Professor Phil Jones exonerated.

[Incognito]

The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network
of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a
department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Until now,
no one had ever conducted a comprehensive review of the quality of the measurement
environment of those stations.
During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically
document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...t_spring09.pdf

[threaded]

The report of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee into 'ClimateGate' is here.

From the summary :-

<snipped guff>

I really don't know what report you read, but I saw the behaviour of the scientists described as "reprehensible" and they've referred it to the legal types for opinion on what action should be taken.

Also they've used carefully couched phrases like "the evidence we have seen suggests..." which I believe is standard legalise for "what we've been shown has been carefully chosen to show this..." Just ask anyone who's had a difficult divorce.

[pjclarke]

I really don't know what report you read, but I saw the behaviour of the scientists described as "reprehensible"

Well, the word 'reprehensible' was used by Lord Lawson in relation to a specific allegation, however that specific allegation referred to is categorically refuted (para 66, if you're interested)

The report I read had three conclusions:

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. (Paragraph 136)

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”.

A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable.

Incognito: a study by Menne et al published earlier this year looked at the difference in trends between US Surface Stations categorised by Watts as 'good' and 'bad' and found no significant difference in the trend between the two groups. (Actually the 'poor' stations read slightly cooler, but the homogeneity adjustments did a good job of correcting this bias). Click

cheers,

PJ.

[TykeMerc]

We might as well stop it, PJ is like a fundie on this stuff. We could show him whatever data we wanetd and he would still have his fingers in his ears. He's an advocate of AGW because he WANTS it to be true.

Might as well try to convince the pope to wear a rubber johnny.

I tend to agree this pjclarke sockie is definitely in la-la-la, I'm not listening mode with a clear trolling for responses agenda.

[threaded]

insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty

Above is from one of the quotes you've quoted, IMHO again that indicates they feel there has been a failure to fully disclose information to the committee.

The report is full of phrases like that, so this is yet another thread where you're just a troll on a wind up mission, and wonder why haven't the mods banned you yet.

[TiroFijo]

Darwin did provide proof on the Galapogas Islands (pardon the spelling)
Similar species that had adapted slightly.

Very difficult to refute that.

He did more than just that but with the onset of DNA it really changed it from a theory to fact.

[TiroFijo]

Might as well try to convince the pope to wear a rubber johnny.

I'm sure if it were possible to impregnate altar boys then the catholic church would have approved rubbers the day after they were invented

[pjclarke]

IMHO again that indicates they feel there has been a failure to fully disclose information to the committee.

Curious isn't it? In the usual course of events one is innocent until proven guilty, and yet here is a scientist hauled before a Parliamentary Committee, pilloried in the media and blogosphere as the result of a criminal act. Not his criminal act, note, but an unauthorised release of private correspondence.

When same committee (and other analyses) find he has 'no case to answer', his scientific reputation is 'intact' See also here and here or here , still the insinuations and the innuendo continue.

Just wierd.

[TheBigYinJames]

Go on, give it your BEST shot ....

I don't need to ... I'm right. You'll see it over the next 20-30 years. I'll keep in touch so you can apologise personally.

[BlasterBates]

and meanwhile the ice recovers...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/3...-the-news-say/

I reckon in 30 years the arctic ice cap might even be bigger than in 1979.

A bit like God sticking two fingers up at the climate scientists.