« Cameron - You are out of time, Baby | Main | Cat Blogging - Aaaarrrh! »

Phil Jones - Nature Interview - His Loss of China Records "Not Acceptable"

Climatologist Phil Jones answers his critics in an exclusive interview with Nature

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."

UPDATE:

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.

Cheers,
Doug Keenan

Comments

"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"

*Rolls around on the floor kicking little legs in the air*

What science holds up? As far as I can see no data or computer code so far released into the public domain holds up. If the remaining unpublished stuff is in fact solid gold then they'd better publish it pronto- assuming of course that they do care what the public think of them.

Blogs hijacking peer review? I say, that's jolly clever of them. How?

Surely Phil Jones' version of the peer-review process is one that definitely needs hijacking - by a broad range of reviewers, who are independent of the author, prepared to publish/debate in public and have no vested interest in the result. Sounds like a plan to me. Where's the problem?

He should be praising the bloggers for cleaning up his (and the rest of the Team) corrupt and secretive process and shining a bright light into some very dark corners.

JohnRS said: "Surely Phil Jones' version of the peer-review process is one that definitely needs hijacking... "

We are not hijacking anything but liberating it! It had already been hijacked by politicians.

Language is a key factor in the political arguments around climate change and we should exploit this just as warmists have. Encircle them in their own rhetoric.

"Encircle them in their own rhetoric."

Judging by these latest comments from Phil Jones, they're doing it themselves.

"One of the most politically charged allegations is that Jones, together with scientific collaborators, tried to systematically downplay the importance of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a brief phase of natural, pre-industrial warming that may have occurred around 1000 AD."

Brief?

Too, go back to the BBC interview. The MWP was eraseable because the data supporting it were of the Northern Hemisphere while there was very little data of any kind from the Southern Hemisphere - unsaid, it was thus quite OK to assume that the Southern half of the Globe was considerably colder than the Northern half, and indeed that as the Northern continued to warm the Southern half must have cooled in almost direct proportion. Ditto the Little Ice Age, but in reverse?

And the rate of increase 1975-1998 (or, a sentence later, 1975-2009) was the same as 1910-1940. But the hockeystick showing something quite different in comparing those periods is correct?

As to loss of data, I can understand losing the paper records - but the computer files? Nope.

Spin may be a good thing for children's toy tops, but not so much for science. Come to that, this amount of spin done by a business (other than government) would be unacceptable and almost certainly criminal.

Post a comment