Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, has been researching climate matters since 1990. He has written his own journey HERE. His research led to him creating his Errors in IPCC climate science site HERE.
Part of his research led him to ask CRU's Phil Jones about the "+/- 0.2°C" in the statement
|Phil Jones. Image CRU|
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, 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. (Link in Appendix II)The Climategate fought against FOIA orders to release their data. This week, a court ruled against Jones as reported by Andrew Orlowski on the Register. (link) As the Christian Response reported
"The arrogant “climate scientists” who run the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were handed a defeat last week by a British Freedom of Information Act Tribunal. The case involves CRU director Phil Jones who has used every excuse imaginable to keep from answering legal FOIA requests for his climate research data."The Register reported:
A landmark FOIA ruling last week will have far-reaching consequences for how public servants interpret their Freedom of Information obligations. Specifically, public servants cannot delete local copies of a file on their PC and then use its absence as an excuse not to disclose the file - if a backup copy exists on the organisation's systems. In other words: backup servers must be searched for FOIA requests.
The FOIA Tribunal heard the case last December and made its judgement last week. The case was brought by Dr Don Keiller, deputy head of Life Sciences at Ruskin University, Cambridge, against the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the academics at the centre of the 'Climategate' scandals.
CRU's director Phil Jones had earlier shared raw data freely, allowing other scientists to replicate their work, which includes the HADCRUT processed global temperature series. The data was gained by CRU from several sources, including national weather services (NMSs in the jargon).Read the story at The Register.
In the first batch of Climategate emails, which cover a period to late 2009, we find Jones vowing to "hide behind" loopholes in FOIA legislation, advising colleagues to delete emails. In an email to the Met Office's Jean Palutikof, Jones explained, in discussing a FOIA request from David Holland that, "Keith and Tim have moved all their emails from all the named people off their PCs and they are all on a memory stick."