Phil Jones of Climategate fame has come out of his hole for an interview. Evidently he didn’t see his shadow because according to him we’re in for more global warming. Phil’s been exonerated by some “whitewash” investigations and now is back in the saddle at the East Anglia University (EAU) Climate Research Unit (CRU). I don’t think he’s seen the light either and prefers the science at the CRU remain in the shadows.
New Science Magazine has Phil’s latest interview published here. Below are a few snippets and comments, but you should read the whole thing for yourself, not that it explains much. Seems to be more like global warming fluff or something on that order. It seems to me Phil still doesn’t want to deal with anybody outside of his little scientific circle anymore than he has to.
First off Phil basically says to hell with bloggers when asked about critics…..
Yes, provided they do it through the normal processes, which is through peer review. I say that not because there’s no value in the blog sites, but because it’s necessary. Unless the alternative views are in the peer-reviewed literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cannot refer to them.
Seems like we may be back to the we only want peer-review from peers who agree with us.
It’s striking that some of the criticism of the Russell review was around the panel membership and who spoke to whom when, rather than addressing the CRU’s scientific answers to the inquiry.
Ummmm…what scientific answers, the science wasn’t reviewed nor were the e-mails Phil. Why shouldn’t we question who made up the panel? It seems rather obvious that it was a stacked with warmers deck full of jokers wild.
Seems he’s still locked into global warming, too, regardless of all the proof it’s BS.
But I do find it difficult engaging with people who deny the evidence and say the world has not warmed.
I wonder if he finds it “difficult” because he might have to actually explain himself and his science and his e-mails, when thus far he hasn’t had to really do much, if any of that. Much easier to hide out and only discuss things with people in agreement.
It’s made us realise that if we have nothing to hide then we need not give the impression that we are hiding things. In some instances we should have been more helpful, we accept that.
Yes, like how about answering FOIA requests? Denying them made a lot of people justifiably suspicious about what was going on there. Seems he still wants to hide out on those and only hand out what he wants to. How typical.
I think some information should be exempt from FOI (freedom of information) requests.
Sounds to my like Phil is going to continue in his old ways and not make any changes unless he’s forced into it. I wonder what he’d have to say if a “skeptic” science site wanted to interview him? He’d probably go back into his hole.
Source: New Scientist