Beleaguered climate scientist Phil Jones from the of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, yesterday answered his critics during questions from a British parliamentary committee.
In 30 minutes of tense cross-examination by the , he denied that the thousand-plus emails from his unit published on the web three months ago showed he and his colleagues doing anything beyond 鈥渟tandard practice鈥�.
Jones鈥檚 research involves a major global analysis of temperature records over the past 160 years that are crucial to detecting a human influence on climate. Questioning concentrated on whether he and his colleagues have shared data and scientific methods sufficiently for their critics to replicate or contest his findings.
Advertisement
Jones conceded that he did not usually publish raw data from weather stations, which was often covered by confidentiality agreements, nor the computer codes he used to analyse the data. 鈥淚t hasn鈥檛 been standard practice to do that. Maybe it should, but it鈥檚 not,鈥� he said.
鈥楾hey never asked鈥�
Asked whether other climate scientists reviewing his papers ever required such data, he said, 鈥淭hey鈥檝e never asked.鈥� In response to a specific question about why he had failed to grant freelance researcher access to data, he said simply, 鈥淲e had a lot of work and resources tied up in it.鈥�
Jones also denied trying to keep papers by his critics out of journals. 鈥淚鈥檝e written some awful emails,鈥� he said, but later added, 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think there is anything that supports the view I鈥檝e been trying to pervert the peer-review process.鈥�
And he insisted that he and his colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit had responded properly to all , despite a surge in demand from frustrated critics last year.
鈥楻efusals to comply鈥�
Not everyone agreed that Jones had been as free with data and methodology as he should have been. Nigel Lawson, a in Margaret Thatcher鈥檚 government and author of , had earlier told the committee: 鈥溈烀ǘ淌悠祍 with integrity wish to reveal their data and all their methods. They don鈥檛 need freedom of information requests to force it out of them.鈥�
And submitted to the committee by the in London claimed the hacked emails had revealed 鈥減rima facie evidence of determined and coordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions鈥� through 鈥渕anipulation of the publication and peer-review system鈥� and 鈥渋ntolerance to challenge鈥�.
The committee is expected to produce a short report on the emails affair before the general election that is likely to be held in early May. Its inquiry is one of five separate investigations into the hacked Climatic Research Unit emails.
