Counting Cats in Zanzibar

After a brief break (occasioned mainly by my internet connection breaking for a week) I’ve been struggling to catch up again with everything going on. Interesting times, as they say. Probably one of the most interesting bits was Professor Jones’ evidence to Parliament. Poor Jones was under stress and looking fragile, no doubt worried about being caught in the tangled web he’s woven. Should he cut through it all and come clean? Truthfully, I do not think he could expect much mercy if he did. Or does he still hope to pick his way through the minefield? If so, I think he may have a problem with the Swedes.

This is about what is meant by “the raw data” and whether it is accessible. He was asked the question “Are all the raw data used in your various analyses accessible and verifiable?” and he replied “The simple answer is yes”. The word “simple” in this case meaning ’not quite true’.

Later he is asked a more pointed question: “I understand that the criticism from McIntyre, Mosher, Fuller, Hughes and other people is not that the data has been kept secret, it has been available on different data sets, but your computer programmes and methodology and which weather stations you have actually been putting into the papers have not been made available to them. That is the real criticism, is it not?” He replies that the methods are published in the papers, that they’re very simple, and there was a problem with releasing the data because some Met centres had set conditions preventing this, but they were writing to them all asking if it would be OK to release. He fails to mention that not all the details are in the papers, that he couldn’t find most of these agreements when challenged on it (they’d lost them), and that he’d already shared the data with another friendly researcher, but never mind all that – the point of interest is the letters that have been sent out requesting permission.

Incidentally, you should be puzzled at this point about how the data can all be freely accessible, and at the same time require permission to publish. That will be explained shortly.

Not only were the letters sent, but replies have been received. Behold!

Unfortunately, several of these countries impose conditions and say you are not allowed to pass it on, so there has just been an attempt to get these answers. Seven countries have said "No, you cannot", half the countries have not yet answered, Canada and Poland are amongst those who have said, "No you cannot publish it" and also Sweden. Russia is very hesitant. We are under a commercial promise, as it were, not to; we are longing to publish it because what science needs is the most openness.

That last sentence is such a laugh! But obviously having made such a statement, people have gone to the met offices of the countries in question, and asked them what on Earth they’re playing at, withholding scientific data? And they’re not best pleased. All of a sudden, the virtuous Dr Jones is longing to release the data (“The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”) and the dastardly Swedes are revealed as the true culprits!

Well, it seems the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute has written back (and the letter somehow found its way into the public domain) to say that wasn’t what they meant at all.

No, you see Dr Jones asked permission to republish the raw data, but in order to explain why he had to do it rather than rely upon the Swedes releasing it themselves he had to explain that his version of their raw data was very likely different from theirs. And so not only did he have to do it, but they weren’t to worry about the fact that the data he would be releasing would have different numbers in it and stuff.

Well, the Swedes had written back to say that no, they were not happy for him to publish the raw data from his site, but that all the raw data was going to be made available on the Swedish site. This is what the professor referred to in his evidence to Parliament.

You can see the bind that Jones is in. He’s said that the raw data is all accessible, which it is. But if people try to use it they’ll find the output won’t match, and he can see trouble coming from that. But the raw data that does match the final numbers he’s not allowed to publish, because some met offices are upset at the idea of some other set of numbers coming out and being described as theirs. (They are, perhaps, concerned that they might get the blame.) So he’s trying to claim that the data isn’t being withheld, because it’s already out there, and it has to be withheld, because those nasty foreign met offices made him do it, and everything is “accessible and verifiable” and it’s not his fault.

No wonder he was nervous.

I would be curious to know if there are similar stories in Canada and Poland. But of course the most interesting thing to come out of all this is the unexpectedly flexible definition of the term “raw data”. How can Phil’s version of the weather in Sweden differ from that of the Swedes’? Was the weather doing two different things at once? Or were the observers in two minds about it?

What he means of course is that he’s processed it. But he doesn’t want to (or is unable to) explain how and why, so he wants to label it as “raw” so that nobody can ask him questions. And not every met office is willing to collude, either allowing the substitution to be made, or silently acquiescing to being blamed for withholding it.

So if there are other differences between the data already published and the data direct from the met offices in question, it would be most amusing to ask them about the discrepancy, and why they agreed to allow this to occur. One can understand the motives of professor Jones, but why have so many of the sources agreed to this? Why is it that only Canada (a cold place), Russia (also cold), Sweden (pretty chilly) and Poland (heavily dependent on coal) refused to cooperate with this scheme to stop the world using fossil fuels?

While everybody is busy digging into the old web of lies, a new one is being constructed under our very noses. The data CRU releases will be declared “raw”, and conclusions drawn from it under the new regime of ‘transparency’ will be far harder to argue with. They’re learning, and they haven’t given up.

Thank you Sweden.