IOP Backlash

Here’s an interesting bit from The Guardian:

Evidence from a respected scientific body to a parliamentary inquiry examining the behaviour of climate-change scientists, was drawn from an energy industry consultant who argues that global warming is a religion, the Guardian can reveal.

The submission, from the Institute of Physics (IOP), suggested that scientists at the University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to support conclusions and that key reconstructions of past temperature could not be relied upon.

The evidence was given to the select committee on science and technology, which is investigating emails from climate experts at the University of East Anglia that were released online last year.

The committee interviewed witnesses on Monday, including Phil Jones, the scientist from the university’s climatic research unit (CRU), who is at the heart of the controversy.

The Guardian has established that the institute prepared its evidence, which was highly critical of the CRU scientists, after inviting views from Peter Gill, an IOP official who is head of a company in Surrey called Crestport Services.

According to Gill, Crestport offers “consultancy and management support services … particularly within the energy and energy intensive industries worldwide”, and says that it has worked with “oil and gas production companies including Shell, British Gas, and Petroleum Development Oman”.

The unrest among members of the IOP begins:

Dear Institute of Physics

As a member of the IoP I am very concerned about the recent memorandum submitted by the IoP to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.

In my view, it is unfair to criticise the CRU on the basis that they did not comply with data sharing standards that, at present, don’t exist. There is clearly a need for rules regarding openness in relation to data and methods but it is foolish to retrospectively admonish people for not following them! Do the journals currently published by the IoP employ the data policies suggested in your statement?

There also seems to be some misunderstanding in the statement of the particular issues relating to the data that the CRU use in their research and how some of the issues discussed in the private and incomplete email records were resolved in the peer reviewed literature and other open arenas. In particular, point 5 of your evidence is incorrect and irresponsible given that it casts unwarranted doubt over the findings of the IPCC.

Furthermore, your statement gives no recognition to the efforts of the scientists in question to engage with their critics before they were subjected to unfounded attacks on their work and integrity and orchestrated FoI request campaigns.

Finally, I am confused as to why the Energy group was tasked with preparing the statement and not the Environmental Physics group, who would have been more aware of the particular issues in this case.

I realise that a small clarification has been issued but if the IoP continues to stand by this statement then I will have no other option but to reconsider my membership of your organisation.

Yours faithfully,

Andy Russell MInstP

And more:

Dear Sir/Madam

As a member of the Institute of Physics I would like to register my extreme displeasure and unhappiness at the IOP submission to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee regarding the leaking of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (reproduced here) . In my view this submission will damage the scientific reputation of the Institute amongst scientists and other learned societies. This submission will prejudice my future confidence in any policy statements that the IOP makes.

My specific complaints of the submission are as follows:
1. Item 1 mis-represents the current scientific practice of sharing of data and methodologies. Currently methodologies are generally shared by publication in scientific journals not by the explicit sharing of computer source code. Raw experimental data from third parties is not routinely shared. To imply that the researchers at CRU are acting out of step with current practice is false.
2. Item 4 specifically casts doubt on the historical temperature reconstructions based on proxy measures whilst not acknowledging that such reconstructions have been repeated by a range of research groups using a range of methodologies, as described in the IPCC 2007 report.
3. Item 5 accuses the researchers at CRU of “suppression” of the divergence between proxy records and the more recent thermometer based record. This is ridiculous, the CRU has published on this very divergence in Nature.
4. Item 6 makes no recognition of the un-usual circumstances that CRU found themselves in, subjected to a large number of Freedom of Information requests, culminating in the publication of a substantial fraction of their private e-mail correspondence.
The subject of climate science and it’s relationship to anthropogenic climate change is an area subject to political interference, in my view the IOP’s submission is a political attack on the CRU at East Anglia University dressed in a flimsy scientific cover.
I expect the Institute to fully withdraw this submission to the Science & Technology Committee. I feel that the subsequent explanatory statement by the IOP is insufficient in addressing the shortcomings of the original submission. It also takes no cognisance of the fact the IOP position will be taken publicly to be the sum of all it’s published statements, and indeed that this submission will be preferred, over all others, as a presentation of the IOP’s policy by those who wish to deny the position on climate science that the IOP claims to hold.
I will be cancelling my direct debit mandate to the IOP now, I may decide to continue with my membership when it comes up for renewal.

yours sincerely,

Dr Ian Hopkinson

Looks like there’s a bit of explaining to do…

Advertisements

About Policy Lass

Exploring skeptic tales.

87 Responses to “IOP Backlash”

  1. Andy Russell writes:
    “In my view, it is unfair to criticise the CRU on the basis that they did not comply with data sharing standards that, at present, don’t exist.”

    This is simply untrue. The journals have standards. Nature has a policy on data archiving and sharing. So does Science and all of the major journals. CRU got a special dispensation from the journals so the editors would not enforce the policies. When one of the journal editors (I believe from Royal Society publishing) decided to enforce their policy, the CRU perps cried foul and some climate researchers vowed never to submit a paper to them again.

    I am amazed at how ignorant Andy Russell is of the facts. He could have learned about journal policies by reading Wikipedia.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_archiving
    And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing

  2. It seems Dr. Ian Hopkinson is equally torqued about the IOP submission and equally in the dark about the facts.

    Item #1 – Anyone reading the above listed Wikipedia articles and the references cited to the specific journal policies will see the source code is mentioned specifically.

    Item #2 – Anyone bothering to read both sides of the debate would know all of the other temp reconstructions rely on errors common to MBH98, such as use of bristlecone pine series, Yamal, etc.

    Item #3 – Publishing in the literature is not inconsistent with suppression of information to policymakers. The policymakers do not read the literature. The IPCC and the CRU has gotten away with this for years. No one paid any attention to the skeptics crying foul until the emails were made public. Now people can see how wrong this is. I’m surprised Dr. Hopkinson doesn’t get it.

    Item #4 – If CRU had just shared the data requested (as Phil Jones admits now he should have done), there would have been no need for FOI requests.

  3. I posted the following on Andy Russell’s website. Let’s see if it makes it through moderation.

    Ron Cram Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    March 5, 2010 at 7:14 am | Reply

    Andy Russell writes:
    “In my view, it is unfair to criticise the CRU on the basis that they did not comply with data sharing standards that, at present, don’t exist.”

    This is simply untrue. The journals have standards. Nature has a policy on data archiving and sharing. So does Science and all of the major journals. CRU got a special dispensation from the journals so the editors would not enforce the policies. When one of the journal editors (I believe from Royal Society publishing) decided to enforce their policy, the CRU perps cried foul and some climate researchers vowed never to submit a paper to them again.

    I am amazed at how ignorant Andy Russell is of the facts. He could have learned about journal policies by reading Wikipedia.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_archiving
    And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing

    Phil Jones refused to provide data to skeptics that it did provide to Peter Webster of Georgia Tech Univ. If it was okay to provide to Webster, then it has to be provided to everyone. Jones did not do that and has admitted publicly he should have provided the data to skeptics. I do not see what you hope to gain by trying to change the historical record.

    If Jones had provide the data, there would have been no need FOI requests. The vast majority of the FOIs had to do with determining which countries had actually required confidentiality so they could be petitioned to remove the requirement for the good of science. Jones even refused those reasonable requests saying he had lost some of the agreements. Not good.

  4. Ron Cram :
    Phil Jones refused to provide data to skeptics that it did provide to Peter Webster of Georgia Tech Univ. If it was okay to provide to Webster, then it has to be provided to everyone. Jones did not do that and has admitted publicly he should have provided the data to skeptics. I do not see what you hope to gain by trying to change the historical record.

    Oh dear, sceptics trying to slip that misrepresentation of the facts in again.

    Webster was working on a paper with Jones.

    But Webster points out that he was allowed access because of the nature of his request, which was very specific and will result in a joint publication with Phil Jones. “Reasonable requests should be fulfilled because making data available advances science”, says Webster, “but it has to be an authentic request because otherwise you’d be swamped”.

    Once the data become publicly available, Jones wants McIntyre to produce a global temperature record. “Science advances that way. He might then realize how robust the global temperature record is”, says Jones. Asked if he would take on the challenge, McIntyre said that it’s not a priority for him, but added “if someone wanted to hire me, I’d do it”.

  5. I have sent the following email to this address : physics@iop.org

    “Having just read the latest GUARDIAN article about your submission to the Select Committee on Science and Technology (“Climate emails inquiry: Energy consultant linked to physics body’s submission”), I would like to ask you how you can state, as quoted in that article : “we believe the case for openness remains just as strong”; while also maintaining that ‘the IOP would not reveal names’ and releasing ‘a statement from an anonymous member’ ?
    Either you agree with openness applied to all or you don’t. Do you believe that openness only applies to certain people and organisations ?

    To show your openness and transparency, please reveal the members of the Energy sub-committee of the Science board who drew up your submission to the above-mentioned Committee, as well as the members of the Science board who approved it and the ‘anonymous member’ who supplied the recent statement referred to in the GUARDIAN article mentioned.
    What have you got to hide ?

    Please be as open as you expect others to be.”

    Hopefully lots more people will do something similar.

  6. Just in case anyone missed it, a short Monbiot v Delingpole debate from yesterday which ends up with Delingpole looking annoyed – not surprising, given the way Monbiot shows him up :

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8549674.stm

  7. I see Ron puts in the lie about Yamal being “an error”, again. It isn’t, Ron. Briffa already showed McIntyre to be wrong on some aspects, Tom P showed him wrong on several others. McIntyre was wrong. Deal with it.

    And using bristlecone spines isn’t necessarily wrong either. They get tricky when they become strip-bark, but that only applies to really old trees.

    More lies from Ron are related to the journal policies. Nature explicitely states that reviewers may (!!!!!!!) ask for source code to be archived. Not a *must*, but a *may*. Note also the often made reference to “final data”. That would, for example, be the gridded data that CRUTEM delivers. NOT the raw data obtained from the NMSs and GHCN.

    Moreover, Ron claims the CRU people cried foul. I’d like to see a reference with evidence that supports that claim. If no such reference is forthcoming, I’m up to four major lies in one post from Ron Cram.

  8. Marco,
    All of the ancient bristlecone pine trees are strip bark trees and they are just not reliable. The NAS panel said they should be avoided and the effort to rehabilitate strip bark trees is doomed to failure.

    When Nature says reviewers “may” ask for source code, that means authors “will” provide it. It does not mean authors have the right to refuse. But when authors did refuse, Nature did not enforce their own policy.

    Regarding the CRU team from crying foul (okay, no one literally used the word “foul” but Ben Santer, an American who plays a big role in the emails, did complain about the journal enforcing its own policies), see this quote from the Wall Street Journal:

    “It didn’t stop there. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory complained that the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS) was now requiring authors to provide actual copies of the actual data that was used in published papers. He wrote to Phil Jones on March 19, 2009, that “If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available—raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations—I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular

    Calling me a liar is not going to stop me from telling the truth.

    • It seems rather ridiculous to be bashing on about BCPs and stripbark in light of the new Science study on release of CH4 from Siberia permafrost. Yes, it is preliminary evidence, but this is not good news. Hopefully more research can clarify just how much concern is due.

      Sent from my iPhone

  9. Ron Cram :
    Calling me a liar is not going to stop me from telling the truth.

    So will you admit to Peter Webster of Georgia Tech having completely legitimate grounds for having access to the data, in light of the fact that he was co-operating with Phil Jones on a publication?

  10. J Bowers,
    I think this is an excuse issued after the fact. Besides Webster was not the only person Jones had sent data to.

    If you think Jones was well within his rights to refuse McIntyre, why did Jones say regretted his decision?

  11. Ron Cram :
    J Bowers,
    I think this is an excuse issued after the fact.

    Yeah yeah. Sorry Ron, but the “sceptical” case is getting more and more ridiculous by the day, quite literally.

    In the meantime, the IoP’s Energy Group may have been off the radar up until now, but the screens are positively lighting up. This bit of background to Gill’s impartiality just makes the story better.

    Stoat has .more to say on the subject

    So the most likely scenario is that a small sub-group have got together to push this junk while the rest of the IOP (nice chaps and chapesses no doubt, but a bit dopey. If you’re an IOP person and object to being called dopey, fine, I eagerly await your personal non-dopey reaction to the IOP statement) slept.

    And even more to say .HERE

    Terri Jackson, founder of the Energy Group at the IoP does like to cherry pick her dates in true “sceptic” fashion…

    Since 2001 there has been no statistical significant warming over this present decade. Data from global temperature tracking stations confirms that the earth has indeed been cooling since 2001 with the spike from 1997 to 2000 due to the effects of the El Nino of 1998.

    Oh dear, 2001. Of course, if we go back a single year from then we see a very different picture.

    To make matters even sillier, what do we see from 1979 to the present day? Ta-dahhh! Statistical significance, anyone?

    And then the piece de resistance…

    “The University of Illinois has found that the net extent of sea ice, both Arctic and the Antarctic, has not changed over the past 30 years.

    Well, strongly.I beg to differ.

  12. Sorry for the link typos, but the comment would have been huge if I hadn’t tried to use formatting.

  13. J Bowers,
    None of what you say here has anything to do with the subject. The headpost is about the IOP’s submission supporting openness in science and you want to argue about sea ice extent and cherry picking dates. Certainly there is room for arguing these points, but you are attempting to change the subject.

    The point is the journals all have policies requiring authors to archive and share data. The scoffed at the policies. When a journal determined to uphold their policy, they through a fit.

  14. shewonk :
    It seems rather ridiculous to be bashing on about BCPs and stripbark in light of the new Science study on release of CH4 from Siberia permafrost. Yes, it is preliminary evidence, but this is not good news. Hopefully more research can clarify just how much concern is due.

    What study are you talking about? I would love to stop talking about BCP, if possible.

    • What study are you talking about? I would love to stop talking about BCP, if possible.

      Ha ha! I realize my post was totally OT, but I guess that’s why I got moderated over at CA… 😉

      I should start a separate thread for it but not tonight as I am now sick with what my son had earlier in the week. Brain just about ready to shut down…

  15. Ron Cram :Marco,All of the ancient bristlecone pine trees are strip bark trees and they are just not reliable. The NAS panel said they should be avoided and the effort to rehabilitate strip bark trees is doomed to failure.
    When Nature says reviewers “may” ask for source code, that means authors “will” provide it. It does not mean authors have the right to refuse. But when authors did refuse, Nature did not enforce their own policy.
    Regarding the CRU team from crying foul (okay, no one literally used the word “foul” but Ben Santer, an American who plays a big role in the emails, did complain about the journal enforcing its own policies), see this quote from the Wall Street Journal:
    “It didn’t stop there. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory complained that the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS) was now requiring authors to provide actual copies of the actual data that was used in published papers. He wrote to Phil Jones on March 19, 2009, that “If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available—raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations—I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.”
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular
    Calling me a liar is not going to stop me from telling the truth.

    Ron, it says REVIEWERS. That’s PRIOR TO PUBLICATION. You are referring to others demanding data after publication.

    And yes, *ancient* bristlecone pine trees become strip bark. However, the evidence that it supposedly is way too sensitive to CO2 concentrations to be useful is far from equivocal. The NAS panel comment came from one person (Frank Biondi) who had never worked with bristlecone pines. He may have been right based on indications in the literature, and he may have been wrong based on more recent publications.

    And thanks for the link to Ben Santer’s comment. It showed you lied. Ben Santer is not from CRU, no one from CRU cried foul, and it was not because the RSM would be actually enforcing their policy (but of a potential misunderstanding about *new* policy).

    Finally, I see you admitted that your reference to the use of Yamal being wrong was a lie. Thank you.

  16. Ron Cram :
    J Bowers,
    None of what you say here has anything to do with the subject. The headpost is about the IOP’s submission supporting openness in science and you want to argue about sea ice extent and cherry picking dates.

    Practice what you preach, Ron.
    https://shewonk.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/iop-backlash/#comment-1861

    You used Webster, I rebutted. Another denialist meme bit the dust, get over it.

  17. Ron Cram :J Bowers,I think this is an excuse issued after the fact. Besides Webster was not the only person Jones had sent data to.
    If you think Jones was well within his rights to refuse McIntyre, why did Jones say regretted his decision?

    Most likely because he hadn’t expect people getting all crazy, stealing his e-mails, and putting so much credibility on Steve McIntyre.

  18. High-elevation bristlecone pines show no difference between strip-bark and normal trees in their environmental response over the last several decades.

    This post-dates the NAS report and makes clear there’s no problem using carefully selected strip-bark pines.

  19. And, Ron Cram, you are just proving once again that you are a serial internet liar.

    Would anyone here ever do business with this man? I wouldn’t take a twenty from him without checking to be sure it’s not counterfeit.

  20. Ron Cram :
    J Bowers,
    Besides Webster was not the only person Jones had sent data to.

    Pick up your Texas Sharpshooter badge at the door.

  21. dhogaza, the study you linked is the one I had in mind when I said the effort to rehabilitate strip bark trees is doomed to failure. This is a terrible study.

    If you core the same strip bark tree in different places, you will get a different temp recon because the tree is not symmetrical. If you don’t understand what I mean, look at some pictures of these ancient trees and you will get some idea why tree ring widths will not be consistent if they cored in different places.

  22. J Bowers, I did not commit the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. The point is Jones provided the data to other researchers. Webster was the prominent one named, but the name does not matter. If Jones provides data to some but refuses it to skeptics, then he is avoiding scrutiny from those who challenge him – very unscientific. And very much on topic for me to point it out.

  23. Marco, they have to provide it to reviewers prior to publication, in part, to show it is ready for archiving upon publication. You have not said anything to disprove the fact journals all have policies on data sharing and archiving. The policies vary somewhat from journal to journal, but they are all attempting to uphold the standards of science of openness and transparency.

  24. Slightly off topic, but the Swedes are saying they never required data confidentiality.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/05/swedes-call-out-jones-on-data-availability/

    • Sightly off topic, but the Swedes are saying they never required data confidentiality.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/05/swedes-call-out-jones-on-data-availability/

      Ron that is patently disingenuous. Jones had a letter dated Dec 21, 2009 from the SMHI indicating the following:

      SMHI has in a letter, dated November 30, from UK MetOffice, received your request regarding the release of data from the HadCRUT dataset.

      Given the information that the version of the data from the SMHI stations that you hold are likely to differ from the data we hold, SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site.

      This is what he had when he spoke at the inquiry on March 1, 2010.

      The SMHI sent him a letter dated March 4 — 3 days after after the hearing clarifying their letter.

      With reference to the current debate regarding, amongst other things, access to climate data we have found that our letter to you dated 21 December 2009 unfortunately have rendered bad publicity both to SMHI and to the climate research community. We understand now that our response to your request forwarded by UK MetOffice 30 November 2009 may have been misinterpreted, maybe due to the fact that the formulations may have been a bit harsh.

      Please get the facts straight.

  25. Rattus Norvegicus Reply March 5, 2010 at 8:29 pm

    Ron Cram :
    J Bowers, I did not commit the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. The point is Jones provided the data to other researchers. Webster was the prominent one named, but the name does not matter. If Jones provides data to some but refuses it to skeptics, then he is avoiding scrutiny from those who challenge him – very unscientific. And very much on topic for me to point it out.

    Ron, just who were these other researhers? Inquiring minds want to know. And they also want to know what paper(s) resulted from said sharing and was Jones credited as a coauthor.

    You clearly live on a different planet.

  26. Rattus Norvegicus Reply March 5, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    Ron Cram :
    Marco, they have to provide it to reviewers prior to publication, in part, to show it is ready for archiving upon publication. You have not said anything to disprove the fact journals all have policies on data sharing and archiving. The policies vary somewhat from journal to journal, but they are all attempting to uphold the standards of science of openness and transparency.

    Hmm. This seems like an odd standard since no scientific code is really “ready for archiving” since much of it depends on the very least on the pathnames of the files involved and making it ready for archiving would involve fixing up these basic problems. Please, where did you get this information?

  27. Rattus Norvegicus Reply March 5, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    Ron Cram :
    Slightly off topic, but the Swedes are saying they never required data confidentiality.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/05/swedes-call-out-jones-on-data-availability/

    Did you read the first PDF linked in this post? Probably not, because the Swedish Met office specifically said that they did not want Jones to release the data.

  28. Rattus Norvegicus Reply March 5, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    Shooting Cram down is like taking candy from a baby.

  29. “Did you read the first PDF linked in this post? Probably not, because the Swedish Met office specifically said that they did not want Jones to release the data.”

    That wouldn’t make for a good tabloid headline, though.

  30. Rattus Norvegicus Reply March 5, 2010 at 11:27 pm

    Posted on CA:

    If you had bothered to read the first PDF, the Swedish Met office said they did not want Jones to release the data. This makes the story, well, nothing. Jones was right, you are wrong. Admit it.

  31. Rattus, yes, I read the first pdf. The Swedes do not like the homogenization Jones did and don’t want his altered version of the data to confuse people. They later recanted that particular stance, but the Swedes never said the data is confidential and that is why it is not to be shared. They told Jones they were making the data public themselves.

    This goes to the heart of the argument. There is no valid reason why climate data should be considered confidential to anyone. It is not crucial for national security. It is just wrong. That is why the readers of CA wrote so many FOIs to Jones in 2009 – to find out which countries were really claiming the data was confidential. Each participant took five countries and asked for the written agreements for those countries.

    The claim that climate data is confidential just does not pass the stink test. If some country truly claimed the data was confidential, we would have made an appeal for them to change their position. Science is not done in secret. End of story.

  32. Rattus, at 8:31 you ask:

    “Hmm. This seems like an odd standard since no scientific code is really “ready for archiving” since much of it depends on the very least on the pathnames of the files involved and making it ready for archiving would involve fixing up these basic problems. Please, where did you get this information?”

    It is found in guidance provided to researchers. Nature, for example, has a document called “Guide to publication policies of the Nature journals.”

    On page 12 of this document you will find:
    “We appreciate that reviewers are busy, and we are very grateful if they can answer the questions in the section above. However, if time is available, it is extremely helpful to the editors if reviewers can advise on some of the following points:”

    One of the points reviewers are asked to advise on:

    “Should the authors be asked to provide supplementary methods or data to accompany the paper online? (Such data might include source code for modelling studies, detailed experimental protocols or mathematical derivations.)”

    See http://www.nature.com/authors/gta.pdf

  33. You asked who Jones sent data to besides Webster? One guy is Scott Rutherford. In one email in 2005, Jones wrote to Michael Mann that he had just “sent loads of station data to Scott.”

    http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges

  34. I think I have answered all the questions, unsupported claims and misrepresentations. If I have missed one, let me know.

  35. Ron Cram :Slightly off topic, but the Swedes are saying they never required data confidentiality.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/05/swedes-call-out-jones-on-data-availability/

    Actually, it is a Swedish pseudoskeptic organisation claiming the SMHI did not require confidentiality. Unfortunately, the answer to Phil Jones clearly states
    “SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site”. Not all that ambiguous now, isn’t it? At the enquiry, Jones also noted that the Canadians do not want CRU to hand out their data, people should go to a Canadian site holding the data. Which is the same the Swedes are telling.

    More lies from the deniosphere trying to pin something on Jones that isn’t true. When will Ron Cram finally realise he’s siding with outright liars and distorters?

  36. Ron Cram :Rattus, yes, I read the first pdf. The Swedes do not like the homogenization Jones did and don’t want his altered version of the data to confuse people. They later recanted that particular stance, but the Swedes never said the data is confidential and that is why it is not to be shared. They told Jones they were making the data public themselves.
    This goes to the heart of the argument. There is no valid reason why climate data should be considered confidential to anyone. It is not crucial for national security. It is just wrong. That is why the readers of CA wrote so many FOIs to Jones in 2009 – to find out which countries were really claiming the data was confidential. Each participant took five countries and asked for the written agreements for those countries.
    The claim that climate data is confidential just does not pass the stink test. If some country truly claimed the data was confidential, we would have made an appeal for them to change their position. Science is not done in secret. End of story.

    At the enquiry, neither Jones nor Acton claimed that the data was confidential. They both accurately conveyed that *CRU* was and is not allowed to release the data. Factual accuracy versus unsubstantiated claims. I know which side I am backing. Ron now also knows which side *he* backs.

  37. This is ammusing:
    http://lordstansted.blogspot.com/2009/07/something-odd-going-on-in-institute-of.html

    One comment:

    Anonymous said…

    A friend of mine with a physics PhD from an Oz university thought he would join the Institute of Physics, that is until he was interrogated about the academic standards of the colonial uni. He joined the APS instead!

  38. Marco, at 2:31 am you wrote:

    “Actually, it is a Swedish pseudoskeptic organisation claiming the SMHI did not require confidentiality. Unfortunately, the answer to Phil Jones clearly states
    “SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site”. Not all that ambiguous now, isn’t it? At the enquiry, Jones also noted that the Canadians do not want CRU to hand out their data, people should go to a Canadian site holding the data. Which is the same the Swedes are telling.”

    Where are you getting your information? If you had bothered to read the pdfs linked by Watts, you would see they come from SMHI which is the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. The first pdf asks Jones not to release his version because data processing would be different than theirs, but the second version okays release as long as Jones makes it clear it is different from the Swedish version. Again, SMHI has never said the raw data should be confidential. They have never claim national security was at stake. They never claimed to have a confidentiality agreement with Jones. Jones had based his excuse for not releasing data on the existence of confidentiality agreements. At the hearing, he named Sweden as one of these countries and SMHI denied it.

  39. Let me clarify. Prior to the hearing, Jones had claimed the existence of the agreements. That was why readers of CA launched a series of FOI requests – to find out which countries. At the hearing, Jones mentioned several countries which had restricted release of the data and he mentioned Sweden. Jones did not mention that no confidentiality agreement with Sweden existed. Nor did Jones mention that Sweden was preparing to release the data publicly themselves, which was in the letter to Jones. Jones is telling half-truths designed to mislead.

  40. denial
    n.
    An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.

    denialist
    n.
    A person repeatedly dropped on their head as a baby.

  41. dhogaza, the study you linked is the one I had in mind when I said the effort to rehabilitate strip bark trees is doomed to failure. This is a terrible study.

    Now that is a convincing rebuttal to published work. Not.

    Odd, though, that all their stripbark pine cores just *happen* to correlate with the non-stripbark pine cores. If it were impossible to get meaningful cores then the results would vary randomly from the non-stripbark cores …

    I’ll choose “science behind door one, Alex”, not Ron Cram.

  42. They later recanted that particular stance, but the Swedes never said the data is confidential and that is why it is not to be shared. They told Jones they were making the data public themselves. This goes to the heart of the argument.

    Yes. The heart of the argument has always been “CRU does not have the right to release the data, you have to go to the country that owns the data”.

    Sweden says “CRU can not release the data, but we will”.

    Denialbots like Cram insist this means that Jones was lying when he said that CRU didn’t have permission to release the data.

    At the hearing, Jones mentioned several countries which had restricted release of the data and he mentioned Sweden. Jones did not mention that no confidentiality agreement with Sweden existed. Nor did Jones mention that Sweden was preparing to release the data publicly themselves, which was in the letter to Jones.

    The accusation against Jones has to do with FOI requests and the CRU response. The fact that the data is being made available by Sweden is irrelevant, because the charge is that *CRU* could’ve released the data themselves, and that Jones was lying when he said they couldn’t.

    While of course, the Swedes have made it clear that CRU was correct when they said that “we don’t have the right to release the data ourselves, you’ll have to go to the country which owns the data”.

    Has there ever been a clearer example of Ron Cram’s dishonesty than his posts on the Swedish data vs. Jones FOI requests?

    Ron Cram is not only a liar, but a vile one. Trying to smear a scientist and his institution by lying about the question (FOI response), Jones’s answer (we didn’t have permission), and the Swedes response (and we still won’t give CRU permission) is vile.

    I asked earlier, and am still interested, Ron: are these the values you were raised with, or did you adopt them on your own?

  43. I mean just look at the dishonesty on display here …

    The first pdf asks Jones not to release his version because data processing would be different than theirs

    So Jones is telling the truth when he says that CRU didn’t have the right to release it.

    , but the second version okays release as long as Jones makes it clear it is different from the Swedish version.

    But they finally relent. Ron apparently says CRU should’ve given the data back at FOI time because, now, months later, Sweden says “it’s OK”. It’s like justifying the stealing of $10 because the victim might, in the future, voluntarily give you $10.

    Again, SMHI has never said the raw data should be confidential. They have never claim national security was at stake. They never claimed to have a confidentiality agreement with Jones.

    The first two are strawmen. And clearly there was a confidentiality agreement, that’s why CRU wrote to ask if they could release it.

    Jones had based his excuse for not releasing data on the existence of confidentiality agreements. At the hearing, he named Sweden as one of these countries and SMHI denied it.

    I can’t believe the dishonesty here. Saying “no, you don’t have the right to release it” implies, of course, that when CRU got the data they had no right to release it, just as was said in the FOI response and in the hearing. If this weren’t true, CRU would not have had to write and ask. And the Swedes would not be able to say “no, you can’t release it” if previously they’d given CRU the data and the right to release it.

    And later saying “OK, we’ve changed our mind” further makes clear that when CRU originally got the data, they weren’t given the right to release it.

    Ron Cram. Liar. Vile.

    Of course, all of this is consistent with what McIntyre was told in the rejection to his appeal of the FOI denial. “Rejected because we can’t give you the proprietary data, but we are going to work with the various countries to try to make it available in the future”.

    So they’ve done so, just as they said they’d do months ago, and now they’re being called liars by vile scum like Ron Cram.

  44. This:

    Jones had based his excuse for not releasing data on the existence of confidentiality agreements. At the hearing, he named Sweden as one of these countries and SMHI denied it

    Was meant to be blockquoted, above, it is one of Ron Crams lies.

  45. dhogaza, I’m very proud of my values. I have not lied at all. I have respectfully confronted misunderstandings and misstatements of fact.

    You write:
    “The accusation against Jones has to do with FOI requests and the CRU response. The fact that the data is being made available by Sweden is irrelevant, because the charge is that *CRU* could’ve released the data themselves, and that Jones was lying when he said they couldn’t.”

    This is not true. At the time Jones was making the claim that he had confidentiality agreements with certain countries, Jones did not have one with Sweden. When Jones spoke at the hearing, he did have a recent letter but no confidentiality agreement but Jones made it sound as if a confidentiality agreement was in place with Sweden. Sweden took offense to this. They see the importance of having the data public. If Jones had been completely honest, he either would not have mentioned Sweden because he did not have a confidential agreement with them or he could have mentioned that Sweden had asked him not to release his homogenized data because Sweden is planning to release the raw data. But Jones did not choose either of those. He gave a half-truth designed to mislead. Sweden was mad about it and for good reason.

    You cannot win this argument, dhogaza. The facts cannot be changed. They are what they are. With your spin on things, Sweden has no reason to be mad and this report has to come from a “skeptic” organization. The SMHI is not a skeptic organization. It is the state agency in Sweden.

  46. Ron, Jones could not release the data. MacIntyre could have asked the Swedes.

    Is that too difficult to grasp?

  47. J Bowers, no, not difficult at all. In fact, if you have read my comments you would know this was what we (the readers of CA) were trying to do. Jones was not being helpful at all. He was hiding behind these confidentiality agreements. So the readers of CA sent FOI requests to find out which of the countries were asking him not to disclose data so we could ask them to change their position or release the data to Steve. It turned out very few of these agreements were found. Jones claimed he lost some of them.

    Jones now says he is sorry he refused Steve the requested data. Is that too difficult to grasp?

  48. This is not true. At the time Jones was making the claim that he had confidentiality agreements with certain countries, Jones did not have one with Sweden.

    Which, of course, is why CRU had to *ask* the Swedes for permission, and why the Swedes responded last year by saying “no”.

    They had to do this because CRU already had permission to release the data.

    Right.

    Slime and vile lies.

  49. It is nice to have your lies here on record, where we can give you the response you deserve.

  50. Jones is sorry in the sense of when a man is beaten to a pulp and wishes he’d just given the thugs his wallet before they set upon him. Your barrack room lawyer semantics are piteous.

  51. Rattus Norvegicus Reply March 6, 2010 at 11:32 am

    Ron,

    The fact that Jones had to ask SMHI for permission to release the data for at least some Swedish stations implies that those stations were not in the GHCN and were thus not in the public domain. In fact the data that SMHI will be releasing is still not in the public domain, contrary to the claims in the Stockholm Institute (Syndrome?). The letter states that the data are available for non-commercial purposes. This means that you have to agree to license terms which do not give you the right to redistribute the data:

    3.2 The Licensee owns no right to use the data or products provided under this agreement for commercial purposes and not for development or production of meteorological, hydrological and oceanographic value added-value services. The licensee does not own nor authorized to redistribute, sell, assign or otherwise transfer data products or documentation without further processing to third parties unless the parties have received written permission from SMHI.

    In the English language this is often referred to as a “confidentiality agreement”. I don’t know what this translates into in whatever language you speak.

  52. Ron Cram :dhogaza, I’m very proud of my values. I have not lied at all. I have respectfully confronted misunderstandings and misstatements of fact.
    You write:“The accusation against Jones has to do with FOI requests and the CRU response. The fact that the data is being made available by Sweden is irrelevant, because the charge is that *CRU* could’ve released the data themselves, and that Jones was lying when he said they couldn’t.”
    This is not true. At the time Jones was making the claim that he had confidentiality agreements with certain countries, Jones did not have one with Sweden. When Jones spoke at the hearing, he did have a recent letter but no confidentiality agreement but Jones made it sound as if a confidentiality agreement was in place with Sweden. Sweden took offense to this. They see the importance of having the data public. If Jones had been completely honest, he either would not have mentioned Sweden because he did not have a confidential agreement with them or he could have mentioned that Sweden had asked him not to release his homogenized data because Sweden is planning to release the raw data. But Jones did not choose either of those. He gave a half-truth designed to mislead. Sweden was mad about it and for good reason.
    You cannot win this argument, dhogaza. The facts cannot be changed. They are what they are. With your spin on things, Sweden has no reason to be mad and this report has to come from a “skeptic” organization. The SMHI is not a skeptic organization. It is the state agency in Sweden.

    More lies from Ron Cram. The Swedish confidentiality agreement was among the five release agreements. It states that Jones should not release the data to third parties.

    BTW, the spin to the SMHI letters ARE from a Swedish pseudoskeptic organisation.

  53. Ron Cram :Marco, at 2:31 am you wrote:
    “Actually, it is a Swedish pseudoskeptic organisation claiming the SMHI did not require confidentiality. Unfortunately, the answer to Phil Jones clearly states“SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site”. Not all that ambiguous now, isn’t it? At the enquiry, Jones also noted that the Canadians do not want CRU to hand out their data, people should go to a Canadian site holding the data. Which is the same the Swedes are telling.”
    Where are you getting your information? If you had bothered to read the pdfs linked by Watts, you would see they come from SMHI which is the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. The first pdf asks Jones not to release his version because data processing would be different than theirs, but the second version okays release as long as Jones makes it clear it is different from the Swedish version. Again, SMHI has never said the raw data should be confidential. They have never claim national security was at stake. They never claimed to have a confidentiality agreement with Jones. Jones had based his excuse for not releasing data on the existence of confidentiality agreements. At the hearing, he named Sweden as one of these countries and SMHI denied it.

    Wrong again, Ron. Jones mentioned Sweden as one of the countries denying him to release *their* data. He did not refer to confidentiality agreements in that respect. That the SMHI suddenly had to backtrack does not deny the fact that Jones accurately conveyed the contents of the letter he received: don’t share our data.

  54. This is my understanding: Please educate me where I am wrong:

    Sweden has its own station data, which it does some manipulation to (monthly mean?) and then it sends this data to CRU. CRU applies quality control to this data and homogenizes it for its own purposes. It then uses this CRU-altered data to create the “gridded product” Jones was talking about at the hearing.

    Jones asked Sweden if CRU could release the CRU-altered (aka quality controlled and homogenized) data it has for Sweden, which it admitted would be different than the original data Sweden sent it.

    Sweden said no.

    Jones said that to the hearing.

    In effect, he said Sweden told him it did not want CRU publishing the quality controlled and homogenized data as ‘original data’ — which it wasn’t. Sweden is the owner of that original data.

    Is this the correct interpretation?

  55. Marco, I don’t know about any spin by a skeptic organization. Why don’t you provide a link so we can see it?

    I did not write anything disingenuous to my knowledge. Jones did not make clear the recent letter explained that he was asked not to release the data because they planned to do so. It is that simple.

    If you all want to create an alternate reality that Jones is the quintessential truth-teller and the upholder of all scientific principles and practices, you have to explain why the SMHI did not want him to release his homogenized data and then relented as long as he made it clear it was not the raw data. You also have to explain why Jones did not explain the Swedes planned to release the raw data soon. Why didn’t he do that? Because it kinda shoots a hole in his claim the Swedes and other governments consider the data confidential.

  56. Also want to post this, since I raised it earlier:

    Real Climate has a post up on the Methane paper in the press.

    The take-home?

    …so far it is at most a very small feedback. The Siberian Margin might rival the whole rest of the world ocean as a methane source, but the ocean source overall is much smaller than the land source. Most of the methane in the atmosphere comes from wetlands, natural and artificial associated with rice agriculture. The ocean is small potatoes, and there is enough uncertainty in the methane budget to accommodate adjustments in the sources without too much overturning of apple carts.

    Could this be the first modest sprout of what will grow into a huge carbon feedback in the future? It is possible, but two things should be kept in mind. One is that there’s no reason to fixate on methane in particular. Methane is a transient gas in the atmosphere, while CO2 essentially accumulates in the atmosphere / ocean carbon cycle, so in the end the climate forcing from the accumulating CO2 that methane oxidizes into may be as important as the transient concentration of methane itself. The other thing to remember is that there’s no reason to fixate on methane hydrates in particular, as opposed to the carbon stored in peats in Arctic permafrosts for example. Peats take time to degrade but hydrate also takes time to melt, limited by heat transport. They don’t generally explode instantaneously.

    For methane to be a game-changer in the future of Earth’s climate, it would have to degas to the atmosphere catastrophically, on a time scale that is faster than the decadal lifetime of methane in the air. So far no one has seen or proposed a mechanism to make that happen.

  57. Ron Cram :Marco, I don’t know about any spin by a skeptic organization. Why don’t you provide a link so we can see it?
    I did not write anything disingenuous to my knowledge. Jones did not make clear the recent letter explained that he was asked not to release the data because they planned to do so. It is that simple.
    If you all want to create an alternate reality that Jones is the quintessential truth-teller and the upholder of all scientific principles and practices, you have to explain why the SMHI did not want him to release his homogenized data and then relented as long as he made it clear it was not the raw data. You also have to explain why Jones did not explain the Swedes planned to release the raw data soon. Why didn’t he do that? Because it kinda shoots a hole in his claim the Swedes and other governments consider the data confidential.

    Look at the piece, Ron, it refers to Göran Ahlgren. He’s from the Stockholm Initiative, known as a pseudoskeptic organisation.

    And Jones did not talk about data confidentiality in the sense that the data was completely hidden. He never has, he always has referred to the data being available at the NMSs. But as the letter makes clear, and corroborating what he has said himself time after time, *CRU* was not allowed to distribute that data. Note that at the hearing they also referred to Canada having the policy that *CRU* was not to be the distributor of data, people should get it from the Canadian organisation.

    That the SMHI backtracked is most certainly not because Jones misrepresented them. It is clearly because they were getting some flack. Note the difference between the first and second letter: “You are not allowed to release our data, we’ll do that ourselves, thank you” and “you are allowed to release our data, as long as you make it clear it is actually not really directly our data, and you refer to us”.

    The fact also remains that Jones, in response to FOI requests, showed a confidentiality agreement with the SMHI, in which they explicitely asked him NOT to give the data to third parties. What is there to misunderstand about that? again, that the SMHI is now (apparently) backtracking does not change the fact that Jones accurately conveyed what they told him: “don’t distribute our data”.

  58. Ron Cram :
    Jones did not make clear the recent letter explained that he was asked not to release the data because they planned to do so. It is that simple…

    Is Jones supposed to hold your hand and take you through everything word by word? Get a grip, man. You got it wrong, ’nuff said.

    Has Watts responded to Tamino and others trouncing his and D’aleo’s junk science yet, or has he still got the sniffles? Poor lamb, I hope he gets well soon so he can speed up his grovelling apology to the NOAA scientists he accused of dishonesty.

  59. Marco :
    The fact also remains that Jones, in response to FOI requests, showed a confidentiality agreement with the SMHI, in which they explicitely asked him NOT to give the data to third parties. What is there to misunderstand about that? again, that the SMHI is now (apparently) backtracking does not change the fact that Jones accurately conveyed what they told him: “don’t distribute our data”.

    Marco, he’s just using argumentum ad panto.
    “Oh, yes he did!”
    “Ohhhh, no he didn’t!”
    “Oh, yes he did!”…

  60. Rattus Norvegicus Reply March 6, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    Ron, Ron, Ron. The spin was the press release from the Stockholm Institute which Watts placed on his blog. And most Met services don’t consider the data confidential — they’ll gladly sell it to anyone willing to pay. Didn’t you notice that Marcus Falrup has the title “Sales Manager – Products and Data Wholesaling”?

    And Ron, although the SMHI has made some of the data available on its website, it is only available if you agree to the terms of a confidentiality agreement which limits your right to redistribute the data. I pointed this out several messages back, yet you have not acknowledged this fact. The SMHI wishes to limit distribution of the data by third parties because they sell the data to commercial weather services. Click on the links in the refusal letter to see the agreement, although you will have to use Google translate to read it.

    In the letter dated March 4, SMHI grants Jones permission to release the homogenized and QC’ed data. This is in accord with the terms of the license agreement pointed to above. Note that this letter was sent after Jones gave his testimony. He was being truthful at the time of his testimony, permission was finally granted after he testified.

  61. shewonk :
    Also want to post this, since I raised it earlier:
    Real Climate has a post up on the Methane paper in the press.
    The take-home?

    A relief for now. I still think AR5 is gonna make AR4 read like a Mills&Boon romance.

  62. Given the title of the SMHI correspondent,

    Marcus Flarup
    Sales manager – Products and Data Wholesaling
    Core Services – Information and Statistics

    one might think the SMHI had a standing commercial interest in not having their proprietary information distributed willy-nilly across the internet, but then expecting those of a septic mind (Ron) to actually think beyond their a priori presumptions might be asking a bit much.

  63. J Bowers :

    Marco :
    The fact also remains that Jones, in response to FOI requests, showed a confidentiality agreement with the SMHI, in which they explicitely asked him NOT to give the data to third parties. What is there to misunderstand about that? again, that the SMHI is now (apparently) backtracking does not change the fact that Jones accurately conveyed what they told him: “don’t distribute our data”.

    Marco, he’s just using argumentum ad panto.
    “Oh, yes he did!”
    “Ohhhh, no he didn’t!”
    “Oh, yes he did!”…

    Also known as argumentum ad cloaca

  64. Plague vector … I mean Rattus Norvegicus … I’ve taken the liberty of posting your find regarding the license over at Stoat, crediting the find to you. William Connelly has a thread up on this particular topic.

    That’s a great find, totally skewers the bullshit.

    • I just posted this over at WU. My comment is currently awaiting moderation.

      The data from SMHI could, as far as I understand, have been published years ago.

      Anyone can go to the SMHI website and download data but you have to agree not to disseminate it. I believe the website that includes the confidentiality agreement is here:

      http://data.smhi.se/met/climate/time_series/html/essential20.html

      Apparently, the SMHI wishes to retain the raw data so it can sell it commercially and if people can publish it anywhere they choose or send it to whomever they want, they would lose this ability.

      3.2 The Licensee owns no right to use the data or products provided under this agreement for commercial purposes and not for development or production of meteorological, hydrological and oceanographic value added-value services. The licensee does not own nor authorized to redistribute, sell, assign or otherwise transfer data products or documentation without further processing to third parties unless the parties have received written permission from SMHI.

      We’ll see if it gets through.

      ETA: Yep, it got through. There are so many complaints over there. When it was pointed out that CRU was not authorized to release the raw data, someone argues that was not the point — the point was that CRU did not have the original data so that others could replicate its research. But they only have to get the original data from SMHI and do the same analysis as CRU according to its published studies. They wanted CRU to release data it did not have the right to release and when this is pointed out, they find another reason to complain. The goalposts always move…

  65. So this is basically proof that Phil Jones is being smeared yet again?

    In anticipation of there being a news story on this I’ve sent an email to The Guardian making sure they’re aware of the facts. I’m expecting the Sunday Telegraph and Sunday Times to have the Stockhom Institute version up tomorrow (my first prediction on Sunday antiscience news stories, Susann).

  66. Climate Audit’s also going with the Swedish tall tale, authored by Watts. I posted the following:

    The Swedish license agreement is here:
    http://data.smhi.se/met/climate/time_series/html/essential20.html

    Dataserier 1961-2008

    3.2 The Licensee owns no right to use the data or products provided under this agreement for commercial purposes and not for development or production of meteorological, hydrological and oceanographic value added-value services. The licensee does not own nor authorized to redistribute, sell, assign or otherwise transfer data products or documentation without further processing to third parties unless the parties have received written permission from SMHI.

    Phil Jones was telling the truth.

  67. Big hat tip to Rattus Norvegicus.

  68. Ron Cram : I would like to buy some of the reality-changing stuff that you appear to be on. Can you let me know its name and how much you normally pay for it ? Hope it’s legal…

  69. Okay, so it seems an agreement was in place. Thank you for finding this. This still does not make Phil Jones the quinessential truth-teller or the upholder of all scientific principles and practices you may wish him to be. But I am willing to grant that an agreement was in place.

    JMurphy, the only reality-changing stuff I know of is truth. Some was discovered here today.

    But finding this does not let Jones off the hook. If Jones had truly supported openness, he would not have written in the emails that he would delete the data rather than release. Also, he could have freely identified which countries had confidentiality agreements so McIntyre and others could purchase the data. Science is supposed to be self-correcting, Jones did not do anything to help that process. He tried to block it at every step.

    Facts are facts. I am willing to change my view when the facts dictate. Are you?

  70. Rattus Norvegicus Reply March 6, 2010 at 10:58 pm

    Ron, Jones released the station list to Willis a few years ago. It is fairly easy to to a diff between this list and the GHCN list and figure out which stations were not included. Voila! you have a list of the met services which need to be contacted.

    And if you think that McI and others would have purchased the data, you really are living in an alternate reality. McI always knew that he could do this, but did he make any effort? None that I can see.

  71. Just like McIntyre had the Yamal data for years and continued to falsely accuse Briffa of not sharing.

    A very strange way of demonstrating good faith.

  72. Rattus Norvegicus Reply March 6, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    No, Cap’n Mc wants everything to be handed to him on a silver platter. Not very scientific, if you ask me. Real science takes real work.

  73. Rattus, where do you get your information? It would be news to me if Willis had the station list. You are speaking of Willis Eschenbach, correct?

    And yes, if only five countries had confidentiality agreements, McIntyre and others would have appealed to them to make the data public. If they refused, there is a good chance McI would have purchased it. At $100 a pop, it is only $500.

    But Jones could have said “Here’s my entire dataset, except for five countries which will not allow me to make their data available. You have to buy from them. Here’s who you need to talk to.”

    But Jones didn’t do that. Instead he said “We have 25 years invested in this data. Why should I give it to you when you only want to find something wrong with it?”

    Of course, the answer is because that is how science works! Science is supposed to be self-correcting but if people do not make the data, methods and code available, people cannot check their work.

    Even in high school math, you have to show your work so your errors can be found. Jones acted like he had something to hide. This is obvious throughout the emails. Your defense of Jones is a defense of pseudoscience.

  74. “Pseudoscience”, my left foot. McI is the one practicing cargo cult science with his prattling on about “auditing”. True replication in science comes from looking at the methods of others, and DOING IT YOURSELF, something McI and crew seem singularly unable to do. The GHCN dataset and other surface datasets are out there, and Zeke H., Tamino, and others have produced their own temperature anomalies time series that pretty much agree with Jones’s work. That’s the self-correction process of science in action there.

  75. Ron,

    You can very easily check the science. All you need to do is read the papers for the methodologies and get the raw data *elsewhere*. Remember also, CRU is NOT the repository of raw data. Of course, several others have shown that the temperature data is robust to different methodology (GISTEMP, CRUTEM, NCDC, JMA, and now several bloggers, too).

    Furthermore, 7 out of 59 NMSs already indicated they do not want Jones to distribute their data. That’s more than 5 out of 200+ countries and includes countries for which CRU could not find any confidentiality agreements (and they may very well have been oral).

    So, why the preoccupation with CRU? It’s because it nicely deflects from the real issue: there is increasing evidence that our anthropogenic emissions of various greenhouse gases is deleterious to the climate on earth. How do we get around that issue? Make up something about “hiding data”, and you’ll likely get some people to support you, put up a big mouth, and drown out the actual issue.

  76. Okay, so it seems an agreement was in place. Thank you for finding this.

    Ron Cram – honorable people find the truth BEFORE sliming people and working to destroy their reputation as you have done here, and at much more visible venues such as Dot Earth.

    I will give you credit for admitting you were wrong – I’ve not seen you do this before. Consider this the first step in a marathon-length journey.

  77. But finding this does not let Jones off the hook. If Jones had truly supported openness, he would not have written in the emails that he would delete the data rather than release. Also, he could have freely identified which countries had confidentiality agreements so McIntyre and others could purchase the data. Science is supposed to be self-correcting, Jones did not do anything to help that process. He tried to block it at every step.

    Facts are facts. I am willing to change my view when the facts dictate. Are you?

    McIntyre – and you, I might add – are assholes. If McIntyre played fair, perhaps Jones would’ve been nice and given him some pointers to help him get his hands on that data.

    But we know how McIntyre treats the climate science community. They can read. Jones, for instance, can read all of your lies online. I doubt he’s bothered, but I’m sure he’s read many of McIntyre’s lies.

    I don’t treat you nicely because you’re a vile lying scumbag. If I were Jones, I wouldn’t treat McIntyre nicely for exactly the same reason.

    If McIntyre continues to act like a total prick, he’s going to be treated by the science community as though he’s a total prick. He’s going to get uninvited to major dendro conferences, for instance. Scientists will abide with FOI requests as narrowly as possible, and will refuse to cooperate when the law allows them to.

    That’s just reality. And any group of scientists in any field would react in similar fashion if similarly attacked.

  78. Rattus Norvegicus Reply March 7, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Ron Cram :
    Rattus, where do you get your information? It would be news to me if Willis had the station list. You are speaking of Willis Eschenbach, correct?

    I got it from a post by Willis on WUWT detailing his adventures in FOI Land. This was around a year ago.

  79. A compatriot of the Swedish Initiative, Max Andersson, writes a highly critical article on their claims.
    http://maxandersson.blogspot.com/2010/03/climate-sceptics-are-wrong-about-phil.html

    This press-release have gained considerable attention on climate denier blogs but contains many factual errors. To begin with swedish data is not in the public domain. SMHI have recently made some data available on the internet for non commercial use, but under the explicit condition that the recipient is not allowed to disclose the data.

    The license agreement is very easy to find, and if you are able to read swedish the license agreement can be read here. Paragraphs §3.2 and 4.1 are the relevant ones and here’s a rough translation of §4.1

    4.1 The Licensee does not own the right på disclose, send on, link to or in any other way spread the contents of the data and/or products that has been recieved in accordance with this agreement to a third part.

    This is not public domain.

    But it is however standard policy for SMHI, and for most of the european wheather organisations. There are even some sort of common guidelines for this sort of thing. The SMHI and others are allowing scientists free access to their data, but they are not allowed to re-publish the data.

  80. Rattus Norvegicus Reply March 7, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    Max is generally correct here, although he statement that SMHI made an exception for CRU is incorrect. The current license agreement allows value added data, in this case CRU QC’ed and homogenized the data, to be released. The March 4th letter merely placed CRU on the under the same terms as the current license agreement. Note that this may be an exception to whatever agreement that CRU entered into with SMHI for the original data.

  81. Physicsworld.com (a website of the Institute of Physics) has an article on the IoP submission. First in the comment list is Bishop Hill banging on about deleting proxy data, etc. All the usual stuff is being posted, even by those who say they’re physicists :/

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41965

    I reckon everyone should sign up, it takes a minute to do. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: