Whatever
Mr. Jones of East Anglia spoke in response to official criticism:
Giving evidence to a Science and Technology Committee inquiry, the Institute of Physics said: ‘Unless the disclosed emails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research and for the credibility of the scientific method. ‘The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.’
Last month, the Information Commissioner ruled the CRU had broken Freedom of Information rules by refusing to hand over raw data. But yesterday Professor Jones — in his first public appearance since the scandal broke — denied manipulating the figures. Looking pale and clasping his shaking hands in front of him, he told MPs: ‘I have obviously written some pretty awful emails.’
He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites. And he claimed it was not ‘standard practice’ to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.
So, is the ‘standard practice’ something like this?
March 3rd, 2010 at 10:18 am
Sorry, but he must still be smoking something. Standard practice–at least as I remember it from college and garduate school–was to put your findings out there and then let others in your field critique your work. I don’t think that practice has changed. Unless there’s something you want to hide, that is.
By the way, the Brits have offered to start again with climate research and see if–using an open forum–they could reach teh same conclusions as the CRU. I’m all for that. In fact, if the same conclusions were reached–honestly, of course–I’d be the first one to jump on the support bandwagon.
And let’s not forget that it just wasn’t a few inadvertent e-mails as Al Gore wants folks to beleive. It was a blatent attempt at not only manilpulating the findings but at destroying the reputations of several noted scientists in an effort to claim government funding. If that were to happen in business, it would be considered fraud and conspiracy to defraud the government. Not a trivial crime.
March 4th, 2010 at 3:51 am
BC is too forgiving by half. I wouldn’t believe these liars if they told me 1 + 1 = 2.
If somebody else wants to start to prove AGW, they are welcome to try. They are not welcome to try with my money. They had better be prepared to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt. Their recommendations will be viewed, rightly, with a very jaundiced eye.