCrut4 is in the tropics. 30°S – 30°N. Click here to see HC3 vs HC4 vs HC4 tropics, from 1998 to the end of HC4 2010.92. Clearly Jonesy is stating that the tropics are warming faster than the rest of the globe.
But, that’s not what GISS tells us. Jimmy H says the warming is occurring towards the poles. Click here for a trend map for the period 1998-2011. Scroll down to see the latitudinal distribution.
I’ve already written one post on this, but I’ll probably clean it up and write another. https://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/is-phil-and-jim-geographically-challenged-as-well/
Oddly, HC3 and HC4 from 1965-2000 are nearly identical…. as if they weren’t altered at all.
We have two separate temp series showing warming in very different places and, yet, coming to essentially the same total trend. Which brings me to ask the obvious question. What are the odds that either one of these series are an accurate representation of our global temps? They’d be pretty negligible, in my view. But, what are the odds that both of these series were artificially manipulated to render the same final global trend? Pretty good, in my estimation. It simply stretches credulity too far to believe the outcome wasn’t predetermined, and that the numbers were made to fit the outcome.
That’s the thing about serial liars. The act of serial lying implies a deficient intellect. It’s much easier to be truthful. Intelligent people understand this. Lies have a tendency to cause more lying. Soon, they lies are too difficult to manage. And this is what happened.

Jer0me

As has been said so many times before, if the world was entering a crisis and you needed everyone to be convinced that this was so in order to take avoiding action, why would you not give them ALL the information required to convince them of the urgency? Given the outright criminal activity that has been perpetrated ‘for the cause’, who gives a stuff about the ‘ownership’ of some of the data? Surely it is in the best interests of all to share the data, so there is no reason not to do this.
Add to that the fact that most if not all of these NMS’s are publicly funded, how could it not be made available. I do work for the WHO, and they do not believe in copyright of their materiel. As the public essentially pays for it, the public owns it. How I wish this was a more widely held idea!

Those guys just don’t want the public to see how that came up with their results. They think that we should just trust them.
Hopefully after November there can be federal legislation to require that the raw data, source code, and any other pertinent information be available on a publicly accessible FTP server no later than the date of publication when such research is funded directly or indirectly by taxpayers. There should be penalties if it isn’t readily available. It should be in a format that would permit any competent researcher to quickly verify the result If there are adjustments, then we need to know just how those adjustments were done.
Research that has not been independently verified [I’m not talking about pal review] should not be considered in formulating policy. Research not funded by our taxpayers should not be considered in formulating policy unless they show their work as with taxpayer funded research. is time to derail this gravy train.

I can’t see what the criticism of Jones is here (“blowing off the issue”). It seems what he is saying is – we have and use homogenized data from the NMS’s. That’s available here. We don’t use the raw data. For that you’ll have to go to the NMS’s.
What should he have said?
In fact most of the unadjusted data is available in GHCN V3 unadjusted.

REPLY:
The issue is reproducibility. Nick you’re a smart guy, if it is so easy to get all the raw data, and fully, exactly, reproduce what CRU does, then I suggest you do it and report back here. Partial reproduction would not be tolerated from us if we were criticizing the data set/methods, so you’ll need the full set. In the meantime, you should recall that CRU uses a mixture of raw and adjusted data. See the HARRY README file for some examples of the mishmash.
Lucia on her blog wrote: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/cru-data-lost-or-to-be-posted-in-a-few-months/
…at Roger Pielke Jr’s blog, I read Roger asked for CRU data and CRU told him this:

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

This strongly suggest their reason for not giving Roger raw data is it doesn’t exist.
In contrast, an article in Nature says this:
Jones says he can’t fulfil the requests because of confidentiality agreements signed in the 1990s with some nations, including Spain, Germany, Bahrain and Norway, that restrict the data to academic use. In some cases, says Jones, the agreements were made verbally, and in others the written records were mislaid during a move.
He says he is now working to make the data publicly available online. As Nature went to press, Jones was expected to post a statement on the CRU website to that effect, including any existing confidentiality agreements. Jones says any such data release “needs to be done in a systematic way”.

“We’re trying to make them all available,” says Jones. “We’re consulting with all the meteorological services — about 150 members [of the World Meteorological Organization] — and will ask them if they are happy to release the data.” A spokesperson for the Met Office confirmed this, saying “we are happy for CRU to take the lead on this, as they are their data”.

(Mind you, my understanding is that, because data were requested under FOI, the Met Office is required by law to contact those countries and ask them if they are willing to release the data. Happiness or unhappiness on the part of the Met Office is irrelevant. I am also under the impression that several of the FOI requests made this clear to the Met office back when they did not seem quite so happy to undertake this effort. )
But, I digress. . .
What I was wondering was this: Which data is Jones planning to release? The value added data they told Roger they still have? Or the raw data they told Roger they lost? Or am I totally confused? Does Jones have a personal archive of raw data that CRU lost? (This would not surprise me. I’ve known lots of researchers who have data on their how machines, back up zip disks etc.)
Anyone who can untangle this, please enlighten me!
===========================================
So it seems CRU had/may still have the raw data, but didn’t keep it, or they still have it and won’t share. Who knows? They are responsive to FOIA requests on the matter.
– Anthony

davidmhoffer

This is a shell game. Suppose you wrote to all the NMS’s and they all provided you with their data. Then you trend it using the same techniques that Hadcrut uses, and suppose you get a different answer. Without having the data directly from HadCrut, the NMS data is actually useless because you don’t know:
1. If the data the NSM sent you is identical to the data that they sent HadCrut.
2. If HadCrut made any mistakes transposing from the format the NSM sent to the format that HadCrut uses.
3. If HadCrut used all the data they were sent, or only some of it.
4. If the NMS sent you a superset of the data they sent to HadCrut.
….and so on. Just a shell game to prevent anyone from looking behind the curtain and discovering that the floating bloated head is just a wee mann pretenting to be a giant.

artwest

“I don’t say that Jones is to blame for the current situation. At least he tried to get permission from the NMS’s to release the data as he promised…”
Or says he did? I have zero confidence that this is true unless it’s confirmed from a reliable source – and I don’t include most people connected with climate science.
That’s what you’ve helped do for the integrity of your field, Jones.

Some skiiled statistician could compile a complete estimated reconstruction of the raw data of the Blimate Stations based on the likely distortions anticipated in the “homogenized” data, publish it and wait for “The Warmists’ ” objections. Then they could be challenged to prove the compilation wrong by bringing forward the real raw data for everyone to look at.

In the UK we had an expenses scandal with MPs.
What Jones is advocating is the same as each MP being soley responsible for their own expenses with absolutely no auditing or anything from a central group.
Jones couldn’t care less if people just made up data … in other words: “not my responsibility”.
So whose responsibility is it?
If Jones is not prepared to do the job properly have have properly audited data then he shouldn’t get a penny in grants.
His attitude is totally disgusting.

Bill Illis

We need to turn over the temperature record authority to a statistical agency who has the expertise and technological power to make it an easy objective process.
There are billions being spent on climate research. Government research funding agencies should re-allocate $30 million or so of that to a consortium of national statistical agencies who will go back in and redo the series and keep track of it from now on.

D. J. Hawkins

Rob Dawg says:
June 1, 2012 at 3:04 pm
REPLY: Go ahead then and try, see how far you get trying to get the base temperature and the base metadata rather than all of the “adjusted value added” products. Let us know how it goes – Anthony
Nothing galls me more than the image of dutiful data collectors in the 1930s squinting at 0.05°F plus minus day after day having their direct calibrated observations adjusted upwards to account for UHI effects in the 1990s.

That would have been quite a feat for thermometers graduated in whole degree increments. Drop a decimal point and I’ll agree.

Elftone

Nick Stokes says:
June 1, 2012 at 4:10 pm
I can’t see what the criticism of Jones is here (“blowing off the issue”). It seems what he is saying is – we have and use homogenized data from the NMS’s. That’s available here. We don’t use the raw data. For that you’ll have to go to the NMS’s.
What should he have said?
In fact most of the unadjusted data is available in GHCN V3 unadjusted.

Because it isn’t simply a question of the data, homogenised or otherwise. It’s a question of the methodology used to arrive at the end result. If an individual cannot replicate the results, how can they be confirmed or improved upon? Not refuted, please understand, but replicated. Where, exactly, is the problem with that?

EternalOptimist

I am a bit naive here, I am not a scientist
but even if Jones did the homogenisation
or even if the sources did it in a consistant manner
and then it was all published.
so what ? ok, so it will give us ammo to shoot at the other side,
but where does it actually get us ?
we are still trying to measure the weight of an elephant by looking at one of its footprints

LazyTeenager

Chuck Nolan on June 1, 2012 at 1:36 pm said:
Why do they fear FOI?
—————-
Let’s consider this scenario.
You have filled out your tax records in a way that is entirely ethical and honest.
But you had a personal disagreement with a tax inspector who demonstrated complete ignorance of how your business operates. And is likely incompetent in any case.
That tax inspector has indicated up front he’s gonna nail you. He has an agenda.
And then he initiates a complete tax audit of your business that is going to take 3 months to complete and which is going to keep you at his beck and call for that time.
How cooperative are you going to be. Are you going to tell him to get f@&$d?

Elftone says: June 1, 2012 at 5:10 pm
“If an individual cannot replicate the results, how can they be confirmed or improved upon?”

Well, you can. And individuals have done it. You can get raw data from GHCN, the various SST sources and the NMS’s. But CRU doesn’t use it. It may be inconvenient to compile NMS data, but is CRU obliged to do it for you?

u.k.(us)

So, the future of mankind hangs in the balance, but the data needed to understand the processes leading to the catastrophe, have been denied to those not within the current cabal.
History is full of such stories, that never turn out well.

Richard Lawson

Nick Stokes says:
June 1, 2012 at 4:10 pm
“I can’t see what the criticism of Jones is here”
Nick Stokes – defender of the indefensible.
Nick, maybe you should spend a little time to reacquaint yourself with the way real science works. When I was at school it went something like this: Do the experiment, observe the results, write about it explaining your methods in detail, outlining the results and draw your conclusions. Then hand it to the teacher (or peer review and publish depending how old you are!) and she/he would say whether it was any good.
May I draw your attention to the ‘explain your method in detail’ phrase in the above paragraph. This is the bit missing from Master Philip Jones report and teacher is not happy about it. May I also point out that teacher is not interested in the ‘post normal’ method of writing about the experiment, which is to leave out the ‘explain your method in detail’ part, and does in fact require Master Jones to tell the world exactly how he conducted his experiment, because otherwise the results are not worth a jot.
Back to school for you I’m afraid Nick as it seems your first spell at school was a complete and utter waste of time!

davidmhoffer

Nick Stokes;
I can’t see what the criticism of Jones is here (“blowing off the issue”). It seems what he is saying is – we have and use homogenized data from the NMS’s. That’s available here. >>>>
No. He’s saying where he got his data from and directing you to obtain it from the same source if you want to. What he is skipping over is that without seeing what data he actually used as an input, we don’t actually know who sent him what or if he used it or not. Shell game.

Dale Hartz

Why don’t we have a principle that any paper, study or major document paid for by public funds must include all supporting data, codes, and other backup?

ferdberple

Owen in GA says:
June 1, 2012 at 2:09 pm
I think the problems may be systemic in the sciences right now and that has me worried
========
The problem of false positives is widespread at present because nobody pay money to by a newspaper that says “nothing happened today”. Folks only want to pay money for results. So, if you want to have a job tomorrow, you select the data that shows a result. If someone asks to see your work, of course you are not going to give it to them. You are going to come up with every excuse in the book to keep it away from them.

ferdberple

Nick Stokes says:
June 1, 2012 at 5:30 pm
It may be inconvenient to compile NMS data, but is CRU obliged to do it for you?
=====
It is zero work for CRU to archive their compiled NMS data so the results can be replicated. Their unwillingness to archive their data is part of a long standing patter of junk science labelled climate science.
It makes the whole profession look bad. The same thing happened to other professionals that didn’t clear up their acts. There was a time that lawyers, bankers and politicians were considered honorable professions. Now they rate lower on the truth scale than used car salesmen.
Scientists are quickly heading into the same toilet. It only takes one bad apple to spoil the barrel. Unless scientists as a whole speak up and place integrity ahead of money and fame, they too will go down the drain.

ferdberple

Dale Hartz says:
June 1, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Why don’t we have a principle that any paper, study or major document paid for by public funds must include all supporting data, codes, and other backup?
=========
Not if the results will tend to show that the scientists involved are incompetent to the point of fraudulent. No university is ever going to willingly release such information as it will be financially devastating.

davidmhoffer says: June 1, 2012 at 5:36 pm
“No. He’s saying where he got his data from and directing you to obtain it from the same source if you want to. “

Well, I may be reading it wrongly, but this post seems to say that he got homogenized data from the NMS’s, and you can get that data, which was actually used,, from CRU. What people here seem to want is raw data, which is not what CRU used.