Pheeew! I have just read a long and damning indictment of Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia (UEA) written with great lucidity by Willis Eschenbach at WUWT. In it, he accuses Jones, several times, of being a liar, not a metaphorical liar, but the real thing, an out-and-out, deliberate teller of untruths. I am conscious of stepping into a legal minefield here so I reproduce one of the less inflammatory passages to give you the flavour:
You gave lots and lots of explanations to me, everything except the truth—that your records were in such disarray that you could not fulfill my request. It is clear now from the Climategate emails that some records were there, some were missing, the lists were not up to date, there was orphan data, some stations had multiple sets of data, some data was only identified by folder not by filename, you didn’t know which data might have been covered by confidentiality agreements, and the provenance of some datasets could not be established. The unfortunate reality was that you simply couldn’t do what I asked.
Jones and/or the UEA are faced with a deadly decision - to sue or not to sue. Failure to do so will leave the accusation standing in the public record. I urge you to read Eschenbach's letter and judge his side of the story. Now it gets 'down and dirty'!
Doug Keenan has been publicly accusing Phil Jones of fraud for some time and as far as I know he has never sued.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2010/12/evidence-of-fraud-by-phil-jones-and-his.html
Posted by: A K Haart | Monday, 28 November 2011 at 13:09
Phwoooaaaarrr! That's a horny letter and a half, isn't it?!
Surely that must kick off a legal action? When it does, let me know where Eschenbach's legal defence donation fund is, I feel a contribution urge coming on.
SoD
Posted by: Lawrence Duff | Monday, 28 November 2011 at 14:06
I must try and find time to read that, AK, thanks.
'SoD', save your money for that much more worthwhile charity, 'Duff's Poor Children's Beer Fund'!
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 28 November 2011 at 15:00
Blimey, he doesn't mess around, does he?
Legal action is what might be expected in America, but if I were advising Jones (and I'm very glad I'm not!) he would do best in not responding. Those who have followed the debate all seem aware of the issues, and their mind would not be changed by m'learned friends slugging it out. A court case would simply raise the profile and get it picked up by major news outlets. If Jones knows he can't win, then the only people who would have their views confirmed by his silence would be his detractors.
Posted by: Whyaxye | Monday, 28 November 2011 at 16:08
You're right, 'W', so let's hope the Blogosphere whips it up!
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 28 November 2011 at 16:15
Jones would be mad to sue. He can't win on two grounds. First - from my reading of the open letter - the allegations appear to be true. Secondly - as W implies - the last thing the CAGW nutters want is extensive and lengthy (and embarrassing) publicity in respect of their "science". That's why the BBC will also ignore WE's efforts.
Posted by: Umbongo | Monday, 28 November 2011 at 19:52
I agree, Bongers, it all depends on whether enough people keep blowing on the embers. After all, it isn't only Jones, his University is embroiled as well!
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 28 November 2011 at 19:59
David
Entertaining as it might be I doubt we will see any legal fireworks
There is a substantial difference between US and British Libel Law. To prevent Jurisdiction shopping US law requires the suit be filed in the place of authorship or publication, in the case the State of California in the United States.
it is harder to prove libel in the US and California law is harder than most states. Dr Jones is Public figure, at least as far as climate science goes, so a stricter standard of evidence applies. Truth is always a defense.
Dr Jones could file a suit in the UK, but an award would be uncollectible in the US. If he goes to a US court to enforce collection the court may rule the decision invalid and award Mr. Eschenbach court costs and legal fees, from both the US and UK trials. An award that would be uncollectible in the UK.
Dr. Jones would do well to follow the US Supreme Sourts suggestion, publish an equally blistering response.
Posted by: Hank | Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 00:40
I take your point, Hank, and thanks for the info, however it might be that the UEA will feel the need to respond in some way.
Posted by: David Duff | Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 09:09