Swedes call out Jones on data availability

Swedes call out Jones on data availability“. Anthony Watts wants us to think that The Stockholm Initiative is an objective scientific institution commenting honestly, and of course critically, on the Climategate false controversy.

In fact, The Stockholm Initiative is simply a collection of Swedish denialist cranks. They claim “For more than 20 years, a few dozen researchers, but above all, politicians and media, have spread the notion that carbon dioxide emissions will cause a global climate catastrophe.” (Their website was down while writing this, the quote is from Google’s cache.)

Ah, cranks with Photoshop and a poor grasp of English.

Their accusation is that Dr. Phil Jones was lying when he said that Sweden had refused to allow their climate data to be released. According to The Stockholm Initiative, it is actually already in the public domain.

This leads to some interesting questions. If this claim is true, why were the denialists demanding the Swedish data from Dr. Jones? Why did they never contact the original data holders? Why was their Freedom of Information demand necessary?

My answer is that they weren’t really interested in the data, they simply wanted to harass a researcher whose conclusions didn’t suit their agenda.

2010-03-17 Update: There’s a good look at this deception on Stoat. He draws attention to the fact that The Stockholm Initiative’s legal submission about the availability of the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute’s data is false. The data was not publicly available until a few days ago. Sadly, The Stockholm Initiative is out of reach of the British legal system.

8 thoughts on “Swedes call out Jones on data availability

    • Thanks for the feedback! I’ll add those suggestions to my blogroll. I do visit them and find them enlightening. I’ve added some updates to draw attention to good responses to WUWT posts in a few posts, but it’s hard to keep up.

      As for watching the comments at WUWT for good insights by scientifically-minded readers, the signal to noise ratio is so low there that I can rarely work up the energy to give it a try. It’s like trying to think while in the middle of the Monty Python “Spam!” sketch.

  1. Here’s a comment I made at CA which, last I looked, was still going through moderation. [Don’t hold your breath! – Ben]
    _________________________________________________

    The license on Dataserier 1961-2008 from SMHI clearly states that data may not be distributed (3.2)

    November 30th 2009
    Request made by UEA to make data more widely available.

    December 21st 2009
    Request rejected.
    “Given the information that the version of the data from the SMHI stations that you hold are likely to differ from the data we hold, SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site.”

    March 1st 2010
    Parliamentary hearing.

    Professor Acton: 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.

    March 4th 2010
    Clarification by SMHI.
    “We understand now that our response to your request forwarded by UK MetOffice 30 November 2009 may have been misinterpreted, maybe due to the fact that the formulations may have been a bit harsh.”

    Jones isn’t psychic. Even the SMHI recognised that they have given the wrong impression.

  2. Ben, what I usually do is search for some names like Joel Shore, Svaalgard (sp?) and some others or see whether there are a lot of people responding to a given poster. You are right that wading through the posts for an enlightening comment is like looking for the proverbial needle.

    • As a Canadian and a geologist by training, I find Steve McIntyre’s behaviour disgusting. I stay as far away from him as possible. It’s good that someone’s over there, turning over the rocks to reveal the skittering bugs.

  3. Pingback: AWOL: Anthony Watts Out of Lies? « Wott's Up With That?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s