Bishop Hill The hearings - UEA
Mar 1, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Jones Climate: Parliament Two more to go
16:52 Harris cites IoP submission. Do emails reveal anything that make Jones vulnerable? Jones says only seen a fraction of his emails. Says there is nothing in them to show that he has perverted the peer review process.
16:51 Harris asks about peer review process and manipulation thereof. Jones says they were already published and he was just commenting that they were not good papers. Asks about complaints to Peiser and E&E. This is Sonia B-C. Jones doesn't answer the question. Harris lets him get away with it.
16:49 Harris asks if there are issues of inter-group rivalry preventing disclosure of data.
16:48 Willis says Acton has failed to protect reputation of UEA.
16:47 Willis asks about similar furores at NASA and GISS. Jones says their data is freely available.
16:46 Stringer says not releasing data breeds mistrust and excludes newcomers.
16:44 Jones said they hadn't tried to get round the 5 agreements they had which prevented data disclosure but had done so now.
16:43 Jones says they haven't released their version of CRUTEM code, but Met Office have.
16:42 Stringer talks about John Graham-Cumming's evidence re quality of code. Jones says it's old code.
16:41 Jones says not having data and code is a fact of life in climate science.
16:39 How was Russell chosen? Acton says he took soundings.
16:34 Stringer questions Acton about pursuing leaks rather than the internal issue at CRU. They're jousting words rather.
16:34 Asks about lone pine. Jones says it's not a problem. I missed something here.
16:30 Harris asks about hide the decline. Asks Jones to comment on Lawson's statement - that it was not disclosed in the report. Jones has preprepared graph. Refers to his 1998 paper. He's waffling rather. Harris asks if the truncation was made explicit in subsequent papers.
16:28 Harris asks about material availability. Jones says it's not normal in climate science to give out data and code. Jones won't comment on other fields. Jones says peer reviewers never ask for data.
16:27 Naysmith asks if it's possible to replicate Jones work. Jones says yes, using papers.
16:25 In answer to Boswell, Jones said much the same data available in US. "Most of it is already there".
16:23 Jones says a lot of work invested in it. Says they gave the gridded data. For Pete's sake!
16:22 Jones still saying it's not standard practice to release data. Cawsey cites Hughes again. Jones says he has written "awful emails".
16:21 Stringer says Jones is unscientific. Cites letter to Warwick Hughes. Jones says llist of stations made available in 2008. Ouch!!! fact check this!!!!
16:20 Jones says data and code not always made available. Jones says it's not always done. Iddon says it's unverifiable then.
16:18 Acton says only 3 members of academic staff at CRU. Burden of releasing data is heavy. How long can it take to email a single database? Says Canada and Poland won't allow them to publish data. Why could they send it to their friends then?
16:16 Strninger asks about code availability. Jones says methods are in papers. Oh for heaven's sake. Jones refers to deluge of requests.
16:15 Stewart asks if last 3 decades have been successively the warmest. Jones agrees.
16:13 Discussion of Jones et al Urban Heat Island paper and Jones having revisited his work then, but that this didn't affect the findings. Jones' hands are shaking.
16:12 Stewart - are CRU's problems caused by exaggerated claims? Jones disowns statements made by one of his colleagues (Viner) about there being little snowfall in future.
16:10 Is there an audit trail showing how adjustments were made? Jones describes methods for CRUTEM - homogeneity etc. Says adjustments all in technical reports and peer review publications. What about the code?
16:09 Stewart asks how the data could be verified. Jones says use different methods.
16:09 Jones says available at GHCN in the US. But that's not the data as used is it?
16:08 Ian Stewart opens with alleged attempts to mislead. Has primary data been lost or deleted?
Reader Comments (47)
Note Trevor Davies very prominent between the Jones and Acton in the row behind, passing notes to Acton. He is heavily involved in all this.
Stewart used the word 'robust'. How did Jones repeat his work if original data was lost?
Liars shake badly while questioned
Somebody mentioned McIntyre!
Asked a good question about the exact stations and methods, Mmmm, he says the methods aren't "rocket science"
watch his eyes as well. Glossed over the code by saying the methodology was simple and published. If so simple, why not publish the code and why Harry's comments? Jone's boss also looks like he escaped the Simpsons.
This northern scientist is asking pointed questions to Jones
Graham Stringer has read the books and is asking the right hard questions...
This is turning out a lot more interesting than I expected.
Stringer is unimpressed. Wonder if one of Davies notes mentioned perjury before committees?
Jones is dying in his seat.
jones Admits that the Hughes rebuff was before the FOIs started - so shows the precedence of the stonewall attitude - and explans the FOI requests - good!
The thing I find curious is if the analysis software is so straight forward, so simple then why is it held from the public like it was the design methodology of nuclear weapons.
To me, this is a sure sign that the methods were being faked.
And why is it so hard to figure out, as the emails stated, it's only because they could reconcile the lies they had entered into the data, the fudge. They needed a good software revision tool to track and cite the fudge.
Remember the gigantic readme file ...
It's the raw data that's the nub of this. No-one is pushing RAW DATA, we're not interested in adjusted data, or data that may have been manipulated before it's passed on to NASA or NOAA, or whoever - the point is being missed, big time.
"Jones says llist of stations made available in 2008. Ouch!!! fact check this!!!! "
It was on October1, 2007 following Willis' FOI a year earlier:
http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/01/cru-reveals-station-identities/
http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/03/a-first-look-at-the-cru-station-list/
Someone shoud ask even once why it's called _Mike's Nature_ trick...
If peer reviewers never ask for data and code, how do they then do an adequate peer review. Obvious answer is they don't, they just signed off.
Good thing the camera's are running.
Jones feels more secure talking about he decline and the lonesome pine - baffling them with B.S. and generally soft-soaping them.
with Hide the decline they missed the point that the publications most affected are the IPCC reports, not the original papers. The misleading is of the public and politicians, not those reading the basic literature.
The VC is being cheeky to them... I wonder if they'll accept it.
Blimey, it's Mr. Burns !!
Acton does come across as a bit of a clown!
Acton reminds me of an actor - squirming, hand-waving, obfuscating, using hundreds of words without saying anything.
Trying to nail jelly to the wall comes to mind.
the inability to reproduce results is just a fact of life in climate science. Great quote.
Did Jones really say that its a fact of life in climate science that people can't verify the research from the data published in papers?
Or did I mishear /
So it's 'a fact of life' in climate sciences that you can't replicate anybody's work, according to Jones. And the politicians want to throw trillions of dollars at climate change mitigation?
Fortran? C'mon. Does anyone under 30 know fortran anymore? We need to update models, etc in something more accessible like perl, etc...
When you write code for a living, you generally have a design specification, not just start writing. Is this the best the world can do for code writing. It sounds like you can always blame it on the hacks by doing it this way.
If you had a software design specification, multiple teams could write their own code.
Bish, I think it's Graham Stringer making the running, not Causey.
Kevin.. that's been the challenge. If the code were released, people could check it, convert it, optimise it
CHairman makes a good point about Actons apparent concern about integrity of UEA over the accuracy about "worlds greatest problem"
Is this being streamed anywhere? Can't wait to watch the video. Somebody needs to ask where is CRUs error budget (some of it was disclosed in the files leaked)
Jones just told a porkie about not really interfering in peer review process because there were only two papers which 'were already in the public domain' ...
Ouch.
Jones says He said Peisers paper "wasnt very good", er, was that the Wang fraud paper? A bit of understatement there if so!
@AJStrata
Can't you get this feed where you are?
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979
AJS Check
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979
Who is the wally of an MP on the left, closest to Acton? His lips move but nothing of any sense dribbles out.
It needs a good barrister to ask some serious questions and stick the knife in and keep twisting until he gets a proper answer.
"something more accessible like perl" - I got the joke!
Jones plays the Absent Minded Professor.
The 'killer' phrase/evidence from Jones is that it is "a fact of life" that published climate science cannot be replicated/reproduced/verified.
They should ask Muir why the hell he asked Campbell in the first place - but it looks like he got out.
Mmm, He Just said Wegman on statistis was a solid bit of work
I was asked by a journalist if there was one question I would want Jones asked, what would that be. My response was the following.
Nothing like that was asked.
Peer reviewers don't ask for data and code; no one asks for data and code. With Climate Science says Dr Jones this is a "fact of life". No one tests their actual work. Once the work is complete you can lose or misplace the data; you can leave damning comments in your code such as "fudge factor". Because it doesn't matter, no one will ask to see it.
When they finally did get requests for data and code from those outwith the clique they were caught with their pants down. Rigorous my arse.
16:18 Acton says only 3 members of academic staff at CRU. Burden of releasing data is heavy.
I thought they had previously claimed, as a partial excuse, that they only had one secretary for 13 members of staff?
Of course this is pure semantics from Acton: the term "academic staff" excludes research and support staff who, in reality, would have produced the response to the FOI requests.
In talking of his second paper on Urban Heat Island effect, Phil Jones stated that he found UHI was ONLY 0.1 degree per DECADE. (i.e. 0.7 degrees in 70 years)
Did I here this correctly?
The overall rise in global temperature since 1950 is 0.7degrees
Graham Stringer struck the killer blow.
He had Jones admit that (a) he hadn't released all his code + data, (b) that it wasn't standard practice in climate science, (c) that it should be in future
This exchange was the largest segment in Harrabin's report on radio 4's Today program.
P.S.
Don’t be surprised by a future warmist attack on Stringer… you know he worked in the plastics industry (big oil!) in the mid 70s, and has made some controversial comments on dyslexia.
"16:18 Acton says only 3 members of academic staff at CRU."
Acton seems to have a habit of giving answers that, while (possibly) being legally correct, give a different impression from the reality...
UEA CRU web page says CRU has:
1 acting director (Liss)- what is he if not a member of academic staff?
1 deputy director (Briffa) - what is he if not a member of academic staff?
1 research manager/senior research associate
3 academic staff (Jones/Osborn/Goulden)
6 research staff (four of whom hold doctorates)
11 associate fellows [whatever they are]
Many people would regard a statement along the lines of "CRU has 23 staff involved in research activitees" as being a better description of the reality than what he told the committee.
Please remember that Acton is just the front guy for this, and a rather unconvincing one, hence all the notes from Trevor Davies through the session. The real operator is Trevor Davies, a past director of the CRU, a fund raiser for CRU, a mentor to Phil Jones, and a past colleague with Geoffrey Boulton at UEA in the Envirnomental Sciences Faculty. I would suggest that it was Trevor Davies, in consultation with Boulton, who suggested Russell to Acton. Boulton would know of Russell through the Scottish university mafia.