Head Climategate researcher steps down — temporarily
posted at 4:19 pm on December 1, 2009 by Allahpundit
Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.
Professor Jones said: “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director’s role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support.”
At least he’s consistent: If there’s one thing the Climategate e-mails show, it’s the lengths to which Jones et al. were willing to go to spare climate-change orthodoxy from unhelpful “diversions.” Mind you, this is the guy whom even global-warming true believer George Monbiot thinks should hit the bricks, although of course he won’t. As Ace says, writing about Penn State’s investigation of another Climategate malfeasor, we’re headed for a Rathergate-style whitewash on all fronts here. There’s simply too much riding on the integrity of the process to start casting out its high priests. “Fake but accurate” is a fait accompli; the only question is how long it’ll take to render that verdict. Exit question: Does this mean Jones doesn’t get to go to Copenhagen? I was really looking forward to photos of him with world leaders various and sundry.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Having read more than a hundred of the leaked emails last night I am happy to see this demagogue stepping aside for the moment. My main concern is that the “independent” review will include people sympathetic and equally religious about the topic. The vitriol, hatred and utter disrespect Jones and his clique of peers exhibit is an utter disgrace to the scientific community.
cannonball on December 1, 2009 at 4:22 PM
The investigation will be performed by ACORN to assure its integrity.
eaglewingz08 on December 1, 2009 at 4:23 PM
He thought he may be mobbed with cope and change.
upinak on December 1, 2009 at 4:23 PM
fall guy.
homesickamerican on December 1, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Um, didn’t Clinton just tell us that global cooling was the result of global warming? Methinks, Lucifer needs to watch his carbon footprint.
elduende on December 1, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Maybe Al Gore can temporarily fill in…
PatriotRider on December 1, 2009 at 4:25 PM
I read through a bunch of those emails, too.
It’s outrageous.
And I hate to be cynical, but what will really come of this when so many corrupt officials & corporations have invested so much in this Ponzi scheme?
Badger40 on December 1, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Someone’s having a meltdown.
ColumbusConservative on December 1, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Thats climate change i can support.
the_nile on December 1, 2009 at 4:27 PM
I wonder if the Center for American Progress has any temporary positions open in the meantime.
Joe Caps on December 1, 2009 at 4:29 PM
I asked my friend Scott about this. “What do you think Al Gore will do about the Carbon Credit business, and refunds?”
Ans Scott said not a dang thing.
I honestly think Al Gore is about to lose everything and tipper is going to need the “Explicit” sticker over her mouth.
upinak on December 1, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Dr. Jones, once you’ve been handed your hat, the polite thing to do is leave gracefully.
DrW on December 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM
These “investigations” are going to interesting…I hope someone leaks the real results…
d1carter on December 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM
I hear Dr. Jones is going to work for the investigative division of CBS News.
/sarc
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM
If I say nontroversy one more time will it all go away? – Charles Johnson
lorien1973 on December 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM
“Oh woe is me!
For the doggie wee-wee has blinded me
and I can’t see
Temporarily”
– Frank Zappa
mojo on December 1, 2009 at 4:31 PM
The investigation will produce nothing. Too many powerful people are invested in continuing the AGW scam.
These fraudlent “scientists” may be chastised, but I’m sure the “investigation” will somehow affirm their results.
darwin on December 1, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Actually, they can use this investigation to reinforce the AGW concept. They will claim the integrity of the science has undergone an even more rigorous review than is normally done. Let no good crisis go to waste.
a capella on December 1, 2009 at 4:31 PM
I wonder if the “independent review” will be as amazingly unbiased as the “independent” investigators over at ACORN.
Joe Caps on December 1, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Since these nut jobs want to send us back to medieval times, how about this: we drown them. If they survive, AGW theory is true and we can press ahead with the dismantling of civilization. It’s every bit as scientific as their current methods.
Sharke on December 1, 2009 at 4:32 PM
I don’t think that you are cynical at all in light of the way it is being covered by the SRM.
thomasaur on December 1, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Meanwhile, O in WH swimming in his own fool’s paradise practicing to read to the prompter in Copenhagen.
Anita on December 1, 2009 at 4:32 PM
JusDreamin on December 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Fixed it for him.
TXUS on December 1, 2009 at 4:35 PM
when the bike riding jazz musician hears ‘fake but accurate’ used to describe Jones’ situation, his faux-ny tail will fall off….curses to HA hate speech!
DrW on December 1, 2009 at 4:35 PM
It would be fitting, but he’ll fight this thing till the last dog is hung. They can drag the final reckoning out for 10 years. However, I would project a sharp downturn in his sales figures. :)
a capella on December 1, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Of course. Missing “data” will magically appear, new computer codes will be written and words such as “trick” and “hide” will gain new meaning.
Trick: To search for the truth using only the most reliable data.
Hide: To share data with fellow scientists, even data you’ve previously destroyed.
darwin on December 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Look at it this way. The Arena Football League is “temporarily” stepping aside too. Hopefully this guy stays away temporarily the same way as the AFL.
rihar on December 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM
If I thought Jones was even temporarily stepping down for real — he’ll be orchestrating behind the scenes — I’d be asking for, no, demanding the Humpbot.
TXUS on December 1, 2009 at 4:39 PM
What, is he going in the symbolic penalty box with Jones and Dunn? As if they really weren’t involved in decision making anymore. Its just appearances.
But this is still a good development, shows that the pressure is gaining momentum.
LevStrauss on December 1, 2009 at 4:39 PM
California’s Attorney General Brown is on the case…
d1carter on December 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Let me guess, Al Gore is heading up the independent review.
Vashta.Nerada on December 1, 2009 at 4:43 PM
And the whitewash begins…
Rational Thought on December 1, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Trace back the Billions wasted on this HOAX, and you have a pretty good RICO case…
Seven Percent Solution on December 1, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Well you’d figure they’d be able to just work backward and spit out a mirror image of the raw data rather easily, unless there was much fudging. You’d have to figure that scattered pieces of this raw data has to be somewhere to check on it. I think the skeptics just need time, and the real data obviously to figure this one out. I have hear grumblings that coders who saw some of the code say it is a mess, whatever that means. It should be interesting.
LevStrauss on December 1, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Well, we have the blue dress in the Fortran source code and still “I did not change any data…..”
‘Course it will turn on what the meaning of ‘data’ is…..
Starlink on December 1, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Obama and his administration will ignore this just like they ignore the polls that Americans don’t want government run health care. Afterall we can’t possibly know what is good for us without the government telling us.
AusTex girl on December 1, 2009 at 4:46 PM
He is a Nobel Laureate on the subject isn’t he?
thomasaur on December 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
I hope you pessimists are wrong, this scam has got to be made public on a much larger scale. Aren’t there enough skeptics and people who have been fleeced of their money to get the truth out? It’s not going to be safe to believe in anything soon.
Cindy Munford on December 1, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Will the (cough cough) independent review be peer-reviewed?
JammieWearingFool on December 1, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Is Obama going to do a face plant on the pavement again in Hoepenhagen?
tarpon on December 1, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia
Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Philip D. Jones
Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 15, 1820, doi:10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/mannjones03.pdf
Portion of Michael Mann and Phil Jones’ work.
Please “peer review” it at your leisure. This one may have not passed through an adequate “process” if you will….
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 4:51 PM
I hear Berta Lewis is the Chairman of the Independent Review Committee.
barnone on December 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM
It doesn’t quite work like that. As an example, here is the answer: 29, the average of other data points.
Quick, tell me what they are.
But, I’ll go with the theory that the raw data that was “lost” never supported the conclusions so feverently reported by the Goracle. That’s why its “lost”.
What we’re left with now is simply the report of the study, not the data.
Kind of like a police report, when all the evidence is lost. “But, your Honor, it’s all right here in my report! Ask anybody in my precinct…they’ll tell ya it’s correct!”
BobMbx on December 1, 2009 at 4:53 PM
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/webhome/aprilc/data/my%20stuff/MBH1999.pdf
More “global warming” religious literature by Mr. Michael Mann.
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 4:53 PM
“The $cience is $ettled and the debate i$ over. Therefore, we mu$t continue our critically expen$ive and publicly funded re$earch.”
I just adore these sheisters.
Tuning Spork on December 1, 2009 at 4:56 PM
The scientific world is so full of competitive, back-stabbing, revenge-getting Ph.Ds that for every scientist that liked Phil Jones (or any of the others) there are 100 that hate the guy and are very happy that he is getting his defrocking and will do anything to promote his removal.
The guy is gone. With any luck he will be getting a new job at a Community College in southern Wales teaching a class on Creative Fiction Writing.
Who will replace him? A fawning underling or someone a bit more objective?
And will the cabal of 40+ other scientists in the cover up, peer reviewing and manipulation of data be sent on a long scientific expedition to Antarctica for the rest of their careers?
I suspect that the other wizard of Climate Fraud, Michael Mann of Penn State, has already got his resume over to Al Gore, plus lining up a book deal of some sort titled, “I Hid the Decline or You, too, Can Fool Most of the People All the Time”.
albill on December 1, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit
until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.in order to spend more quality time with his family.FIFY
GarandFan on December 1, 2009 at 4:56 PM
I disagree.
Look at how badly that whitewash ended for those involved.
blink on December 1, 2009 at 4:58 PM
I heard he’s using his “off time” to pitch a new show on the cable channel “Bravo”, called “Peer Reviewers“. Its a show about a small group of really smart people who get paid to review their friends papers.
It’ll be a hoot!
BobMbx on December 1, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Will Al Gore donate some handshakes for this guy’s defense?
- The Cat
MirCat on December 1, 2009 at 5:00 PM
If only he were “stepping down” to face a jury of his peers, and not a bunch of friendly “peer reviewers” who have all used his so-called data as their sources. If he goes down, their live’s work goes with him.
Lily on December 1, 2009 at 5:03 PM
I believe they claim to only have the “adjusted” data, but I would bet they haven’t lost the raw stuff,..it’s just hidden somewhere. If they did destroy or hide it after the FOI requewsts came in, they may have a criminal problem, depending on what the UK laws are. I would be surprised if it sufaces in the investigation, however.
a capella on December 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Heh.
a capella on December 1, 2009 at 5:07 PM
It’s a shame, but there’s no way Climategate can get traction. There are too many false economic systems already built on the foundation. Not just the obvious ones, either, but everything down to light bulb laws and state-mandated, all-inclusive “emissions” testing for passenger automobiles that have little to no chance of being the problematic vehicles (especially since most still have warranties on their emissions control systems), while the government body collecting the fees for the inspections exempt pre-1995 cars. Yep, the very cars that are most likely to be the big polluters don’t have to get inspected.
Two random grabs as examples:
http://www.dnr.mo.gov/gatewayvip/v-owner/need-test.htm
http://daq.state.nc.us/motor/inspect/inspect_faq.shtml
This has never been about emissions or the earth, and they can’t acknowledge the recent scientific method problems without the camel’s nose getting under their tent. This will be ignored and forgotten.
rogerb on December 1, 2009 at 5:07 PM
The other guy that needs to be at the top of the list to step down is University of Massachusetts professor, Raymond S. Bradley.
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/
(Love that fraudulent hockey stick warming map he so proudly gets his photograph with.)
This guy has co-authored many books and publications about global warming with both wizards of Global Warming fraud Professor Phil Jone and Michael Mann.
Google him and see how is involved in it all and his role in influencing those in the Federal Government.
albill on December 1, 2009 at 5:08 PM
John Kerry says it was cold before it was warm, but then it got cold again so he’s just not sure what’s next, so he’s packing a sweater now on all trips, just in case.
IndieDogg on December 1, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Facts are racist.
LibertyBoyNYC on December 1, 2009 at 5:10 PM
FIFY.
VoyskaPVO on December 1, 2009 at 5:12 PM
The real investigation will focus on finding the snitch.
OldEnglish on December 1, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Yes, I had forgotten the real world of academia. Bloody chum in the water. But, who does the takedown on the Goracle? I want to see him cry on primetime.
a capella on December 1, 2009 at 5:12 PM
I think one of the bigger questions to ask in all this mess is…
I know the majority of readers at this site knows the answer, but to the millions of brain washed, this question just might open their eyes.
Seven Percent Solution on December 1, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Close, but not quite. He’s in front of the bathroom mirror saying “Unique New York” over and over.
Sharke on December 1, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Agreed. No rational person could ever have “believed” in something so preposterous as “catastrophic man-made global warming.” Why would facts make any difference to people who already “believe” in something so ludicrous?
July 10 on December 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM
The World is at stake,
But Covering Your Ass will
Always be Job One.
He’ll keep his Tenure,
Even if the whole world burns.
First things first, you know…
Haiku Guy on December 1, 2009 at 5:39 PM
… whilst studying past episodes of Entourage.
July 10 on December 1, 2009 at 5:42 PM
of course it’s going to be a whitewash. And his reinstatement will once and for all “prove” that AGW is true. Wait for it…
mr.blacksheep on December 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM
You won’t recover the raw data if the data that is available to you has been normed and you are not provided with both the method by which normalizing was performed and some meta data pertinent to the method.
For example, what are the raw numbers that gave rise to this series of fifteen normed values? (Hint: they’re from a commonly known and widely used numerical constant.)
[ -0.7551, -1.4631, -0.4012, -1.4631, -0.0472, ...
+1.3687, -1.1091, +0.3068, -0.0472, -0.7551, ...
-0.0472, +1.0147, +1.3687, +0.6608, +1.3687 ]
The form of this series is equivalent to what CRU says they have:
How was the original data normed (i.e., by what method)? Both series are z-scores. Knowing this, can you tell me what are the values of the original, raw series?
You cannot unless I recorded and communicated to you some meta data, which in this case are the values of the series’ mean and standard deviation. This is not the only form meta data may take: for example, the location ( my laptop) and date the data were collected (01-Dec-2009) are other types of meta data.
For z-scores, the meta data are the mean and standard deviation for the series, which here are 5.1333 and 2.8251, respectively. Knowing both the normalization method and the meta data, which are statistics computed for the series, I can recover the original data (i.e., raw data).
The series is:
[ 3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 9, 2, 6, 5, 3, 5, 8, 9, 7, 9 ]
which is the first fifteen digits of the well-known constant pi
ya2daup on December 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM
This series are z-scores
ya2daup on December 1, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Who will rid us of these frauds and incompetents, and of the covert power behind them?
drunyan8315 on December 1, 2009 at 5:54 PM
I failed to add the CRU may not be able to supply either the norming method(s) or the pertinent meta data for their “value-added data”.
ya2daup on December 1, 2009 at 5:55 PM
A tactical retreat is still a retreat. Just more pressure on the people who are supposed to be reporting this story to do so.
Jim Treacher on December 1, 2009 at 5:56 PM
I tend to assume their situation is worse than it appears, because they have the media conditioning public perception for them. Of course, they are relying on that “perception is reality” thing, which is no little thing.
drunyan8315 on December 1, 2009 at 5:58 PM
CRR all this because he criticized some deniers in some emails.
/
CWforFreedom on December 1, 2009 at 6:03 PM
The irony of Charles cheerleading for the \’fake but accurate\’ crowd.
Someone call Dan. . .
Wind Rider on December 1, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Wow. The climate scientologists are taking a hit.
misterpeasea on December 1, 2009 at 6:06 PM
That was good, very clever…
I think I sat next to you in class…I hated you…you destroyed the curve.
right2bright on December 1, 2009 at 6:09 PM
That’s odd.. the CRU data availability page which the Times pointed out says that they deleted data, that page itself has been deleted. There’s still a Google cache copy.
Oddly, if you go up one level in the URL to the /data/ page, the missing availability page is not mentioned but the page claims it was last edited in 2007. The page info says the last edit was December 1, 2009.
Faulty coverup.
HotWeaver on December 1, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Maybe he’ll stand in line to pay $1200 to shake Al Gore’s hand.
scalleywag on December 1, 2009 at 6:24 PM
I wonder if he ever called Sarah Palin a quitter.
princetrumpet on December 1, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Leftists lie, it’s what they do
Learn this!
nelsonknows on December 1, 2009 at 6:37 PM
It’s actually not even that easy. They didn’t simply norm the data, they actually adjusted the numbers using a sort of ad hoc, seat-of-the-pants series of games that they’ve alluded to in other e-mails. In some instances, they attempted to correct for urban heat influences using “best guess” approaches; in others, they “recovered” missing stations by averaging nearby ones. In still others, it is impossible to to puzzle out what they were attempting to do.
The massaging processes were apparently entirely unjustified by any statistical or physical theory, save that of their own “trained” estimates of heuristic necessity.
notropis on December 1, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Any relationship to Van Jones? He too was reassigned – but not eliminated.
How soon before both are in our faces once again?
honsy on December 1, 2009 at 8:49 PM
There’s a better chance of
Hellthe Earth freezing over than the investigation finding fault with these jerks.FIFM
darwin-t on December 1, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Penn State is going to investgate Mann?I wonder how much tax-payer money is going to be wasted on that pre-drawn conclusion?
DDT on December 1, 2009 at 10:05 PM
And it begins:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/climate_australia
Australia’s Parliament rejects cap and trade.
KillerKane on December 1, 2009 at 10:37 PM
I agree that whatever was done to their raw data by CRU wasn’t as easy as my example. My point was that a statistically valid form of norming transforms raw data in a manner that can only be ‘undone’ with additional data.
As for what CRU did to their data you’ve described their nightmare approach quite well and I’d be surprised if any raw data can be recovered by inverting their transformations because they were so ad hoc.
ya2daup on December 1, 2009 at 10:57 PM
I’ll take a SWAG: Van Jones and Phil Jones are distant cousins
ya2daup on December 1, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Fixed it for the putz.
Big John on December 2, 2009 at 12:55 AM
The Greeks retreated at Troy. Or at least they appeared to retreat.
MarkTheGreat on December 2, 2009 at 8:15 AM