The evidence was released yesterday by top skeptic science blog, Watts up With That (WUWT)

Professors Jones and Acton had vigorously sought to defend themselves last week under cross-examination at the Parliamentary Select Committee Hearing against accusations that their university criminally defied demands under the Freedom of Infrormation Act (FOIA). In his testimony Jones claimed various nations, including Sweden, would not authorise release of their climate data and this was why he could not comply with FOIA requests. But the Swedes’ evidence proves this is a lie. SMHI have just released the following PDF files as proof:

Request from Professor Phil Jones regarding the release of data from the HadCRUT dataset dnr SMHI

Data from the HadCRUT dataset_100304

DOC111209

The much respected SMHI objected strongly to Jones’s flagrantly false testimony by releasing evidence to the public that proves Swedish climate data was readily available in the public domain. In fact, the new evidence shows that the Swedes had merely refused Jones’s request to attribute his ‘homogenized’ data to them. This revelation is so far the most disturbing because it constitutes blatant deceit by Climategate conspirators perpetrated directly upon Parliamentary investigators.

Professor Acton, head of the University of East Anglia, backed up Jones and may also be proven to have conspired to mislead Parliament about withholding data as shown by his answer in the Committee’s transcript (as per Q94) :

Chairman: “Why did you hide it then?”

Professor Acton:  “Unfortunately, several of these countries impose conditions and say you are not allowed to pass it on…. Seven countries have said, ‘No you cannot publish it’ [including] Sweden.”

Uncorrected Transcript of Oral Evidence

Both discredited professors may now stand accused of conspiring to commit fraud by false representation. Climate skeptics have long argued that the CRU was using a ‘homogenizing’ process on climate data to falsely make global temperatures appear warmer than they actually are. This latest news certainly gives further credibility to the accusation that Jones deliberately, rather than accidentally, ‘lost’ his data. Jones has already narrowly escaped criminal prosecution under the Freedom of Information Act by way of a technicality. But police now have a mounting case to charge Jones for conspiracy to commit fraud where no such technicalities will this time save the errant professor.

We now expect other nations to follow the Swedes and to defend themselves against the false statements of climatologists who refuse to release their climate data. Another key Climategate fraud suspect, Michael Mann, of Penn. State University has been named by US Senator Inhofe among a further dozen potentially criminal climate fraudsters exposed in the leaked CRU emails of November 2009. Without doubt this unravelling story is still set to cause further embarrassment to the British and other world governments who have premised trillion dollar ‘green’ tax raising policies on such discredited and fraudulently obtained junk science.

The Royal Statistical Society (RSS) recently made some statements about data needing to be available to the public to have its validity proven, because we can’t just trust data from “peer reviewed journals.” If you’re not familiar with the RSS, a memorandum they submitted (CRU 47) provides a little background on themselves before diving into the nitty-gritty:

The Royal Statistical Society (RSS) is the UK’s only professional and learned society devoted to the interests of statistics and statisticians. Founded in 1834 it is also one of the most influential and prestigious statistical societies in the world. The Society has members in over 50 countries worldwide and is active in a wide range of areas both directly and indirectly pertaining to the study and application of statistics. It aims to promote public understanding of statistics and provide professional support to users of statistics and to statisticians.

Knowing how different scientific organisations operate in competing hierarchies must be causing a lot of teeth grinding at the University. It’s like being taught how to count all over again.

The RSS believes that the debate on global warming is best served by having the models used and the data on which they are based in the public domain. Where such information is publicly available it is possible independently to verify results. The ability to verify models using publicly available data is regarded as being of much greater importance than the specific content of email exchanges between researchers.

The submission does include some conditional and limited exceptions but further adds:

More widely, the basic case for publication of data includes that science progresses as an ongoing debate and not by a series of authoritative and oracular pronouncements and that the quality of that debate is best served by ensuring that all parties have access to the facts. It is well understood, for example, that peer review cannot guarantee that what is published is ‘correct’. The best guarantor of scientific quality is that others are able to examine in detail the arguments that have been used and not just their published conclusions. It is important that experiments and calculations can be repeated to verify their conclusions. If data, or the methods used, are withheld, it is impossible to do this.

The RSS believes that a crucial step in improving the quality of the debate on global warming will be to place the data, the analysis methods and the models in the public domain.

This leads to the conclusion that the University should have published their data as a priority, and for anything they couldn’t publish for whatever reason, then it should have been excluded, otherwise it formed the foundation of unsubstantiated and untestable theories.

Source: Parliament UK

Hanuman’s statement reads:

“From my experience as a former postgraduate student of the UEA, I have documentary evidence that the UEA as an institution and it’s agents have often indulged in falsifications, distortions, and misrepresentations.”

The former post-graduate now working as an Independent Legal Services Professional, claims to have submitted physical evidence that proves systemic fraud that “was manifestly in compliance with the University’s policies and practices.” If confirmed by the inquiry that such evidence relates to conduct of researchers inside the CRU, it would ensure a full-scale police investigation far greater than anyone might have anticipated.

This revelation adds further woe to the CRU on top of the damning submission to the Parliamentary Committee last week from the 36,000 scientists of the Institute of Physics agreeing with climate skeptics that the leaked emails prove:

“prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law.”

This scandal has now opened up a can of worms for a British Labour Government eager to play down the climate controversy so close to the country’s general election this Spring.

The full text of Lalu Hanuman’s submission reads as follows:

Memorandum submitted by Lalu Hanuman (CRU 07)

1. As a former postgraduate student of the University of East Anglia [UEA], and a British Citizen, I would like to comment on your committee’s planned review of the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit [CRU] at the UEA. In particular the issue of : “Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA, adequate”.

2. The current furore that the UEA has created by it’s falsifying of climate change information, has undermined global climate change action at the recent Copenhagen talks, with some countries relying on these UEA revelations to question the validity of climate change. The resultant catastrophic effect of the UEA’s actions on future generations, cannot be exaggerated, as it has helped delay united action against looming climate change. A robust and thorough transparent inquiry is called for. Sir Muir Russell’s review is inadequate at least as far as point 3 of his remit goes ie “Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations for the release of data”.

3. From my experience as a former postgraduate student of the UEA, I have documentary evidence that the UEA as an institution and it’s agents have often indulged in falsifications, distortions, and misrepresentations. Hence the CRU in distorting information was manifestly in compliance with the University’s policies and practices. There is an urgent need for a wider remit, namely to look into the institutional failings of the UEA itself.

4. Declaration of interests: None.

5. DPA: I give permission for my name, and contact details, to be released.

Lalu Hanuman
January 2010

University of East Anglia Professor Phil Jones

Finally, after all this time we start hearing the truth out of a government inquiry.

Next to him, holding a metaphorical hand, was Professor Edward Acton, his vice-chancellor, who interrupted at intervals to tell the committee what a splendid fellow Jones was and how his unit was doing magnificent work warning the world.

Acton conceded that not everything pointed in the same direction. It’s acknowledged that several hundred years ago Earth became much warmer. If we knew why, we could explain a lot. “The early medieval period is something we should spend more time researching,” he mused.

The infamous ‘hockey stick graph’ is now debunked even by those who used to worship it.

If you use a graph as evidence, then the data you used to make it up is therefore equally exposed as being faulty.

All around it was a bad day for warmism and Dr Phil Jones.

The sight of another scientist being skewered makes for painful viewing. Whatever your view on man-made global warming, you had to feel sorry for Professor Phil Jones, the man behind the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia

Feel bad? You’ve got to be kidding me.

Source: UK Guardian

We’ve been posting about the UK Parliament’s Select Committee Hearing on the Climategate Scandal held in the House of Parliament’s Grimond Room yesterday, with the highlight being Phil Jones testifying. We provided you with a link to the video yesterday from the Parliament’s own website, but it’s now on youtube and you can view it larger here, in five bite size chunks.

Witnesses:

1. Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation
2. Richard Thomas CBE
3. Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia, and Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit
4. Sir Muir Russell KCB, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review
5. Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Press the page numbers at bottom of article for parts 2-5.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Jones’s conduct has already been formally condemned by almost 80,000 scientists from the Royal Insitute of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics who submitted their own reports to Parliament last week.

In his testimony Jones admitted to unlawfully concealing data.

The former chief of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia (CRU) looked bedraggled and forlorn as he testified that it was “standard practice” to refuse submitting data to other scientists who sought to check climate research. Climate skeptics have been quick to pick apart the apparent contradictions in his testimony which contraverts Jones’ conduct prior to 2002, when he first dealt with data sharing requests from McIntyre.

Labour MP Graham Stringer asked Jones why he refused to comply with requests to share data to which Jones answered:

“Because all he [a skeptic] wants to do is find something wrong with it.”

To which Mr. Stringer again challenged Jones:

“But scientists make a name by proving and disproving things, don’t they? The statement seems to be anti-scientific. It is an absolutely clear denial of the man’s attempt to get at what you were doing. He wanted your information and you refused to give it to him? Why?”

Jones’ answer:

“Because we had invested a lot of work and resources in it, and this was before FOI started.”

Despite his damning claim that crucial climate data disproving the theory of man made global warming was withheld due to ‘standard’ practice’ Jones can be shown to have freely obeyed data sharing requests up until 2002.

By examination of revealing correspondence with independent climate analyst, Canadian Steve McIntyre we can reveal that Jones freely submitted data upon all such requests. This was despite Jones’s awareness of confidentiality agreements which he later used as his reason for not releasing data.

In stating to Parliament that it was ‘standard practice’ not to release climate data Jones may have perjured himself as per the following facts.

Respected unpaid auditor, McIntyre has spent much of the last decade investigating the claims of climate scientists and is noted for spotting an error in NASA’s climate data whereby NASA wrongly attributed the warmest year of the 20th Century to 1998 when, in fact, it was proven that 1934 was the warmest year in the American records. NASA grudgingly corrected their facts. Climate skeptics have since exposed other government climate data as false and global warming advocates, such as Jones have been circling the wagons against further public scrutiny.

McIntyre recounts the former openness of Jones that disproves his testimony from yesterday:

“At that time, I was surprised by the promptness of the response and the extra effort that Jones had put into the response. (I think that I noted Jones’ courtesy as a correspondent from time to time in the first years of the blog.)”

Jones had helpfully released to McIntyre temperature data for 5,159 global weather stations, a most revealing act never since repeated. Thus this contraverts Jones’ testimony to Parliament that it was ‘standard practice’ to withhold data. Such ‘practice’ only began after 2002 when skeptics began to uncover climate data irregularities.

McIntyre cites the correspondence he received from Jones on this issue. Jones replied to the Canadian making the following statement that was never honored:

“Once the paper comes out in the Journal of Climate, I will be putting the station temperature and all the gridded databases onto our web site.”

In 2007, when Willis Eschenbach, another independent analyst, also sought station data he, too, was refused under various pretexts. After three or four further FOIA requests Jones partially relented and gave access to just 4,138 of the stations, placing them on the CRU website.

The question not yet asked of Jones is why was there a change of policy that was blatantly contradictory to the Freedom of Information laws, after 2002. The ‘standard practice’ Jones refers to can only be proven to have occurred between 2002 and 2009.

Jones has repeatedly defended his unlawful conduct by alluding to problems created by various countries refusing to make their data freely available. Yet Jones refuses to point the finger at any such countries that continue to stymie FOIA requests.

Skeptics will claim this is proof of willful criminal conduct, or ‘trick’ committed by Jones in a self-serving fashion to ‘hide the decline’ in the standard practice of climate science perfomed at CRU. I would suggest that Jones would be more forthcoming on this issue if he faced stern cross-examination in a court of law, a place where this scandal will surely now be finally determined.

Most of the witnesses seemed like polished BSers. But Jones isn’t as polished. He seemed very nervous.

He was all over the place on his answers regarding the question of if data was withheld and why, but he did end up admitting that he had withheld some scientific data about global temperatures.

Why would he not want to release it? Well, for one thing, even though he said it would be a good idea, it was “not standard practice.” Following up, Labour MP Graham Stringer asked him: “If that’s not standard practice, how can science progress?” Professor Jones replied: “Maybe it should be but it isn’t.”

He also said, “because all he [a skeptic] wants to do is find something wrong with it.” To which Mr. Stringer again challenged Jones: “But scientists make a name by proving and disproving things, don’t they? The statement seems to be anti-scientific. It is an absolutely clear denial of the man’s attempt to get at what you were doing. He wanted your information and you refused to give it to him? Why?”

Jones’ answer: “Because we had invested a lot of work and resources in it, and this was before FOI [Freedom of information legislation] started.”

And he’s calls himself a scientist?

Oh wait, there is some good news: Jones says that children will likely still see some snow someday.

To see Phil Jones squirm, watch the video beginning at aorund the 01:02:00 hour/minute/sec mark.

Source: Independent UK

In all seriousness, you can watch this afternoon’s proceedings from the UK Parliament’s Select Committee Hearing on the Climategate Scandal held in the House of Parliament’s Grimond Room, with Phil Jones testifying. We’re watching it right now, so we can’t comment on it yet.

Watch it on this page. Sorry we don’t have an embeddable version (if anyone does give us the link).

Here is the agenda:

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

Witnesses:

1. Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation
2. Richard Thomas CBE
3. Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia, and Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit
4. Sir Muir Russell KCB, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review
5. Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

“scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act.”

The RSC now stands shoulder to shoulder with the 36,000 strong Institute of Physics in speaking out against the cover up and destruction of data by unethical and criminal climate researchers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.

With these public statements on the conduct of climate scientists from other scientists, we are seeing a monumental groundswell of scientific opinion against the crooked methods of advocates of global warming theory such as disgraced CRU Professor Phil Jones.

In a thinly veiled rebuke the RSC, an organisation that represents 42,000 chemistry scientists, unequivocally agrees with skeptics that scientific data must be made available to the public and be open to scrutiny. They argue that the benefit for the status of science outweighs the perceived risks. To this end the Society has urged the Parliamentary Select Committee to clarify,

“the severity of the acts carried out by those scientists at the CRU involved, i.e. whether it was a misguided protection of their work or a malicious misrepresentation of data.”

We applaud both the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics for making such a valiant stand for the integrity of the scientific method. We are particularly heartened to see that both institutions have taken the view contrary to the politicisation of science, so that such announcements will be of great comfort to climate skeptics so hotly opposed to the skewed advocacy among left-wing environmentalists now popularly referred to as ‘post-normal science.’

A full transcript of the RSC submission may be found here, and are shown below:

Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society of Chemistry (CRU 42)

Summary

- It is essential that the public and all non-specialists remain truly confident in the scientific method to provide a sound scientific evidence-base on which strong decisions can be made. Correspondingly, it is in the interest of scientists and the public that society as a whole has an understanding and an appreciation of science.

- Access to reliable, up-to-date information is vital to advancing research and enabling the discovery or development of solutions to global issues. Sharing information is especially important in multi-disciplinary research, where progress is very much dependent on willing and effective communication between different speciality areas.

- The RSC firmly believes that the benefits of scientific data being made available and thus open to scrutiny outweigh the perceived risks. To this end, scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act.

Submission

1. The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) welcomes the opportunity to submit formal written evidence to the consultation on the disclosure of climate change data from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia.

2. The RSC is the UK Professional Body for chemical scientists and an international Learned Society for advancing the chemical sciences. Supported by a network of over 46,000 members worldwide and an internationally acclaimed publishing business, our activities span education and training, conferences and science policy, and the promotion of the chemical sciences to the public.

3. The document has been written from the perspective of the Royal Society of Chemistry. It is noteworthy that the University of East Anglia is a member of the RSC Partnership Scheme, however this in no way constitutes a conflict of interest. The RSC’s Royal Charter obliges it “to serve the public interest” by acting in an independent advisory capacity, and we would therefore be very happy for this submission to be put into the public domain.

- What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

4. The apparent resistance of researchers from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) to disclose research data has been widely portrayed as an indication of a lack of integrity in scientific research. The true nature of science dictates that research is transparent and robust enough to survive scrutiny. A lack of willingness to disseminate scientific information may infer that the scientific results or methods used are not robust enough to face scrutiny, even if this conjecture is not well-founded. This has far-reaching consequences for the reputation of science as a whole, with the ability to undermine the public’s confidence in science.

5. It is essential that the public and all non-specialists remain truly confident in the scientific method to provide a sound scientific evidence-base on which strong decisions can be made. Correspondingly, it is in the interest of scientists and the public that society as a whole has an understanding and an appreciation of science. The RSC strongly supports the dissemination of chemical knowledge to foster and encourage the growth and application of the chemical sciences, as stated in its Royal Charter. This includes the dissemination of scientific knowledge as a means to advance public understanding and the learning of science.

6. The dissemination of scientific information is central to progressing scientific developments, as it is based on a sound knowledge of preceding research.[1] Access to reliable, up-to-date information is vital to advancing research and enabling the discovery or development of solutions to global issues. Sharing information is especially important in multi-disciplinary research, where progress is very much dependent on willing and effective communication between different speciality areas.

7. It is also imperative that scientific information is made available to the wider community for scrutiny: the validity and essence of research relies upon its ability to stand up to review. In fact, advances in science frequently occur when the prevailing view is challenged by informed scepticism, this is fundamental to the scientific method and should be encouraged, even if controversial. The RSC firmly believes that the benefits of scientific data being made available and thus open to scrutiny outweigh the perceived risks. To this end, scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act. Furthermore, research needs to be presented in an accurate and reliable manner in the correct context in order to optimise this process. It may also be necessary to incorporate an independent auditing system into peer review with the ability to demand access to raw data sets to ensure best practices are being adhered to.

8. With the increased use of electronic media, access to information is widespread for scientists and the public alike. While this is a great benefit to society, the quality and validity of information available raises complex problems as valid scientific information and general opinion are presented side by side. The inability to decipher which information is legitimate, results in confusion, misinterpretation and may lead to mistrust of ‘science’. There needs to be a clearer understanding in the public domain of what constitutes a reliable source, including an appreciation for the process that is used for disseminating research and the advantages of peer review.

9. The peer review system is central to the credibility of science: its purpose to prevent the dissemination of unwarranted claims and unacceptable interpretations. Formally published scientific research is subject to this authoritative process whereby a community of qualified, impartial experts examine the information and possess the ability to prevent publication. Authors generally protect their data until it has been peer-reviewed and published in a formal publication due to the competitive nature of research.

10. The issue of misinformation in the public domain must also be tackled. Just as the scientific community must be open with regard to their evidence base, those who disagree must also provide a clear and verifiable backing for their argument, if they wish their opinions to be given weight. When disagreements occur, the validity of the analysis must be established before credence can be given to any opinion. Increased understanding of the process of scientific research, firstly in the government, but also within the media and general public, is vital in order to foster a more open sharing of information.

11. Support from the scientific community is needed to provide context and to explain the process by which conclusions are reached. Encouraging scientists to openly engage with the public can only be achieved if researchers are given the necessary backing in the face of any unfounded arguments against their work. This support must come from the highest levels, sending out a strong message on the importance of scientific methodology and research and promoting open sharing of information between scientists and the wider community.

- Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

12. The terms of reference and scope of the independent review are adequate, although some wider reaching aspects must also be examined. The effect on other researchers working in this area such as independent researchers, as well as those collaborating with CRU, should be explored. The impact of this incident on the public perception of the CRU and UEA as a whole should also be considered as a measuring stick for the implications of such actions in the public domain. The manner in which the findings from the items set out are interpreted and applied will determine their value.

13. As has been set out in the review, it is necessary to investigate the email exchanges which were discovered along with other relevant CRU information to establish whether data have been manipulated or suppressed. This is, not only needed in order to identify any unacceptable behaviour, but also to verify the results which have been published. This is vital in clarifying the severity of the acts carried out by those scientists at the CRU involved, i.e. whether it was a misguided protection of their work or a malicious misrepresentation of data.

14. The review of practices surrounding CRU’s use of peer review and dissemination of data should be used to shed light on how these comply with established best scientific practice. Any failings in this area should be examined in the context of the research methods used and any deviations should be assigned either to the individual researchers or to inadequate updating of the best practice to suit research in the digital age.[2] This will beget more valuable information on the motivation and the reasoning behind the conduct of researchers at CRU.

15. Research institutions should review established protocols regarding the management of, and access to, research data to ensure that they remain up to date and clear. This process must be developed in collaboration with researchers so that its importance can be understood. The current practices in CRU and UEA must be examined to ensure the unit and the institution fulfil public regulations and that they offer support to researchers to ensure compliance.

16. The review of the security issues surrounding the release of information is an important internal issue for CRU and UEA. Furthermore, the RSC supports investigations into the highly irregular manner in which information was obtained from the researchers.

· How independent are the other two international data sets?

17. From the information available, the RSC cannot comment on this issue.

Dean Vernon Wormer of Animal House, or Dean Vernon Warmer of East Anglia?

I’ve heard of people not learning from their mistakes, but not universities. Sounds like the University of East Anglia just can’t seem to figure out that honesty is the best policy.

On February 27, Times Online has an article titled “University Tried to mislead MP’s on climate change e-mails.”

They’re pretty “cheeky” over there.

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails has been accused of making a misleading statement to Parliament.

They not only don’t tell the truth verbally…they even put it in writing.

The University of East Anglia wrote this week to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee giving the impression that it had been exonerated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, the university failed to disclose that the ICO had expressed serious concerns that one of its professors had proposed deleting information to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act.

Professor Edward Acton said:

a letter from the ICO “indicated that no breach of the law has been established [and] that the evidence the ICO had in mind about whether there was a breach was no more than prima facie”.

But the ICO’s letter really said:

“The prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence.”

and that:

that the university had failed in its duties under the Freedom of Information Act by rejecting requests for data.

The ICO is still maintaining they can’t prosecute becuase of the 6 month time limit on FOID denials, which may not be true.  If that is the case then it’s like the pot calling the kettle black.

I think the administration at East Anglia makes Dean Wormer in Animal House look pretty good.  Maybe they should put themselves on double-secret probation for ahwile.