Quote:
Originally Posted by twotoner
Yes. This individual was responsible for producing HADCRUT3 - Their latest version of the global land temperature record. This data is the basis for a lot of research on climate and ultimately inputs into gov't policy, especially the UN's climate bodies.
|
And HADCRUT3 is described as "
The gridded data are a blend of the CRUTEM3HadSST2 sea-surface temperature dataset. As well as a best-estimate value for the surface temperature, a comprehensive set of uncertainty estimates are available."
It's not claiming to be accurate, indeed the working paper's title is "
Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850".
The whole problem IMO with this mess from a trust POV appears to not be the individual you mentioned but the arrogance of Phil Jones (if the e-mails are legit which I believe they are) in refusing to release the raw data for scrutiny and challenge.
Whether or not there is a cover up, his e-mails and silence are damning and (I realize and am man enough to admit that I'm back tracking here) I'm starting to question his credibility. There would be no issue here at all if he had complied with requests for the raw data to review his work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twotoner
"Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud, because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again (despite searching on tape archives at UEA) and never recreated it. This hasn't mattered too much, because the synthetic cloud grids had not been discarded for 1901-95, and after 1995 sunshine data is used instead of cloud data anyway."
|
See this I have no problem with. He has no cloud grids for post 95. He does however have sunshine data. Isn't it fair to say there is a correlation between cloud cover and sunshine and whilst an equation between the two might not be 100% accurate it wouldn't be totally off the mark either? Moreso I fail to see how this is lying but a simple troubleshoot. I accept that it represents a discontinuity in the data but to me it's nothing more than using a different measurement point (and assuming) and correlating it to give a best possible value for continuitys sake. There's no obvious intent to deceive there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twotoner
|
I don't disbelieve he is who you say he is. Couple of observations about him: (1) that he's a Mr suggests he has no doctorate and (2) that he's stuck in the middle of the author list suggests he had little overall weight as far as leadership in the papers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twotoner
It really doesn't take long to get a fair idea on the quality of the work coming out of this place.
|
As I've mentioned I think you and many others have fair cause to question the credibility of Phil Jones. I'm even open to him being investigated. He needs to start explaining himself ... soon.
But .... and time will tell, I don't think it's fair to say that you can infer from his actions that the institution as a whole is producing garbage. Time will tell but surely if there was more evidence of wrongdoing from other researchers it would have started to surface by now.
All in all a huge propaganda coup for the anti CC crowd and a serious blow to science's credibility. I smell a resignation coming up.