Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Fred Pearce on the Hockey Stick | Main | GISS wants to switch to freeware »
Tuesday
Feb022010

Phil Jones speaks

The BBC has the scoop, with an interview of Phil Jones just published on their website.

Professor Phil Jones, former director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), said his results "stand up to scrutiny".

Highlights include a claim that his urban heat island paper has been corroborated by more recent work. Afficionados of Hockey Team rhetoric will recognise a standard line of argument used within the team, namely of claiming that the problems "don't matter".

Jones' claims also do nothing to defend Jones' co-author Wei Chyung Wang from Keenan's accusations of fraud, which rely on Wang's conclusions being impossible to arrive at with the data available.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (12)

Finally he speaks, the instinct for self-preservation triumphs over the right to remain silent it seems.

Feb 2, 2010 at 8:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Harrington

He added: "The work we do at the University of East Anglia is only a small part of (climate science), there's thousands of climate scientists around the world supporting our results.

Still repeating the old mantra I see. I'd like to see him prepare a list....


"We are facing more and more public scrutiny, and any future work we do is going to have much greater scrutiny by our peers and by the public."

I struggle to see how the future will actually unfold. We may [or may not] be slowly warming naturally, it's happened before, but who will be believed?

Feb 2, 2010 at 8:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterDennis

Nice to see that the Polar Bears haven't eaten him. But I think he should take a cue from Al Gore and stop shoveling.

He is in what a clinical psychologist would call "denial". Ironic, hey?

Feb 2, 2010 at 9:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

"Obviously there is a concern because the media have been leaping on what I consider to be small details, sometimes accurately but generally not accurately."

So, now the 'meeja' are breaking ranks, they are to be pilloried. Priceless.

Feb 2, 2010 at 9:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterDennis

Apologies for multiple posts, but simultaneous cuts and pastings are beyond me....

"I was extremely surprised to read about the information commissioner's thoughts and opinions in the newspapers rather than from the office directly. It sounds rather irregular.

"The university has been in contact and I don't think they've had any definitive answers out of them."

Is this not 'peer review' ?

Feb 2, 2010 at 9:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterDennis

And BBC Newsnight 2nd Feb, real news, real debate and Roger Pielke Jr

Just brilliant.

Feb 2, 2010 at 10:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

His replacement? So he's standing down permanently?

Feb 2, 2010 at 11:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

Ah, should have read the link first, his temporary replacement thinks Jones will get his job back,

Feb 2, 2010 at 11:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

OT But about the BBC

Read with interest that you silly Brits are paying " £142.50 a year for the BBC’s services" and that the Tories will "reform them" should they be elected.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7012882.ece

I have a much better and cheaper solution. Dump them entirely.

Feb 3, 2010 at 2:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Peter Liss "Jones will get his job back and will be completely vindicated" - this from the acting head of CRU who is carrying out a "review" of the Jones affair.

So the conclusion has already been reached, the jury instructed to "carefully consider their verdict of Not Guilty"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xi-agPf95M

Feb 4, 2010 at 6:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard

I read the ICO said Jones was guilty but could not be prosecuted because the six month statute of limitations had expired and then a newspaper reported this was incorrect and he could be prosecuted because the statute of limitations does not begin running until the wrongdoing is found out. So there is now three or four months to file charges. Has anyone heard if the prosecutors are pursuing this?

Feb 4, 2010 at 1:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterRon Cram

Professor Jones's claim that his work stood up to scrutiny would hold more water if he had ever allowed scrutiny. The fact that he broke the law in order to ensure that it di not leads one to suspect that he is now talking out of the wrong orifice.

Feb 4, 2010 at 10:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>