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?