He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.In contrast to Jones, the Institute of Physics sees science properly, as set forth in its written submission to Parliament:
And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.
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. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. . .BTW, the Institute of Physics is "a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics . . . [with] a worldwide membership of over 36,000." Notwithstanding Climategate, it still supports the carbon-forced global warming hypothesis. See also the filing by the Royal Society of Chemistry.
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.
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 as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.
(via TigerHawk, Watts Up With That?)