The Spectacle Blog
Apolitical Phil
Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia where the epicenter of Climategate hit, now has a new explanation for the now famous “trick” to “hide the (temperature) decline.
Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the epicenter of Climategate, now has a new explanation for the now famous “trick” to “hide the (temperature) decline:”
“The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste,” he said. “CRU has not sought to hide the decline.”
He provided the comments in an interview with the alarmist-friendly Guardian, which also helpfully linked updated statements from Jones and vice chancellor for research Trevor Davies, where Jones elaborated:
My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues.
So, “haste” and “heat” are to explain Jones’s efforts to manipulate data. The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell understands:
For people who don’t know any better, this looks like Professor Phil Jones, director of the CRU, is saying that he has used a “trick” that he got from Professor Michael Mann in order to “hide the decline.” First of all, we know that Professor Jones is a man of high integrity (as well as high competence in his field), so he would never do anything dishonest, sneaky, or duplicitous. Second, “trick” is a technical term often employed by the cream of climate scientists. It simply means employing a clever (or “slick”) method to accomplish some technical goal (in this case, “to hide the decline”). Anyone can see that “trick” is a much shorter and more elegant way to say that. And you’ve got to admire the verbal facility of these tip-top scientists. They are as articulate and literate as they are scientifically tip-top.
What is the clever method that Professor Jones learned from Professor Mann? I think he is referring to the way Professor Mann constructed his celebrated hockey stick graph. His proxy records showed flat temperatures for the past thousand years, including the past century. But everyone knows that temperatures have gone up rapidly in the past few decades. That’s what the surface temperature record compiled by Professor Jones at CRU shows. And everyone knows that Professor Jones’s temperature record is irreproachable, even though he destroyed the raw data. So what Professor Mann did was splice the last few decades of surface temperature records onto his proxy record. Voila!–the hockey stick. Over nine centuries of flat temperatures and then rapid warming in the late twentieth century. What Professor Mann did was simply make sure that ordinary people weren’t misled by the proxy data.
As for the many Freedom of Information inquiries CRU has received, Jones explains:
We have been bombarded by Freedom of Information requests to release the temperature data that are provided to us by meteorological services around the world via a large network of weather stations. This information is not ours to give without the permission of the meteorological services involved. We have responded to these Freedom of Information requests appropriately and with the knowledge and guidance of the Information Commissioner.
We have stated that we hope to gain permission from each of these services to publish their data in the future and we are in the process of doing so.
That doesn’t seem to comport with Jones’s statement in this email:
If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone….We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.
And:
I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails…According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on…
Sound like they’re really striving to “gain permission” to release data? Perhaps another FOI request would reveal how hard they are working at that. Meanwhile, I nearly spewed my afternoon Joe when I read this Jones comment to the Guardian:
But he stressed that he has never wished to get drawn into the political debate about climate change, saying: “I’m a very apolitical person, I don’t want to get involved in the politics, I’m much happier doing the science and producing the papers. I’m a scientist, I let my science do the talking, along with all my scientific climate colleagues. It’s up to governments to decide and climate science is just one thing they have to take into account with the decisions they have to make.”
Mr. Dispassionate Scientist shows how much he doesn’t care about political action in the updated UEA-CRU statement:
In the frenzy of the past few days, the most vital issue is being overshadowed: we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet.
One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.
Poor Phil. Maybe one day, after he’s somewhat rehabilitated his reputation, he can find work as a small-market TV weatherman utilizing his expertise in covering local meteorological myths and legends:
View all comments (52) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by Paul Chesser
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/apolitical-phil
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 5:21PM
Apolitical Phil - Spectator.org | The Warming Zone links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Dave| 11.24.09 @ 6:02PM
Speaking of Trevor Davies (who used to be the UEA Environmental Dean and now he's a UEA Vice Chancellor), here he is using data that he filtched in order to get milions of dollars in grants, but he wanted it all hush-hush:
"I now have a leaked document which spells out some of the research councils' thinking. I will get a copy over to CRU today. Please keep this document within the CRU5, since it may compromise the source. NERC and EPSRC are signed up. ESRC are not yet. Given the EPSRC stake, it will certainly be be useful to get RAL etc involved. The funding might be 2 million per year."
http://www.eastangliaemails.co.....823304.txt
Who knows what other dirty deads they've been up to that just hasn't entered the record yet, but when the Dean (and now Vice Chancellor) is doing that, it certain raises questions of institutional integrity.
Mark | 11.24.09 @ 9:33PM
Good morning Mr. Connors and how did you sleep last night?
I slept alone Mrs. Lancaster.
Gary Plyler| 11.25.09 @ 1:13AM
So, just how do these revalations effect whether or not Global Warming is primarily caused by man made CO2?
Following is an explaination of how serious this scandal is to the warmist views:
There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. This is clearly evident from 4 independent sources using 2 separate methods. The following link will provide a plot of this data in a monthly format:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...../from:1998
None of the computer models can replicate this fact using back-casting. Anthropogenic (or man caused) global warming is not proved.
The global warming adherents base their argument of proof on more than 20 different computer models called general circulation models (also known as global climate models or GCMs). Each computer model is composed of dozens of mathematical equations each representing a known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each of these equations has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong. Then each of these equations has to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional variable (basically an educated guess) for each law, theory, and hypothesis.
This is where the models are tweaked to mimic past climate measurements based on the peer reviewed paleoclimatology papers and studies. Now we find that at CRU, by deleting the Medieval Warm Period, minimizing the Little Ice Age, and using a “trick” on the last half of the 20th Century, that allowed them to use grossly overstated coefficients and independent variables in ALL of the GCMs. Then all the GCMs say we ‘may’ burn up in the year 2100.
The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Following years of academic study of the known physical laws and accepted theories, and after reviewing some data, come up with a hypothesis to explain the data. (2) Develop a plan to obtain and analyze new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication.
The output of the computer models run out nearly 90 years forward is considered to be data, but it is not a measurement of a physical phenomenon. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the models are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated and incorporated into the models. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Also in the current data scandal, sharing of the raw data with other researchers and the general public was dishonestly resisted. This hiding of data obtained through US and UK taxpayer funded data is dishonorable.
The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.
You may find it interesting what the head of the IPCC said more than 1-1/2 years ago concerning the lack of new annual high global temperatures:
http://www.reuters.com/article.....1720080111
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said (more than 1-1/2 years ago) that he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.
"One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.
Also in this article from more than 1-1/2 years ago, Amir Delju, senior scientific coordinator of the World Meteorological Organization's (WMO) climate program, said temperatures would have to be flat for several more years before a lack of new record years became significant.
We are now more than three quarters of the way to having significant doubts about the GCMs, according to Amir Delju's own criterion. Which hypotheses in the models need adjustment? Which hypotheses need to be rejected? What new hypotheses, like Svensmark's solar-GCR-cloud hypothesis, need to be embraced and incorporated into the models?
Thank you for time.
Respectfully,
Gary Plyler
BSME, MSNE
Adam Smith| 11.25.09 @ 1:42PM
Gary,
It is also of note that CRU went in and altered the code in the computer models when even the cherry picked & massaged data would not validate thier hypothesis (whichever one they are pushing at the moment).
The fact that not just the data are invalid, but also the variables, make the entire subject a joke and the biggest scientific scandal since the Catholic Church and Galileo.
Thanks for the additional info on this scam. None of the idiots involved in this should even be allowed near a test tube and have made a total mockery of science and scientific method.
They are in fact anti-scientists and need to be prosecuted under RICO on behalf of taxpayers around the globe.
Larry Scalf| 11.25.09 @ 9:44AM
The last time I heard rationalizations like the ones I read from Phil Jones, they were from my-son-the-teenage-lawyer. It is a teenage-lawyer like logic that drives the climate alarmists these days. The hand has been caught in the cookie jar.
Richard Baker| 11.25.09 @ 3:26PM
If an undergraduate physics or chemistry student attempted to do this , they'd be graded down for it and be chastised for intellectual fraud. However, Dr. God can't be criticized, no. Trying to save the planet, don't you know? I guess these frauds never heard of the scientific method.
Dennis Patterson| 11.25.09 @ 11:49PM
I dare say a student might very well be failed, not simply graded down.
geo| 11.25.09 @ 3:51PM
In other words:
Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
Pingback| 11.25.09 @ 3:52PM
WELCOME TO THE CLIMATEGATE GATEWAY!!! « Oldhardhead's Weblog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Clinger| 11.26.09 @ 10:36PM
How unfortunate and criminal that the global warming scientific community is not inclined to peer review as is the scientific community that clones dogs and performs stem cell research. Perhaps there is a parallel and they too are engaged in embezzlement as was Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, who was formerly honored with the title “Supreme Scientist” by the South Korean Government. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....890229.ece
Clinger| 11.26.09 @ 10:36PM
How unfortunate and criminal that the global warming scientific community is not inclined to peer review as is the scientific community that clones dogs and performs stem cell research. Perhaps there is a parallel and they too are engaged in embezzlement as was Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, who was formerly honored with the title “Supreme Scientist” by the South Korean Government. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....890229.ece
Brian| 11.27.09 @ 1:56AM
I find it interesting that most degreed conservatives are in the fields of Business, Engineering, and Medicine. (These careers require them to perform with measurable metrics and proven success.
Liberals on the other hand, have degrees in Liberal Arts, Literature, Journalism, Education, Politics, Law, and now Environmental "science". (None of these have ANY measurable metric with which to base success or failure, yet they are allowed to thrive).
Tell me which group is really capable of even having a discussion based on Facts and Truth. (I'll give you a hint - its not hippy anti-american, anti-conservative, anti-family, anti-responsibility, anti-religion whiners who have free time every day to protest).
Jon Adams| 11.27.09 @ 2:19AM
@Gary Plyler -
Great comment... would you consider reposting at WUWT -Anthony Watts or CA - Steve McIntyre - I think you may have the core of an executive summary...
Tkdblk3?4| 11.27.09 @ 5:24PM
"it never happened, it wasn't me, it was an accident, and besides they deserved it."
Big Al| 11.28.09 @ 9:32AM
It is all about trust and of betrayed trust. We should always be suspicious when the Mainstream media, Government apparatchniks and scientists are all nodding at the same time. Follow the money and you will see the sources of the money and the beneficiaries of the money and the mouthpieces which tell you not to pay any attention to what is transpiring. Time to be making some big changes in what theories to listen to, who to listen to and who is allowed to touch the purse-strings.
Nick| 11.29.09 @ 1:04PM
Adam Smith,
Actually, Galileo was wrong. Not about heliocentrism, but his calculations were wrong. So he could not prove his theory.
He decided to pick a fight a fight with the most powerful man in Italy, the Holy Father. Not too smart, if you ask me. He should have had his facts straight. This is why he was punished.
Which Pope John Paul II apologized for in A.D. 2000.
victor| 12.1.09 @ 8:13PM
Galileo had his facts straight, but the "world's consensus" led by the Al Gore of his day, believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe.
In fact Galileo proved that the earth revolved around the sun, but he, as with the global warming deniers, was charged with heresy and forced to recant.
Fortunately, Al Gore is not the pope, no matter what he believes.
Trackback| 12.2.09 @ 4:11AM
how to fix my credit, on how to fix my credit, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.10.09 @ 12:22PM
Who Is Big Global Warming’s Daddy? | GlobalWarming.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.15.10 @ 7:44AM
Revenge of the Nerds: Climategate Is Following the Memogate Pattern « The Enterprise links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
pigment Red | 4.6.10 @ 3:21AM
pigment Red
czmaxpct@gmail.com
Never frown, Ink Pigments
even when you are sad,Organic Pigments because you never know who is falling in love with your smile.
louis vuitton | 4.26.10 @ 10:28PM
we election in this sprawling upstate district represents a political "revolution." canada goose another ACORN revelation (presumably from the O'Keefe/Giles video duo) is coming tomorrow, and he characterized it as "devastating.