Mar 07 2010
I was going to write a post on a disturbing discrepancy in testimony by Phil Jones and Vice Chancellor Acton of the scandal beaten Climactic Research Unit (CRU) at the center of the Climategate emails and files. During their questioning they claimed Sweden, Canada and Poland would not allow them to make public their national data.
The Swedes wrote into Parliament to clarify (see here at Climate Audit) that they have no issues with data being public at all. The blog Bishop Hill beat me to the punch, but here is the key point of contention between Jones and the Swedes. This is excerpt is from Jones in his request to Sweden:
We stress that the data we hold has arisen from multiple sources, and has been recovered over the last 30 years. Subsequent quality control and homogenisation of these data have been carried out. It is therefore highly likely that the version we hold and are requesting permission to distribute will differ from your own current holdings.
The Swedes quite rightly were against Jones making his processed data available under the guise it was raw Swedish data. There have been numerous posts by skeptics looking at raw data from that region of Europe noting how the raw data does not line up with CRU and IPCC graphs (see here for one example). What is stunning about this letter (original here) is how Jones clearly is trying to put the Swedish label on his data. As Bishop Hill notes there is no restriction on CRU publishing data it has massaged, it just cannot call it raw Swedish data:
t seems clear to me that Jones does not actually require permission from SMHI to release the adjusted data. This, by his own admission, is different to what SMHI holds and there can therefore be no issues of intellectual property.
Having being asked for permission to release, SMHI felt they were being asked to endorse Jones’ adjusted figures. Quite properly, they refused. It is clear that they had no objection to Jones releasing his adjusted data provided he made it clear that it was just that:Â adjusted.
How many other countries caught this apparent subterfuge? Is this the smoking gun that proves the AGW zealots did ‘adjust’ the data to make it appear there was significant warming in the last 50 years?
And if Sweden was one of a handful of countries to detect the con, how many are now cross checking CRU and about to blow this mess wide open?
Addendum: Let me be clear on what I think this could mean. As I noted on Bishop Hill this could be the beginning of a huge data manipulation scandal for IPCC and AGW theory. If CRU has sent out this form letter to all nations providing it data, and they missed the lawyerly CYA language about CRU putting that nation’s moniker on CRU adjusted data, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.
Right about now a lot of people are looking at what the Swedes caught onto and are checking for themselves. If Jones was dumb and arrogant enough to try and pull this con off (and all indications are he is), then a list of nations will be pulling the alarm bells next week on CRU, and therefore IPCC, NCDC, GISS, EPA, etc.
The only reason I can see for Jones to keep the national moniker on the CRU adjusted data is because those ‘adjustments’ are key to AGW surviving. Otherwise why run the risk? This could be the incident that blows the entire scientific fraud wide open. The next few weeks will tell if I am right.