Phil Jones: Not “Pervert[ing] The Peer Review Process”

Photo from fOTOGLIF

With the release of information contained in allegedly hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia last November, the main question still unanswered by most is whether any of the information formulated in years of study on the climate is valid. Emails seem to clearly indicate there was a conspiracy to withhold data that had been requested through the Freedom of Information Act. Evidence weighs heavy that data was left out, hidden, and/or manipulated to achieve desired results, along with other damning evidence that should make any reasonable thinking person question the results.

Even though Phil Jones, the professor at the center of the controversy, admits that he refused to release data requested through FOIA, he claims he wasn’t required to by law because the information being requested was already available through other public resources. But the real puzzling admission from Jones is what he said about sharing his research.

He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.

And he claimed it was not ‘standard practice’ to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

‘I don’t think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way,’ he said.

What makes the scientific community tick and maintain credibility is sharing of information and the peer review process. If it is “standard practice” to withhold data, then is peer review worth the price of a grain of salt? It would seem not, thus relegating much of scientific research invalid.

One scientific research center, the Institute of Physics, says:

Unless the disclosed emails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research and for the credibility of the scientific method.

‘The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.’

Whether one is a believer or a doubter of man-made global warming, this admission by Jones and what the emails have exposed should be extremely troublesome. A domino effect seems to be happening as well with admissions of errors and shoddy work coming from other individuals and organizations closely related to the CRU. We now must wait until the investigation runs its course in order to assess the entire damage done.

From this point forward, with what we have now learned, it is a ridiculous notion to think much stock would be placed on the so-called, “Settled Science” of climate change.

Tom Remington