Phil Jones - Nature Interview - His Loss of China Records "Not Acceptable"
The Guardian Reports:
Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit at the University East Anglia, admitted it was "not acceptable" that records underpinning a 1990 global warming study have been lost.
The missing records make it impossible to verify claims that rural weather stations in developing China were not significantly moved, as it states in the 1990 paper, which was published in Nature. "It's not acceptable ... [it's] not best practice," Jones said.
He acknowledged that the stations "probably did move" but insisted he did not know this when he wrote the 1990 paper.
But he said that "the science still holds up".
Jones said critics were "trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion".
He said: "I don't think we should be taking much notice of what's on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process."
Dear Kind Sir,
Regarding your story "Climatologist Phil Jones answers his critics in an exclusive interview with Nature" it is notable how Nature went about reporting the story of the dispute between me and Jones. The dispute essentially boils down to this: one party accused another party of fraud. Nature's reporting consisted of asking the accused party if he was guilty, and finding that the accused declared himself innocent. The reporting did not include examining any evidence for the accusation, nor interviewing the accuser. (Inadequate resources could not be the problem, because the journalist traveled to Jones' university in Norwich, to do the interview.) Even without assessing the merits of my accusation, then, I believe it is fair to say that the reporting on this was a failure.
Also, I left a comment on the Nature web page (it's #2), which criticizes some of the claims made in the Nature article.