Phil Jones Admits 60 Years of Warming from Urban Influences

Dr. Phil Jones, the head perpetrator in the ClimateGate scandal made his first public appearance since we learned that he had manipulated climate change data and he admitted that 40 percent of his warming data from the last 60 years was due to urban influences. If he admits to 40 percent, the reality is the percentage is probably much higher.

Phil Jones

The fragile and contentious house of climate change came tumbling down when citizens began to exercise their “right to know” on both sides of the Atlantic through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Jones refused to comply, directed those under him to ignore the requests, while at the same time he directed them to change some data, and eventually, his emails were hacked and placed on line.

Things have not been good for the disgraced Jones lately, who admitted yet another astonishing piece information when asked how often scientists asked to see his “raw data, methodology and computer codes.” He replied “NEVER.” Remarkable when you realize that climate change is about funding projects from the pockets of taxpayers, directly to the Al Gores and Phil Joneses of the world community.

Appearing before the U.K.’s Science and Technology Committee, onlookers say Jones’ hands were trembling and he was pale. Appropriate for a man who used broad strokes to impose daunting climate change technology not only on his country, but on all the industrialized world.

Today, the UK Guardian said Jones admitted that “radically different finding” in his research, which Jones said showed “a slightly different conclusion” proved that urban influences played a big part in global warming:

But for the first time he did concede publicly that when he tried to
repeat the 1990 study in 2008, he came up with radically different
findings. Or, as he put it, “a slightly different conclusion”. Fully 40%
of warming there in the past 60 years was due to urban influences.
“It’s something we need to consider,” he said.

Jones said he ignored the FOIA’s because among climate scientists, it was not “standard practice” to release information and the data was “publicly available from American websites.

Watts Up With That says huh uh. Jones’ claim that it was “not standard practice” to release data is not truthful, and prints documents proving Jones shared information when the requester was known not to be a skeptic, and kept information from those who were.

The Institute of Physics lashed out against Jones in the hearing, and had already submitted a 13-paragraph document to Parliament concerning the impropriety of Jones’ actions. The following are some telling snippets of that document:

1) unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2) The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie
evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with
honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law.

4) Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data
available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5) The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the
reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented;
for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades
that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6) There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge
displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ‘self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process…

7) …The e-mails illustrate the
possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding
newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the
time of publication, would remove this possibility.

10) …most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in
a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of
the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as
those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices,
there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.