Tuesday
Feb162010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Keenan responds to Jones
Feb 16, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Jones Climate: Surface Journals Doug Keenan has taken issue with the way Nature has described his complaint against Phil Jones co-author Wei-Chyung Wang. In particular they seem to have missed the point that the evidence Wang cited didn't actually exist.
His comments are here.
Reader Comments (10)
When is this caveat going to die? Jones - ""The science still holds up" though..."
Everyday we learn of new cracks in the facade. The science behind the IPCC AR4 (and previous) is slowly deconstructing, yet we are told this or that oversight "it's negligible" or "the science is still good".
Isn't this becoming like the death of a thousand qualifications?
If Dr Keenan reads this blog he should be made aware that submissions to Standing Committees of the House of Commons should remain confidential until the Committee has reported.
I'm really glad to see this posting.
Kevin, I agree. I would have put more in my comment at nature.com, but was worried that they might then delete the comment. The nature.com piece also quotes Jones as saying "They are trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion". What "they" are actually trying to do is check that the scientific process has the level of integrity that is claimed for it: unfortunately, many checks have shown the opposite.
Consider too how Nature approached reporting the story. The dispute essentially boils down to this: one party (me) accused another party (Jones) of fraud. Nature's reporting consisted of asking the accused party if he was guilty, and finding that the accused declared himself innocent. The reporting did not include examining any evidence for the accusation, nor interviewing the accuser. Inadequate resources could not be the problem, because the journalist traveled to Jones' university in Norwich, to do the interview. Even without assessing the merits of the accusation, then, I believe it is fair to say that the reporting on this was abysmal.
Arthur Dent.... Regarding submissions to the Science and Technology Committee, they are indeed not supposed to be published elsewhere. The Committee informed me of this by e-mail the day after submission. I immediately telephoned and explained that I had posted my submission on the web the previous day (shortly after submission). They said that a few other people had done the same thing, and that I should not worry about it--that would not affect anything. It was agreed that once the submission was on the web, there was no point in pulling it off.
Doug:
Nice job on the Nature.com response. Could you comment on the recent revisions Jones published with respect to the magnitude of UHI effects for China weather stations?
Who is this Douglas Keenan, I'd like to know? Is 'e as good to 'is poor old Mum as my Phil? 'e's a lovely lad, my Phil. A good boy, 'e is. Fell in wiv a bad crowd of Chinese, but that's not 'is fault. Life is cheap in the East, see? Not 'is fault at all.
Doug Keenan,
Keep up the good work. Thanks for your efforts...
Bernie—thanks much. I'm preparing a comment on Jones et al. (2008); I agree that this needs doing.
Kevin—very and kindly appreciated.
Mr. Keenan's submission should be disqualified as he has flouted the privacy laws.
A very interesting post at the new thread at RC - Whatevergate.
"Horatio Sanz says: 16 February 2010 at 11:52 PM
I’m a student at UEA. I’m sorry, but this post does not represent what the “climate” is like in these parts. I see Prof Jones almost daily and have had the opportunity to talk with him some.
I would follow his lead if I were you – stick to the science, come clean, and stop with all this twee fluff.
- HSANZ"
Jones has come clean? Read Douglas Keenan's report to the Science and Technology Committee. Jones was a peer reviewer for Keenan's paper and tried many cheap tricks to stop publication. Then in the Nature interview, Jones says that blogs "seem to be hijacking the peer-review process". It's Jones who hijacked the process. He's far from coming clean.