One of the documents in the hacked files from the U.K.’s Climate Research Unit is a Word file named “jones-foithoughts”. Apparently, these are the “thoughts” of climate scientist Dr. Phil Jones, director of the CRU:
Options appear to be:
1. Send them the data
2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
Could someone please explain to me what kind of a reputable scientist would even consider 2 or 3 as viable options? Why does he need “thoughts” on FOI requests? Isn’t science all about allowing other scientists the opportunity to try to replicate your work and reproduce your findings (or dispute them as the case may be)?
Read more emails here: The Dirt. One point where I disagree with Jay: The leaked documents absolutely do “destroy the shaky theory of AGW,” for the very reason that the scientists involved in this scandal have been so dishonest and underhanded.
{ 3 comments }
Wow! Nobel Prize in Science for Phil Jones for sure.
They know the are lying, but it is for the real cause, the pinko prize,wealth distribution. Pinkos will do or say anything for the collective.
Their little “consensus club” has been working hard at thwarting the outsider scientists that they’ve shunned.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }