Bishop Hill The Jones rebuttal
Nov 24, 2011 Climate: IPCC Climate: Jones Phil Jones has been "putting the emails in context". This one made me laugh. (Emphasis mine)
Email 0714: “Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital - hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”
This was related to the selection of contributing authors, not IPCC-appointed chapter authors over which I have no influence. It means scientists we could trust to write succinct and clear text.
Bishop Hill
It's noticeable that CRU doesn't actually give the context for Jones's comments. In the previous email in the thread, Trenberth says
The question is whether these [two possible presentations] might help get us on the same wavelength or highlight disparate views. To the extent we can get on the same page, so much the better. I also have some draft material, adpated from last time, on letters to CAs recruiting them to do the task required (to be sent by email). Question, should the LA send these or us? It may carry more weight if we send them.
It may also give us more control.
Succinct and clear text, my foot.
Reader Comments (76)
Here is the first attempt at offering an excuse.
"The leaked climate science emails – and what they mean", Juliette Jowit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/24/leaked-climate-science-emails?intcmp=122
FergalR,
I'm doing just fine, thanks. Haven't heard of any difficulties for Don Keiller but I haven't spoken to him recently.
That's great to hear, Dr. Jones!
Zed has buggered off with its tail well and truly between its legs.
Nov 24, 2011 at 4:52 PM | Justice4Rinka
Zed over at the D.M. practicing damage limitation (and failing miserably).
Hengist over at http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/a-truly-climategate-pathetic-paper/#comments being put in his place by Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) (19:40:26) :
Monbiots people seem to be to thinly spread on the ground.
Tell me, who is the U.A.E. hiring in for spin advice? I forget who they paid last time Bish.
Rich at 4:01 PM -
This report under consideration in #1953 isn't "Mike's". In this case a spelling error has caused you grief. #4567 (to which #1953 is responsive) is clear that this is a request for Phil Jones to comment upon a report critical of the IPCC consensus by [presumably Pat] Michaels: "The editors also ask that you provide a description of what is in the Michaels's report." Unfortunately, Phil Jones calls it "Michael's report" in #1953.
There's that reference to 'right wing web sites' again. Don Pablo must be having a field day with all this new material.
Hengist was getting his bottom chewed off at the Telegraph yesterday...but it's a noble cause
Zed has buggered off with its tail well and truly between its legs.
Nov 24, 2011 at 4:52 PM | Justice4Rinka
Zed, true to form, having realized that Climategate 2.0 is a lost cause, has gone into hiding awaiting some weather-related story on the DM for him/her/it to try to hijack with the usual bullsh.. and ad homs. And also it appears that George, Durham, is the Duty Troll on the DM site today.
It is clear why Jones contemplated suicide.
Let em try to explain these away. Maybe some meanings were distorted by not providing context. I'm sure that must be true in some cases. But many of them cannot be explained away. The sheer depth of the sleaze is impressive for any reasonable person.
Mac
"The leaked climate science emails – and what they mean", Juliette Jowit.
No comments allowed, I notice.. :-)
I hope you don't mind if I add a contribution from Juliete Jowit on staff at the Guardian:
"There shouldn't be someone else at UEA with different views [from "recent extreme weather is due to global warming"] – at least not a climatologist."
• Phil Jones, UEA, to Melissa Murphy, UEA, 23 Aug 2004 (email 1788)
The TV programme Tonight with Trevor Macdonald is going to feature a colleague of Jones, David Viner, arguing that (then) recent extreme weather was a result of global warming. Jones is responding to a request via the press office for another member of the Climatic Research Unit to appear making the opposite argument. Jones is arguing it would "look odd" if two people with opposite views were from the same department and suggests the TV production team "could easily dredge someone up" from elsewhere.
Please notice that instead of making a commentary on Jones' remark or explaining it, Jowit simply repeats it. It must be really nice when everyone is on the same page. Unfortunately, the page is that there is no debate within the ranks at CRU.
1839.txt, Phil Jones on the jihad against skeptics:
"Why can't people just accept that the IPCC is right!! In Britain we have people saying that the evidence is accepted - we've won the war, now let's act!"
"I wonder when FOIA2011 will release the "nuclear option" of Clmategate 3, I think he's keeping his powder dry right now to see what crawls out from under the rock?" Alan the Brit.
I'm beginning to think it doesn't matter. What could possibly be in them that is more incriminating that what we have already seen? And yet the whole mad circus just rolls on. What has been detailed in Climategate 1.0 let alone 2.0 would be enough to get anyone fired in any other line of work, yet there they still are. And will be a year hence no doubt.
Could someone give me some idea of what kind of behaviour would have to be exposed for action to be taken against these people? Mere lying, law breaking and unethical conniving doesn't seem to be enough.
It would be interesting to see whether the Met Office can get all these 1700 people to sign up for their petition again. I like the traceability of evidence and support for the scientific method bit.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2009/science-community-statement
"
We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.
The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal' and that 'Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations'.
"
pokerguy,
With Climategate 1 there was the possibility of a further release which would undermine the attempts to paper over the cracks, "out of context" and so on. With Climategate 2 there's the encrypted file ready for the pass phrase which many eagerly await and which will possibly give the correct context without a shadow of a doubt, ripping off another set of paper patches before the glue has set.
Of course UEA should be able to work out what's likely in the encrypted file as they should have the files. They could even release the emails themselves and get it all over with. I bet they don't. I bet they continue to apply the patches.
By attempting to limit the pain the UEA is drawing out the agony.
Of course, the encrypted file could be sections from the Vladivostok telephone directory.
The Nuclear option is for the final act, timing will be essential.
Would it be, that enough has been currently released to enable the consensus of opinion to turn, for those who released the FOIA2011 zip file to reveal themselves. Once they reveal themselves they will release the password. They could well be someone who is least expected, this will verify that they are for real and also reveal the final act.
Pass the popcorn.
"Of course, the encrypted file could be sections from the Vladivostok telephone directory."
Nov 24, 2011 at 8:07 PM | cosmic
I'd assume that it will just be all the emails that will contain a huge amount of personal stuff. No way of actually going through it all for relevant info, just an archive that is known to be saved for ever now.
"I'd assume that it will just be all the emails that will contain a huge amount of personal stuff. No way of actually going through it all for relevant info, just an archive that is known to be saved for ever now."
Nov 24, 2011 at 8:34 PM | Rob Burton
You're probably right. Loads of routine stuff about ordering new paper for the printer and maybe even some "dirt" about office affairs and so on, which really shouldn't be released. The "dirt, if any would be an insurance policy for whoever has released this material. I'd guess the releases were compiled by knowing the story from the inside and filtering by keywords to reduce the volume to something manageable, then manually sifting the releases.
Nonetheless, there's an element about the encrypted file of "Did I fire five or six? In all the excitement I really can't remember. Are you feeling lucky?".
The encrypted file also has something about it of "Masquerade", the children's book from the 70s where clues were given to find a golden hare. Everyone likes a tantalising puzzle.
mmmm 220,000 emails about ordering office supplies....perhaps?
Jones says:"It means scientists we could trust to write succinct and clear text."
The problem scientists are identified here: " Clouds in 3.4.3 are a problem. I have done a very preliminary review of literature on clouds. I can send to you if you like? Liepert might be better there. Rossow also? But I don't trust him. Norris has done a lot but I don't trust him either."
Is Rossow notorious for not writing "succinct and clear" text? Or is there something else about him (and Norris.)
I looked for mentions of Rossow at CA. In late 2007 here http://climateaudit.org/2007/12/30/spencer-on-cloud-feedback/, Roy Spencer had said:
"Lets say there is a weak negative cloud feedback in nature. But superimposed upon this feedback is noise. For instance, warm SST pulses cause corresponding increases in low cloud coverage, but superimposed upon those cloud pulses are random cloud noise. That cloud noise will then cause some amount of SST variability that then looks like positive cloud feedback, even though the real cloud feedback is negative.
I dont think I can over-emphasize the potential importance of this issue. It has been largely ignored although Bill Rossow has been preaching on this same issue for years, but phrasing it in terms of the potential nonlinearity of, and interactions between, feedbacks."
Jones was concerned about "succinct and clear" prose - yeah, sure.
Steve McIntyre, please see (e.g.)
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/24/thorne-responds.html?currentPage=2#comments
(my comment on Brohan to Jones,email #2955)
Did "they" admit the mistake?
Did you get that particular source code?
Do we know who made the confidentially agreements with countries ("with various totalitarian (and other) regimes") which do not provide their data publicly/openly?
Geez! I hope us taxpayers are getting a really GOOD discount from Outside Organization for these really crap rebuttals of Phil's!
UEA are trying to deceive the world into believing the Climategate 2 emails are being taken out of context. Unsurprisingly it is the UEA that has taken things out of context.
In UEA’s press release of 23 November Prof. Jones referred to his email 1897 of 3 December 2009 in which he had written,
Interestingly, in his quote from his short email, Jones only refers to “earlier FOI requests” but omitted the first sentence with the £10 in it and last two sentences. I wonder if that inadvertently sent email was ,
Then Jones says in the UEA press release
Once again it is UEA that are publishing stuff out of context. To understand the context you need to read email 2459 sent by Michael McGarvie to our three musketeers on 2 October 2009. It was not about FoI but about a subject access request under the Data Protection Act and unlike Steve McIntyre I had paid my £10 fee. McGarvie wants to see all their correpondence that mentions me. He already had collected the ones that Palmer and Colam held that refer to me.
In 2459 Tim Osborn replies a month later
By my caculation UEA replied to me 22 days later than the Act allowed and only disclosed, heavily redacted, 5 emails to or from David Palmer that I had not seen. I complained to the ICO on this matter but agreed to allow the ICO to settle it without a Decision Notice.
There are some 102 emails in Climategate 2 that include my name, 63 of which were to or from or copied to David Palmer. Many, perhaps most, are outside the scope of my DPA request, but certainly not all of them.
The same applies to the 40 that Palmer had no reason to be aware of, and includes two at least that I had advised the ICO that I knew UEA had received or sent.
It appears that the University will say anything to the ICO, the public or Parliament to try to persuade the world that Jones did not delete anything that he should not have and that the Climategate emails are being taken out of context. I will have more to say on this.
Geoffrey Lean has been doing his 'nothing to see here, folks, move along' bit in today's DailyTelegraph. Interesting to see his name crop up in a list of journos suggested by a WWF press handler (Cherry Farrow) to Mike Hulme back in 1997 in the context of getting (presumably sympathetic) press coverage for a 'European Scientists Statement' linked to Kyoto. See emails 0876250531.txt, 0981.txt, 0927.txt and 3275.txt. Note Cherry Farrows reference phrse 'If you want to retain "neutrality"...' with the nudge, nudge, wink, wink quotes around the word neutrality. Also, the first of these emails appears to have been forwarded from an EU email address, ??@DG12.cec.be. Tee subtext in the WWF emails is a clear desire to influence European governments. Why was Mike Hulme seeking WWF support back to get a "neutral" message out?