Tuesday
Dec012009
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Phil Jones to stand down
Dec 1, 2009 Climate: CRU Climate: Jones FOI AP is reporting that Jones will stand down, at least temporarily, pending an investigation that he overstated climate change.
Fair to say then that UEA is not interested whether he breached the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act and whether he sought to oust journal editors from their positions then? Mind you, given that the Vice Chancellor of UEA seems to have been implicated in the breach of FoI laws you can imagine why the authorities might want to limit the terms of reference of the investigation.
Update on Dec 1, 2009 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
It looks like the bit about the terms of reference being related to "overstating climate change" was AP's spin rather than what UEA actually said, which was that the terms of reference will be decided shortly.
Reader Comments (17)
“We will announce details of the Independent Review, including its terms of reference, timescale and the chair, within days. I am delighted that Professor Peter Liss, FRS, CBE, will become acting director.”
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
Liss has published e.g. with Lovelock
It would have been better if he had stood-down from the top of a very tall cliff. Perhaps one of these clowns will do just that by the time this tangled web is finally and fully unfolded.
Generally, it seems like Briggs' predictions for the post-Climategate fallout are, more or less, becoming true one by one (OK, I know Jones hasn't actually "retired to spend more time with his family" , but given the fact-fudging that pervades UEA, I think we can all read between the lines).
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1370
BBC News 10.00pm 1/12/09 - item on melting Antarctic ice raising sea levels. Shot of sea-ice!!! Not a word about Prof. Jones' stepping aside from CRU. Trust your old auntie.
What's really shocking is that RC hasn't had their spin up as soon as Dr. Jones made his announcement. Matter of fact I haven't seen one comment pop up in their comment counters in over an hour. Makes one wonder if Gavin was blindsided.
i think some care is needed here; the terms of reference will be critical.
I will be surprised if there is a review of the science; how could an independent reviewer do that ?
I was going to ask whether an independent reviewer even consider whether it would have been better for Phil to disclose more of their data, earlier - but then i remembered that NERC has pretty strong guidelines about this, and has done for some time. There may be hope.
I am also wondering what else could rise to the level where you could criticise; as opposed to satirise.
per
"the Vice Chancellor of UEA seems to have been implicated in the breach of FoI laws "
Call me old-fashioned but isn't it usual to establish that a crime has been committed firstly, and then figure out whodunnit ?
Yes, Frank, whatever happened to standards? It's certainly hard to hide the decline.
…………../´¯/)……….. (\¯`\
…………/….//……….. …\\….\ Eat this Phil Jones
………../….//………… ….\\….\
…../´¯/…./´¯\………../¯ `\….\¯`\
.././…/…./…./.|_……_| .\….\….\…\.\..
(.(….(….(…./.)..)..(..(. \….)….)….).)
.\…………….\/…/….\. ..\/……………./
..\…………….. /……..\……………..,,./
….\…………..(………. ..)……………./
……\………….\……… ../…………./
Frank, you are showing signs of cognitive dissonance. There have been many outright breaches of FOI law revealed in the e-mails. The only question which remains is: will the authorities act? Personally I suspect we are in for the classic Civil Service man overboard routine.
Whilst reading Lawrence Soloman's agreeable report http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/lawrence-solomon-new-zealand-s-climategate.aspx about National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, I noticed an objection by Obelisk74.
I followed his link http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/ and looked at his evidence for justifying the adjustments for Wellington. At first sight, the graphs appear reasonable, except that the descending graph line for Kelvedon stops at 2005 and the rising graph line for Wellington Airport stops at 2006, as far as I see. We know that airports are heat islands, but from the looks of it, Wellington is warmer than most. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wellington_airport_aerial.jpg Therefore, applying the Airport difference of 0.79ºC to Thorndon is spurious.
You don't lower Thorndon and the Airport. Those are the measured values. The adjustment for height should be applied to elevate Kelvedon's figures if necessary, but it's a C of S anyway.
Without seeing later temperatures blotted on the final graph paper, I believe the term " Lying by omission" is appropriate.
Sebastian,
"There have been many outright breaches of FOI law revealed in the e-mails."
Perhaps one day the deny-o-science will enable you to build a time machine and return to the days of Salem, when a standard of law and evidence that you might be more comfortable with applied.
Meanwhile screeching accusations from ignorant mobs aren't a substitute for the facts. There's no evidence that anyone actually breached the FOI, deleted any data, or improperly refused any FOI request.
That said, it is clear enough Jones didn't understand what FOI meant or required so it wouldn't be altogether surprising if he failed to comply to it.
Ah, ignorance of the law. A superb defence.
Frank,
There is ample evidence that a firm intention to delete data subject to FOI was declared, and a request to delete data subject to FOI was made. Many of the emails also contain requests to delete after viewing, so that they would not fall into "the wrong hands". Evading discovery was clearly the intention.
However, IT experts will be aware that it is virtually impossible for ordinary users of an IT system to actually delete emails, and it may be they are relying on their belated discovery that none of their attempts to destroy the evidence worked to claim that they were never made.
That's not a defence I'd like to rely upon in court, though.
PA,
"There is ample evidence that a firm intention to delete data subject to FOI was declared, and a request to delete data subject to FOI was made. "
Not yet there isn't.
You might like to hang someone for murder cos they said they'd like to see you dead, but it's not how it works.
So Phil Jones stepped down as
DirectorHigh Priest of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit pending an investigation. Well, if his AGW projections don't hold up, at least he knows that his legacy will live on with his groundbreaking New & Improved CRU Scientific Method. I was able to reverse engineer the East Anglia CRU Scientific Methodology from the procedures documented in the purloined e-mails and code. It is clear to me that they have built on the work of maverick chemist Theodore Hapner, who revolutionized thinking about the scientific method in 2006. Godspeed Phil Jones.Frank,
In an email entitled "Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI":
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
Note, they did not say "we would like to see these emails deleted - ho ho", they said to get Gene "to do the same" and Keith and Caspar "will do likewise". What do you think they were going to get Gene to do? What do you think they were getting Caspar to do?