|Waaaah, Waaaaah, We are ALL going to FRY, Whaaaaa!!!! Give me a break children..|
Why is Phil Jones exaggerating or hiding facts about the data used to generate items like the "hockey stick" or the "Hide the Decline" statement. Why is he hiding the data to one lot of scientists and freely supplying them to others. Why are we getting all those excuses and blatant un-truths, if Jones has nothing to hide ?
It has always been the case that the main instigators of the CAGW hysteria should supply their data in order for it to be checked and verified. That is and should be standard scientific proceedure. Their is nothing odious or hidious about a request for data in order to test someone's theory unless one has something to hide ofcourse. Jones appears to be that someone as Patrick J Micheals explains..
So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.And also this -
Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.
It’s worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise).Be aware also that Patrick Michaels ain't no amateur either..
– Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to KnowBut ofcourse the fun continues as both Mann and Jones have some major questions to answer and it's not about their studies but more about their ethics and integrity. Jones has now stepped down from his position at UEA and will ofcourse move into some other US left wing university where both ethics and integrity are used to wash the bathroom floor.
Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.The statement about “data storage” is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.