Even if you are an AGW skeptic, can you support Dr. Phil Jones on this one thing?
There are two things in this report that have my support for Dr. Jones. The first is the sheer number of FOI requests and the apparent coordination which was obviously intended to irritate and disrupt Dr. Jones' work and the other is the death threats which are clearly criminal.
I have read Steve McIntyre's comments on his FOI requests and he report he made about one per year for three or four years. So apparently, the mulitple targeted requests were from another, more nefarious source.
Just some clarifications. I'm assuming he is not exaggerating or even outright lying.
And I certainly do not condone any of his other actions, especially trying to thwart all FOI requests. I didn't see where he addressed even one of them.
However, it also does not look good if what he says is true.
Eric c2010-02-06T16:15:26Z
Favorite Answer
Let us not forget that Jones is the man who made the famous quote "Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years 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".
Jones is also lying . Yes, most of the raw data is available from the Met office. But that is not the information that the skeptics wanted. This is what they wanted:
1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and
2) A clear indication of where the data for each site is available. This is quite important, as there are significant differences between the versions of each site’s data at e.g. GHCN and NCAR.
Let us also remember that he had not problem releasing this data to his trusted friends. It was not a question he did not have the time. He simply did not want skeptics to look over his work.
But if they are concerned about spending time answering FOI requests, I have a suggestion for him. When you put out a study, put out all the raw data and source codes as well. When people ask for this information all you have to do is give them the link.
Sorry Mike, you aren't going to get a reasonable, sane answer from many of the deniers here, as you can see. It's nice to see that you have your own mind on obvious points which destroy credibility on your side of the argument.
The death threats are so clearly criminal that anyone who doesn't think so can safely be called at least somewhat sociopathic. And the FOI requests *were* nefarious and the agitation caused by them and the reaction to them are perfectly understandable. The context of the emails show this agitation, but taken out of context can be used to imply refused compliance of *reasonable* requests.
Death threats are never justified. Jones should be arrested, charged, prosecuted, and jailed in accordance with due process of law.
By the way, it's awesome how the article in question portrays this crook as a hapless victim of those evil sceptics. Gotta love that oh-so-objective reporting of the British Empire's leading mouthpiece...
Who wants to bet that the Times of London won't write a sob-story about all of the death threats, intimidation, and thuggery that skeptical scientists have been the subject of?
The unreasonableness of the numerous FOI requests was there for everyone to see that read the emails. I read them and saw the frustration of hard-working scientists; others read them and see conspiracies.
I liked the good ole days when everyone accepted responsibility. So yeah lambasting isn't the herald of truth. I think these guy's really know how to count exceptionally well, but if you stick your head in the guillotine...?