Phil Jones vindicated

The House of Commons report on the emails stolen from CRU has vindicated Phil Jones — he has “no case to answer”:

The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.

In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty–for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”–we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”

James Annan points out that it is the governments own policy of wanting ownership of intellectual property that is preventing the publication of raw data and code.

See also: William Connolley, Eli Rabbet, Joe Romm and Clive Hamilton.

A big raspberry to Fred Pearce, who won’t let go of his vendetta against Jones.

Comments

  1. #1 el gordo
    April 2, 2010

    BJ

    Just wanted to get the conversation back to climate and away from political science.

  2. #2 el gordo
    April 2, 2010

    Any suggestions for the anomaly in the Gulf of Mexico?

    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

  3. #3 SC (Salty Current)
    April 2, 2010

    What is the optimal temperature of the planet?

    Posted by: The Planet Has Been Cooling Since 1998 | April 2, 2010 8:18 PM

    This, by the way, is Global Warming is a Scam, also long banned at Pharyngula (for insipidity). One of the most tedious trolls ever to darken the face of the internet. He hasn’t been here before?

    I recommend termination with extreme prejudice.

  4. #4 John Mashey
    April 2, 2010

    re: Optimal temperatures
    Try another answer:

    There is a narrow band of temperatures for the last 2000 years, and an even narrower band for the last 500, when most of the infrastructure for current human civilization has been built. It assumes rainfall patterns, river flows, plant and animal breeding, and sea level, and those things help determine where people live. It’s not that that any temperature is optimal, it’s that pour infrastructure and agriculture are built assuming a big thermostat.

    Departing very far in *either* direction is going to be very expensive for human civilization, especially those countries blessed with long low coastlines (which tend to help countries be rich, given efficient water transport).
    Put another way: the USA should hate AGW, but Russia has to love it: they might eventually lose St. Petersburg, but they generally don’t have a high percentage of people on the coast, and less ice in the Arctic is great for them.

    Sea-level rise takes a while, but moving rainfall from places already dry to places already wet shows up much earlier. Most developed-world people aren’t farmers or they would worry a lot more about this.

  5. #5 el gordo
    April 2, 2010

    No SH hurricane trend, so we can assume this is the result of global warming.

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

  6. #7 Bruce Sharp
    April 2, 2010

    The “ideal temperature” bit is one of Plimer’s talking points, and [Tim had a sensible answer several months ago](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/i_must_be_psychic_2.php): “Unless you are a dinosaur or something, it’s the temperature we had when we built our current civilization.” [John Mashey's post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/phil_jones_vindicated.php#c2398843) explains why.

  7. #8 John
    April 3, 2010

    Well, Bruce, many denialists are dinosaurs.

  8. #9 Only Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    From the report:

    “In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community.[hiding data] It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. However, climate science is a matter of great importance and the quality of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work (including raw data) and full methodological workings (including the computer codes). Had both been available, many of the problems at UEA could have been avoided.”

    Sounds like peer reviewed data without the peers…. “It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers”…..

    Climate ‘science’ is a hoax.

  9. #10 Only Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    BTW none of Jones’ work is repeatable [as he hides his data because his dog chewed it up], therefore, if it is not repeatable by independent review, it is not science.

    Please change to ‘Jones found to have hidden data, denialists vindicated.’

  10. #11 Marion Delgado
    April 3, 2010

    The denier above, who if he actually has a phd has it in marketing and baraminology from the back of a box of Cheerios, wants us to call him names, instead of using the accurate term denier.

    Well, yes, we do believe he’s also LYING, but the denier part is the most obvious and provable.

    As for us being low lives, we’re the ones that have consistently taken the high road. And we’ll stay on that road while the Morlocks sharpen their pieces of metal and glower through the darkness at us.

  11. #12 Think Big
    April 3, 2010

    @108 A lot of deniers are also neo-cons so how about the term ‘denio-con’?

  12. #13 Other Mike
    April 3, 2010

    @109,119. Actually, since “climategate” there has been an avalanche of raw data and computer code released. Well, a lot of it was already on the web anyway but nothing exists in denialiati-world unless it is placed 2 inches under their nose, and even then they sometimes need instructions on how to find it (makes me wonder how they get to the loo sometimes).

    We are all waiting patiently – very patiently indeed – for the comprehensive data analyses to come churning out from climate sceptics.

    Any day now…….yep…….it’ll be here soon……(sound of crickets chirping, leaves rustling).

  13. #14 Other Mike
    April 3, 2010

    Sorry, that was aimed at 109,110 obviously. “Only computer geeks rely on computer models”.

    Oh by the way, I like your pseudonym. Flown in a plane recently? There is a reason I ask that question, which the more astute people on this blog will fully understand. I don’t want to go through how things like airliners and a myriad of other things are designed and their predicted properties figured out.

  14. #15 Only Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    Mk,y hxrs hv bn cght t hdng dt, s chll t!

  15. #16 el gordo
    April 3, 2010

    ‘No other branch of science is as politically charged. A religious war is raging between alarmists and skeptics, and it threatens to consume levelheaded climatologists. But it is a critical conflict, because it revolves around something as massive as the total restructuring of industrial society, a venture that will cost trillions of euros. Powerful economic interests and unshakeable fundamental beliefs come into play.’

    Spiegel Online

  16. #17 Steve S
    April 3, 2010

    The claim that Jones’ work is not repeatable I presume refers to the CRU / Hadley temperature time series. This claim is quite weird.

    If you compare UAH to Hadley temperature timeseries you will notice that their trends are quite similar. As well if you compare the temperatures for January and February for this year you will find that UAH values are: 0.613 and 0.720 while the CRU / Hadley values are: 0.495 and 0.460. Does this mean that Spencer and Christie are also involved in the Grand Conspiracy? (I expect that everyone who comes to this blog know that Spencer and Christie are “skeptics”.)

    The fact that CRU / Hadley is just one of five termperature groups that come up with similar results seems to make clear that Jones’ results are quite repeatable.

  17. #18 stepanovich
    April 3, 2010

    Shorter Only Computer Geeks rely on computer models:

    Phil Jones hid data! Phil Jones hid data! Phil Jones hid data! And even if Phil Jones didn’t hide data, he would’ve analysed the data to form, Heaven forbid, computer models, so whether or not he hid data, he’s still wrong.

  18. #19 stepanovich
    April 3, 2010

    Shorter el gordo:

    Here’s an opinion piece on climate science saying that there are a lot of opinion pieces on climate science.

  19. #20 Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    “Th fct tht CR / Hdl s jst n f fv trmprtr grps tht cm p wth smlr rslts sms t mk clr tht Jns’ rslts r qt rptbl.” rptng hx tms dsn’t mk t scnc. Rd th rprt stv; “t s nt stndrd prctc n clmt scnc t pblsh th rw dt nd th cmptr cd n cdmc pprs.” Clmt scntsts r nt scntsts th r hxrs, f th hd thr dt t s nt scnc. Pls chng th ttl t dnlsts vndctd.

  20. #21 Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    “Th fct tht CR / Hdl s jst n f fv trmprtr grps tht cm p wth smlr rslts sms t mk clr tht Jns’ rslts r qt rptbl.” rptng hx tms dsn’t mk t scnc. Rd th rprt stv; “t s nt stndrd prctc n clmt scnc t pblsh th rw dt nd th cmptr cd n cdmc pprs.” Clmt scntsts r nt scntsts th r hxrs, f th hd thr dt t s nt scnc. Pls chng th ttl t dnlsts vndctd.

  21. #22 Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    “Th fct tht CR / Hdl s jst n f fv trmprtr grps tht cm p wth smlr rslts sms t mk clr tht Jns’ rslts r qt rptbl.” rptng hx tms dsn’t mk t scnc. Rd th rprt stv; “t s nt stndrd prctc n clmt scnc t pblsh th rw dt nd th cmptr cd n cdmc pprs.” Clmt scntsts r nt scntsts th r hxrs, f th hd thr dt t s nt scnc. Pls chng th ttl t dnlsts vndctd.

  22. #23 Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    “Th fct tht CR / Hdl s jst n f fv trmprtr grps tht cm p wth smlr rslts sms t mk clr tht Jns’ rslts r qt rptbl.” rptng hx tms dsn’t mk t scnc. Rd th rprt stv; “t s nt stndrd prctc n clmt scnc t pblsh th rw dt nd th cmptr cd n cdmc pprs.” Clmt scntsts r nt scntsts th r hxrs, f th hd thr dt t s nt scnc. Pls chng th ttl t dnlsts vndctd.

  23. #24 Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    “Th fct tht CR / Hdl s jst n f fv trmprtr grps tht cm p wth smlr rslts sms t mk clr tht Jns’ rslts r qt rptbl.” rptng hx tms dsn’t mk t scnc. Rd th rprt stv; “t s nt stndrd prctc n clmt scnc t pblsh th rw dt nd th cmptr cd n cdmc pprs.” Clmt scntsts r nt scntsts th r hxrs, f th hd thr dt t s nt scnc. Pls chng th ttl t dnlsts vndctd.

  24. #25 Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    “Th fct tht CR / Hdl s jst n f fv trmprtr grps tht cm p wth smlr rslts sms t mk clr tht Jns’ rslts r qt rptbl.” rptng hx tms dsn’t mk t scnc. Rd th rprt stv; “t s nt stndrd prctc n clmt scnc t pblsh th rw dt nd th cmptr cd n cdmc pprs.” Clmt scntsts r nt scntsts th r hxrs, f th hd thr dt t s nt scnc. Pls chng th ttl t dnlsts vndctd.

  25. #26 Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    “Th fct tht CR / Hdl s jst n f fv trmprtr grps tht cm p wth smlr rslts sms t mk clr tht Jns’ rslts r qt rptbl.” rptng hx tms dsn’t mk t scnc. Rd th rprt stv; “t s nt stndrd prctc n clmt scnc t pblsh th rw dt nd th cmptr cd n cdmc pprs.” Clmt scntsts r nt scntsts th r hxrs, f th hd thr dt t s nt scnc. Pls chng th ttl t dnlsts vndctd.

  26. #27 Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    “Th fct tht CR / Hdl s jst n f fv trmprtr grps tht cm p wth smlr rslts sms t mk clr tht Jns’ rslts r qt rptbl.” rptng hx tms dsn’t mk t scnc. Rd th rprt stv; “t s nt stndrd prctc n clmt scnc t pblsh th rw dt nd th cmptr cd n cdmc pprs.” Clmt scntsts r nt scntsts th r hxrs, f th hd thr dt t s nt scnc. Pls chng th ttl t dnlsts vndctd.

  27. #28 Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    “Th fct tht CR / Hdl s jst n f fv trmprtr grps tht cm p wth smlr rslts sms t mk clr tht Jns’ rslts r qt rptbl.” rptng hx tms dsn’t mk t scnc. Rd th rprt stv; “t s nt stndrd prctc n clmt scnc t pblsh th rw dt nd th cmptr cd n cdmc pprs.” Clmt scntsts r nt scntsts th r hxrs, f th hd thr dt t s nt scnc. Pls chng th ttl t dnlsts vndctd.

  28. #29 Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    “Th fct tht CR / Hdl s jst n f fv trmprtr grps tht cm p wth smlr rslts sms t mk clr tht Jns’ rslts r qt rptbl.” rptng hx tms dsn’t mk t scnc. Rd th rprt stv; “t s nt stndrd prctc n clmt scnc t pblsh th rw dt nd th cmptr cd n cdmc pprs.” Clmt scntsts r nt scntsts th r hxrs, f th hd thr dt t s nt scnc. Pls chng th ttl t dnlsts vndctd.

  29. #30 Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    “Th fct tht CR / Hdl s jst n f fv trmprtr grps tht cm p wth smlr rslts sms t mk clr tht Jns’ rslts r qt rptbl.” rptng hx tms dsn’t mk t scnc. Rd th rprt stv; “t s nt stndrd prctc n clmt scnc t pblsh th rw dt nd th cmptr cd n cdmc pprs.” Clmt scntsts r nt scntsts th r hxrs, f th hd thr dt t s nt scnc. Pls chng th ttl t dnlsts vndctd.

  30. #31 Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    “Th fct tht CR / Hdl s jst n f fv trmprtr grps tht cm p wth smlr rslts sms t mk clr tht Jns’ rslts r qt rptbl.” rptng hx tms dsn’t mk t scnc. Rd th rprt stv; “t s nt stndrd prctc n clmt scnc t pblsh th rw dt nd th cmptr cd n cdmc pprs.” Clmt scntsts r nt scntsts th r hxrs, f th hd thr dt t s nt scnc. Pls chng th ttl t dnlsts vndctd.

  31. #32 Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    “Th fct tht CR / Hdl s jst n f fv trmprtr grps tht cm p wth smlr rslts sms t mk clr tht Jns’ rslts r qt rptbl.” rptng hx tms dsn’t mk t scnc. Rd th rprt stv; “t s nt stndrd prctc n clmt scnc t pblsh th rw dt nd th cmptr cd n cdmc pprs.” Clmt scntsts r nt scntsts th r hxrs, f th hd thr dt t s nt scnc. Pls chng th ttl t dnlsts vndctd.

  32. #33 Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    “Th fct tht CR / Hdl s jst n f fv trmprtr grps tht cm p wth smlr rslts sms t mk clr tht Jns’ rslts r qt rptbl.” rptng hx tms dsn’t mk t scnc. Rd th rprt stv; “t s nt stndrd prctc n clmt scnc t pblsh th rw dt nd th cmptr cd n cdmc pprs.” Clmt scntsts r nt scntsts th r hxrs, f th hd thr dt t s nt scnc. Pls chng th ttl t dnlsts vndctd.

  33. #34 Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    “Th fct tht CR / Hdl s jst n f fv trmprtr grps tht cm p wth smlr rslts sms t mk clr tht Jns’ rslts r qt rptbl.” rptng hx tms dsn’t mk t scnc. Rd th rprt stv; “t s nt stndrd prctc n clmt scnc t pblsh th rw dt nd th cmptr cd n cdmc pprs.” Clmt scntsts r nt scntsts th r hxrs, f th hd thr dt t s nt scnc. Pls chng th ttl t dnlsts vndctd.

  34. #35 Computer Geeks rely on computer models
    April 3, 2010

    “Th fct tht CR / Hdl s jst n f fv trmprtr grps tht cm p wth smlr rslts sms t mk clr tht Jns’ rslts r qt rptbl.” rptng hx tms dsn’t mk t scnc. Rd th rprt stv; “t s nt stndrd prctc n clmt scnc t pblsh th rw dt nd th cmptr cd n cdmc pprs.” Clmt scntsts r nt scntsts th r hxrs, f th hd thr dt t s nt scnc. Pls chng th ttl t dnlsts vndctd.

  35. #36 Steve S
    April 3, 2010

    Computer Geek,
    Your comment “repeating a hoax 5 times doesn’t make it science” shows how deeply you are into delusion.

    Let me get this clear, you seem to be saying that all of the five groups developing temperature timeseries are hoaxing the climate data. Two of the groups use satelites to determine global temperatures and three of them use surface measurement. So the evidence of warming comes from two quite different methods. Your claim that these groups are involved in a hoax includes Spencer and Christie, who are two of the very small number of “skeptics” who are actively researching.

    I am sure Spencer and Christie they would be very interested in that claim. Please go over the Spencer’s site (http://www.drroyspencer.com/) and tell him that, and then come back here and inform us of his reply.

  36. #37 Steve S
    April 3, 2010

    The comment that I was replying to from Computer Geek, seems to have been corrupted. The statement “repeating a hoax 5 times doesn’t make it science” was in the comment before it became corrupted.

  37. #38 Other Mike
    April 3, 2010

    Read what you quoted yourself, Computer Geeks.

    “It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers.”

    No it isn’t. It never has been. It still isn’t. Publishing the raw data with the papers is not standard practice in many (most in fact, I think) areas of science. The data is held by the people who did the research. To get it and check it, you either ask them nicely for it, or you go to their website where you often find it anyway.

    Now that it actually is available to anyone, which part of “We are all waiting patiently – very patiently indeed – for the comprehensive data analyses to come churning out from climate sceptics” did you not understand?

  38. #39 Only Computer Geeks rely on computer models:
    April 3, 2010

    Censoring dissenters wont make you fraudulent commies bastards right, obviously the truth hurts doesn’t it hoaxers? I rest my case and am out of here.

  39. #40 stepanovich
    April 3, 2010

    Shorter Only Computer Geeks rely on computer models:

    Phil Jones hid data! Phil Jones hid data! PHIL JONES HID DATA! PHIL JONES HID DATA!!! PHIL JONES HID DATA!!!!!! I’M SHOUTING AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS, SO I’M OBVIOUSLY TELLING THE TROOF!!! THE TROOF!!! AND YOU HATE THE TROOF!!!! THE TROOF!!!

  40. #41 stepanovich
    April 3, 2010

    Steve S:

    Lambert moderated the troll’s comment by disemvowelling it.

  41. #42 Bernard J.
    April 3, 2010

    [Steve S](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/phil_jones_vindicated.php#comment-2399248).

    Computer Creep’s comments were disemvowelled rather than becoming corrrupted. Tim Lambert has a high patience threshold for trolls, but that one is plain ga-ga in the alfoil-hat conspiracy-under-the-bed mould, and I’d say that Tim decided enough was enough.

    Although having said that, Computer Creep’s comments were intellectually corrupt from the first key-stroke, so in a manner of speaking you were correct anyway…

  42. #43 Bernard J.
    April 3, 2010
  43. #44 TrueSceptic
    April 3, 2010

    112 Think Big,

    Denialists are usually idiots, so they are denidiots.

  44. #45 Neil
    April 3, 2010

    > you fraudulent commies bastards right

    There’s another common trait among the denialati – good, old-fashioned McCarthyism.

    Keep checking under the bed, guys…

  45. #46 Zibethicus
    April 3, 2010

    129: “Denialists are usually idiots, so they are denidiots.”

    Denidiots and, all too often, cliars too…

  46. #47 Chris From Europe
    April 3, 2010

    el gordo, the Spiegel article is ridiculously bad researched. It’s an assembly of talking points with a von Storch garnish.

  47. #48 Bernard J.
    April 3, 2010

    [Dave R](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/phil_jones_vindicated.php#comment-2398902).

    You can add [the comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be.php#comment-2324506) from the “Bad news: sea level rise may be worse than we thought” thread to the list.

    This is a particularly stupid and learning-recalcitrant troll. He has had his nose repeatedly rubbed in his ignorance, but he continues to shit in the same place. Even a puppy learns from his mistakes – although the nose-rubbing technique is not the way to go… Unfortunately, nothing works with this Denialatus.

    Obviously, he’s only here to push his own bee-in-bonnet deception. Shame that it hasn’t worked.

    0 out of 10, pygmy troll. Absolute fail. Do not pass go, do not collect even one penny.

    And as this seems to be the week for nacent words, suck on this – tloosser.

  48. #49 pough
    April 3, 2010

    #96 (Bernard J)

    I’m almost convinced that Fatso is a Poe, spouting the silliest of the Denialati tripe, in order that the rest of us demonstrate how easily such nonsense is refuted.

    I’ve been convinced of that for quite some time, which is why I normally ignore his comments. He’s like comedy performance art, whether intentional or not.

  49. #50 Lotharsson
    April 3, 2010

    el gordo, this statement:

    But it is a critical conflict, because it revolves around something as massive as the total restructuring of industrial society, a venture that will cost trillions of euros.

    is likely true (on a global scale) – but not necessarily in the way that Der Spiegel wants you to focus on.

    If we screw up the environment and our ecosystem – i.e. if we move them away from the normal parameters of variation and degrade the relatively reliable natural services against which we have optimised our industrial societies over the last several hundred years – then it will likely prove f**king expensive to restructure society to try and accomodate. And if it’s an outcome towards the bad end of the possibility scale, then that cost will not only be measured in money but in lives.

    Changing from a cheap-carbon-based economy to one that is less likely to violate the assumptions we have built into the structure of our societies may prove to be a bargain in comparison.

  50. #51 Bud
    April 6, 2010

    [Monbiot's latest comment on the climate emails controversy](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/06/climate-change-emails-science-humanities?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments).

    Petty, small-minded nonsense. Which is a shame, because there is a very good point resting somewhere in there about the futility of an arbitrary arts-science divide.

  51. #52 MikeB
    April 6, 2010

    Monbiot saying sorry would go a long way to rebuilding his credibility. Did CRU, UEA and Phil Jones make a total mess of things? Yes. Did Phil Jones really deserve Monbiot’s wish to see him sacked? No.
    And I notice that the spurious FOI requests from crackpots and reasonable requests interested in government affairs are treated in the same way by Monbiot, when he must know that they very different. This looks like a very small walkback indeed. On the other hand, Fred Pearce seems to have decided that being hostile is at least consistant, if wrong.

    Monbiot writes about Simon Lewis and the ST – where is the mention of Deltoid? David Adams should have a word…

  52. #53 peterd
    April 8, 2010

    Bud & Mike B (136,137): I was one of those who, early on, lined up (at deltoid and in private email) behind Monbiot’s call for Jones’s resignation. Now, having familiarised myself a little more with the mails and having seen the wash-up, I regret that I did. It is amusing to me that Monbiot’s column (Bud’s link) itself links to a column (Easterbrook) and comment, much of which is critical of Monbiot himself. While I retain respect for George, and still think he wiped the floor with Plimer, I cannot help thinking now that he went too far in calling for Jones’s resignation.

  53. #54 Wow
    November 29, 2010

    > I cannot help thinking now that he went too far in calling for Jones’s resignation.

    Because, as a Journalist, George was heavily invested in FOIA and any perception that either it should or could be avoided was like talking about paedophiles to the dad of a 5 year old girl.

    Knee-jerk city.

    He has had time to view the facts and recanted the calls to get Jones sacked, but hasn’t yet said that he over-reacted himself.

    However, I don’t expect George to be a saint, nor to be right 100% of the time.

    I do expect him to own up to his own mistakes and take responsibility. He’s a grown up now.