Thursday
Nov242011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Thorne responds
Nov 24, 2011 Climate: MetOffice Peter Thorne's comments about politicisation of science have been among the most prominent of Climategate2. Now Thorne has apparently responded in a comments thread at RealClimate, making some extraordinary claims about Phil Jones.
I do not know of a single person who has done more to try to advance data sharing of meteorological data for the last 15 years than Phil Jones (if you doubt me you could mine something useful instead of personal emails … the GCOS report series to see how hard this really is to get to happen and how involved Phil Jones has been).
Reader Comments (64)
What Thorne should have said: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."
With apologies to Leo Amery, and thanks to www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk.
@Confused: 'Beddington on radio 4 'Material World' today. Worth a listen if only to hear that 99% os scientists...'
You beat me to it. My wife had to restrain me throwing radio through window. It was an old pals' act: Krebbs and Beddington - with the backing of the BBC trying to get their retaliation in first: 'Let's talk about risk. Prof Beddington, what say you? Ah, now take Climate Change......' Arrrrggghh!
BTW: I suppose that Jones et al were all taking the FOIA out of context as well.
Resign Jones!
(cf. e.g. FOIA2011, Mon, 08 Oct 2007, Brohan to Jones, #2955)
To date, nobody in the "real world" knows that 4349 stations, used in IPCC's AR4, instead off 4138, is a typo.
I becomes worse. Obviously, it seems to me, nobody explained to the IPCC or to McIntyre, who found that mistake, that the 4349 stations is a typo! It is not mentioned on the CRUTEM3 web page.
Do we know who made the confidentially agreements with countries ("with various totalitarian (and other) regimes") which do not provide their data publicly/openly?
Do we have for example the used source codes online?
Could there be more?
Trouble wiv Phil is - 'is mum spoilt 'im rotten.
Is this the same Peter thorne who wrote to Jones about his bit of the IPCC report
"Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest."
and
"I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run."
or a different Peter Thorne?
And is he talking about the Phil Jones who wrote
"I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone"
and
"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !"
or a different Phil Jones?
The more outrageous the lie and more widely repeated it is ... now, where did I pick that up from...?
@Simon Hopkinson
For Josh: Phil Jones in a dark office, actively shredding IPCC emails, with a shocked/embarrassed expression as Norfolk plod bursts in.. "Wait.. you're taking this out of context!"
Brilliant!
@RoyFOMR
You know, I thought so, too! But since this alleged "context" is invariably conspicuously absent from the vigorous protestations of those who claim that [whatever] has been "taken out of context" ... I am increasingly leaning towards the conclusion that - just as they have abitrarily redefined "trick", "decline", "peer review", "null hypothesis" (and Trenberth's most recent contributions, "sham" and "shameful") - they must have redefined "context" without letting us in on the new, improved climatologically correct meaning of "context".
Hilary:
Key point. Although like trick the meaning varies, I think we can already set out some basics:
a) To take an email in context - to ignore it.
b) To take an email fully in its context - never to have heard of it.
c) To take an email out of context - to read it.
d) To take an email grossly and wilfully out of context - to tell someone else about it.
How do people think this stacks up with current usage?
Context n. the privacy we once enjoyed.
Richard Drake,
Brilliant work. Here are some changes needed for Mann and Jones only.
a) To take an email in context - to make it mean exactly what I think it means.
b) To take an email fully in its context - to make it mean exactly that thing from the tangled bowels of my psyche that makes it mine.
c) To take an email out of context - to read it.
d) To take an email grossly and wilfully out of context - to tell someone else about it.
e) An email - a poisoned dart.
Richard Drake,
Oh, by the way, on the matter of context again, this view of context goes back to Alice in Wonderland. It is central to the self identity of our dear friends from the Left.
Richard:
You've been reading my mind, again!
See “Prof. Phil Jones and Alice”: