here, I just ran across this at Watts Up, a statement from the Institute of Physics on Climaquiddick. Remember Jones'
And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.
statement? Point 2 of the IOP statement:
2. 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.
I repeat: Mr. Jones, you're a liar.
And I have to also borrow point 7:
7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.
Translation: "The peer review process does not work when the system is gamed to prevent people with different views from being heard."