Alleged CRU Emails - 25 results below

Original Filename: 1177158252.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Kevin Trenberth" <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: FYI
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:24:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Reply-to: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Ben Santer" <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi Phil
I am sure you know that this is not about the science. It is an attack to
undermine the science in some way. In that regard I don't think you can
ignore it all, as Mike suggests as one option, but the response should try
to somehow label these guys and lazy and incompetent and unable to do the
huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database. Indeed
technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything
was saved. So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their
motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with
nothng better to do seems like a good thing to do.

How about "I tried to get some data from McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but
I was unable because he doesn't have such a paper because he has not done
any constructive work!"

There is no basis for retracting a paper given in Keenan's message. One
may have to offer a correction that a particular sentence was not correct
if it claimed something that indeed was not so. But some old instrumental
data are like paleo data, and can only be used with caution as the
metadata do not exist. It doesn't mean they are worthless and can not be
used. Offering to make a correction to a few words in a paper in a
trivial manner will undermine his case.

Kevin


> Hi Phil,
>
> This is all too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking
> for one thing they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the
> facts might be able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They
> can't take on the whole of the science, so they look for one little
> thing they can say is wrong, and thus generalize that the science is
> entirely compromised. Of course, as nicely shown in the SPM, every
> landmass is independently warming, and much as the models predict. So
> they can harp all they want on one Chinese data set, it couldn't
> possibly change the big picture (let alone even the trends for China). The
>
> So they are simply hoping to blow this up to something that looks like a
> legitimate controversy. The last thing you want to do is help them by
> feeding the fire. Best thing is to ignore them completely. They no
> longer have their friends in power here in the U.S., and the media has
> become entirely unsympathetic to the rants of the contrarians at least
> in the U.S.--the Wall Street Journal editorial page are about the only
> place they can broadcast their disinformation. So in other words, for
> contrarians the environment appears to have become very unfavorable for
> development. I would advise Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be
> bluffing, but if he tries this I believe that British law would make it
> easy for Wang to win a defamation suit against him (the burden is much
> tougher in the states),
>
> mike
>
> Phil Jones wrote:
>>
>> Kevin,
>> Have a look at this web site. I see you're away.
>> The websites can wait, but scroll down to the letter below
>> from Keenan - the last sentence.
>>
>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1471#comments
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1479#more-1479
>>
>> One is about data from a paper 17 years ago (Jones et al. 1990)
>>
>> Also there is this email (below) sent to Wei-Chyung Wang, who was
>> one of the co-authors on the 1990 paper. Wei-Chyung is in
>> China, and may not yet have seen this. When he's back in
>> Albany, I've suggested he talks to someone there. It is
>> all malicious. I've cc'd this to Ben and Mike as well, to get
>> any thoughts from their experiences.
>>
>> If it gets worse I will bring Susan in as well, but I'm talking
>> to some people at UEA first. Susan has enough to do
>> with getting the AR4 WG1 volume out.
>>
>> On the 1990 paper, I have put the locations and the data for
>> the rural stations used in the paper on the CRU website. All
>> the language is about me not being able to send them the
>> station data used for the grids (as used in 1990!). I don't
>> have this information, as we have much more data now
>> (much more in Australia and China than then) and probably
>> more stations in western USSR are as well.
>>
>> As for the other request, I don't have the information on
>> the sources of all the sites used in the CRUTEM3 database.
>> We are adding in new datasets regularly (all of NZ from
>> Jim Renwick recently) , but we don't keep a source code
>> for each station. Almost all sites have multiple sources and
>> only a few sites have single sources. I know things roughly
>> by country and could reconstruct it, but it would take a while.
>>
>> GHCN and NCAR don't have source codes either. It does
>> all come from the NMSs - well mostly, but some from
>> scientists.
>>
>> A lot of the issues are in various papers, but they never
>> read these. Also certainly no use talking to them.
>>
>> In Geneva all week. David Parker and Tom Peterson will
>> be there. I can live with the web site abuse, but the Keenan
>> letter knocked me back a bit.
>>
>> I seem to be the marked man now !
>>
>> Cheers
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "D.J. Keenan" <doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> To: "Wei-Chyung Wang" <wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Cc: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Subject: retraction request
>> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:31:15 +0100
>> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>
>> Dear Dr. Wang,
>> Regarding the Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al.
>> [GRL, 1990] and Jones et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that
>> there are severe problems. In particular, the data was obtained from
>> 84 meteorological stations that can be classified as follows.
>> 49 have no histories 08 have inconsistent histories 18 have
>> substantial relocations 02 have single-year relocations 07 have
>> no relocations Furthermore, some of the relocations are very
>> distant--over 20 km.
>> Others are to greatly different environments, as illustrated here:
>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970
>>
>> The above contradicts the published claim to have considered the
>> histories of the stations, especially for the 49 stations that have no
>> histories. Yet the claim is crucial for the research conclusions.
>>
>> I e-mailed you about this on April 11th. I also phoned you on April
>> 13th: you said that you were in a meeting and would get back to me. I
>> have received no response.
>>
>> I ask you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the
>> claims made in Nature about the Chinese data. If you do not do so, I
>> intend to publicly submit an allegation of research misconduct to your
>> university at Albany.
>>
>>
>> Douglas J. Keenan
>> http://www.informath.org
>> phone xxx xxxx xxxx2
>> The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Prof. Phil Jones
>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> NR4 7TJ
>> UK
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
> --
> Michael E. Mann
> Associate Professor
> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>
> Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
> 503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>
> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>
>


___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

Original Filename: 1177163150.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FYI
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:45:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Hi Phil,

This is all too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking
for one thing they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the
facts might be able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They
can't take on the whole of the science, so they look for one little
thing they can say is wrong, and thus generalize that the science is
entirely compromised. Of course, as nicely shown in the SPM, every
landmass is independently warming, and much as the models predict. So
they can harp all they want on one Chinese data set, it couldn't
possibly change the big picture (let alone even the trends for China). The

So they are simply hoping to blow this up to something that looks like a
legitimate controversy. The last thing you want to do is help them by
feeding the fire. Best thing is to ignore them completely. They no
longer have their friends in power here in the U.S., and the media has
become entirely unsympathetic to the rants of the contrarians at least
in the U.S.--the Wall Street Journal editorial page are about the only
place they can broadcast their disinformation. So in other words, for
contrarians the environment appears to have become very unfavorable for
development. I would advise Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be
bluffing, but if he tries this I believe that British law would make it
easy for Wang to win a defamation suit against him (the burden is much
tougher in the states),

mike

Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Kevin,
> Have a look at this web site. I see you're away.
> The websites can wait, but scroll down to the letter below
> from Keenan - the last sentence.
>
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1471#comments
>
> and
>
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1479#more-1479
>
> One is about data from a paper 17 years ago (Jones et al. 1990)
>
> Also there is this email (below) sent to Wei-Chyung Wang, who was
> one of the co-authors on the 1990 paper. Wei-Chyung is in
> China, and may not yet have seen this. When he's back in
> Albany, I've suggested he talks to someone there. It is
> all malicious. I've cc'd this to Ben and Mike as well, to get
> any thoughts from their experiences.
>
> If it gets worse I will bring Susan in as well, but I'm talking
> to some people at UEA first. Susan has enough to do
> with getting the AR4 WG1 volume out.
>
> On the 1990 paper, I have put the locations and the data for
> the rural stations used in the paper on the CRU website. All
> the language is about me not being able to send them the
> station data used for the grids (as used in 1990!). I don't
> have this information, as we have much more data now
> (much more in Australia and China than then) and probably
> more stations in western USSR are as well.
>
> As for the other request, I don't have the information on
> the sources of all the sites used in the CRUTEM3 database.
> We are adding in new datasets regularly (all of NZ from
> Jim Renwick recently) , but we don't keep a source code
> for each station. Almost all sites have multiple sources and
> only a few sites have single sources. I know things roughly
> by country and could reconstruct it, but it would take a while.
>
> GHCN and NCAR don't have source codes either. It does
> all come from the NMSs - well mostly, but some from
> scientists.
>
> A lot of the issues are in various papers, but they never
> read these. Also certainly no use talking to them.
>
> In Geneva all week. David Parker and Tom Peterson will
> be there. I can live with the web site abuse, but the Keenan
> letter knocked me back a bit.
>
> I seem to be the marked man now !
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> From: "D.J. Keenan" <doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: "Wei-Chyung Wang" <wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Cc: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: retraction request
> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:31:15 +0100
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>
> Dear Dr. Wang,
> Regarding the Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al.
> [GRL, 1990] and Jones et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that
> there are severe problems. In particular, the data was obtained from
> 84 meteorological stations that can be classified as follows.
> 49 have no histories 08 have inconsistent histories 18 have
> substantial relocations 02 have single-year relocations 07 have
> no relocations Furthermore, some of the relocations are very
> distant--over 20 km.
> Others are to greatly different environments, as illustrated here:
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970
>
> The above contradicts the published claim to have considered the
> histories of the stations, especially for the 49 stations that have no
> histories. Yet the claim is crucial for the research conclusions.
>
> I e-mailed you about this on April 11th. I also phoned you on April
> 13th: you said that you were in a meeting and would get back to me. I
> have received no response.
>
> I ask you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the
> claims made in Nature about the Chinese data. If you do not do so, I
> intend to publicly submit an allegation of research misconduct to your
> university at Albany.
>
>
> Douglas J. Keenan
> http://www.informath.org
> phone xxx xxxx xxxx2
> The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1177423054.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: FYI
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Dear Phil,

Sorry about the delay in replying to your email - I've been out of my
office for a few days.

This is really nasty stuff, and I'm sorry that it's happened to you. The
irony in this is that you are one of the most careful and thorough
scientists I know.

Keenan's allegations of research misconduct, although malicious and
completely unfounded, clearly require some response. The bottom line is
that there are uncertainties inherent in measuring ANY properties of the
real-world climate system. You've probably delved deeper than anyone
else on the planet into uncertainties in observed surface temperature
records. This would be well worth pointing out to Mr. Keenan. The whole
tenor of the web-site stuff and Keenan's garbage is that these folks are
scrupulously careful data analysts, and you are not. They conveniently
ignore all the pioneering work that you've done on identification of
inhomogeneities in surface temperature records. The response should
mention that you've spent much of your scientific career trying to
quantify the effects of such inhomogeneities, changing spatial coverage,
etc. on observed estimates of global-scale surface temperature change.

The bottom line here is that observational data are frequently "messy".
They are not the neat, tidy beasts Mr. Keenan would like them to be.
This holds not only for surface temperature measurements. It also holds
- in spades - for measurements of tropospheric temperature from MSU and
radiosondes, and for measurements of ocean temperatures from XBTs,
profiling floats, etc. We would like observing systems to be more
accurate, more stable, and better-suited for monitoring decadal-scale
changes in climate. You and Kevin and many other are actively working
towards that goal. The key message here is that, despite uncertainties
in the surface temperature record - uncertainties which you and others
in the field are well aware of, and have worked hard to quantify - it is
now unequivocal that surface temperatures have warmed markedly over the
past 100 years. Uncertainties in the station histories do not negate
this basic message.

Hope some of these random musings might be useful, Phil. Let me know if
there's anything else I can do to help. Will you be at the Hadley Centre
Science Review Group meeting in May?

With best regards,

Ben

P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> All,
> Thanks for the thoughts. I'll muse on them whilst
> away. I've decided to ignore the blogs, but will wait
> till I hear from Wei-Chyung when he's back. There is
> no point yet in my responding to Keenan till Wei-Chyung
> hears.
> I'm away much of the next 3 weeks, so I won't be
> responding quickly. I'll be noting down some points
> for a possible response, so anything I'll do will
> be considered rather than my usual quick responses.
> The unequivocal statement in the SPM will be clear
> in any response.
> The whole tone of their argument smacks of a last
> resort challenge. 2007 continues warm for the first
> 3 months.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>> I agree on the blogs: I have refrained from any responses to the attacks
>> on me wrt hurricanes etc.
>> K
>>
>>
>>> I don't disagree w/ Kevin's points here, but I do think it is
>>> dangerous to respond to an accusation made on a blog (a dubious
>>> one at that). It sets a bad precedent. On the other hand, since
>>> the letter to Wang was copied to you, I guess it is legitimate for
>>> you to respond to that. but very carefully as Kevin points out,
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi Phil I am sure you know that this is not
>>> about the science. It is an attack to undermine the science in some
>>> way.
>>> In that regard I don't think you can ignore it all, as Mike suggests as
>>> one option, but the response should try to somehow label these guys and
>>> lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes
>>> to
>>> construct such a database. Indeed technology and data handling
>>> capabilities have evolved and not everything was saved. So my feeble
>>> suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in
>>> some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with nothng better to do
>>> seems like a good thing to do. How about "I tried to get some data from
>>> McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but I was unable because he doesn't have
>>> such a paper because he has not done any constructive work!" There is
>>> no
>>> basis for retracting a paper given in Keenan's message. One may have to
>>> offer a correction that a particular sentence was not correct if it
>>> claimed something that indeed was not so. But some old instrumental data
>>> are like paleo data, and can only be used with caution as the metadata
>>> do
>>> not exist. It doesn't mean they are worthless and can not be used.
>>> Offering to make a correction to a few words in a paper in a trivial
>>> manner will undermine his case. Kevin Hi Phil, This is all
>>> too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking for one
>>> thing
>>> they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the facts might be
>>> able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They can't take on
>>> the
>>> whole of the science, so they look for one little thing they can say is
>>> wrong, and thus generalize that the science is entirely compromised. Of
>>> course, as nicely shown in the SPM, every landmass is independently
>>> warming, and much as the models predict. So they can harp all they want
>>> on one Chinese data set, it couldn't possibly change the big picture
>>> (let
>>> alone even the trends for China). The So they are simply hoping to blow
>>> this up to something that looks like a legitimate controversy. The last
>>> thing you want to do is help them by feeding the fire. Best thing is to
>>> ignore them completely. They no longer have their friends in power here
>>> in the U.S., and the media has become entirely unsympathetic to the
>>> rants
>>> of the contrarians at least in the U.S.--the Wall Street Journal
>>> editorial page are about the only place they can broadcast their
>>> disinformation. So in other words, for contrarians the environment
>>> appears to have become very unfavorable for development. I would advise
>>> Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be bluffing, but if he tries
>>> this I believe that British law would make it easy for Wang to win a
>>> defamation suit against him (the burden is much tougher in the states),
>>> mike Phil Jones wrote: Kevin, Have a look at this
>>> web site. I see you're away. The websites can wait, but scroll down to
>>> the letter below from Keenan - the last sentence.
>>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1471#comments and
>>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1479#more-1479 One is about data from a
>>> paper 17 years ago (Jones et al. 1990) Also there is this email
>>> (below)
>>> sent to Wei-Chyung Wang, who was one of the co-authors on the 1990
>>> paper. Wei-Chyung is in China, and may not yet have seen this. When
>>> he's
>>> back in Albany, I've suggested he talks to someone there. It is all
>>> malicious. I've cc'd this to Ben and Mike as well, to get any thoughts
>>> from their experiences. If it gets worse I will bring Susan in as
>>> well,
>>> but I'm talking to some people at UEA first. Susan has enough to do
>>> with getting the AR4 WG1 volume out. On the 1990 paper, I have put the
>>> locations and the data for the rural stations used in the paper on the
>>> CRU website. All the language is about me not being able to send them
>>> the station data used for the grids (as used in 1990!). I don't have
>>> this information, as we have much more data now (much more in Australia
>>> and China than then) and probably more stations in western USSR are as
>>> well. As for the other request, I don't have the information on the
>>> sources of all the sites used in the CRUTEM3 database. We are adding in
>>> new datasets regularly (all of NZ from Jim Renwick recently) , but we
>>> don't keep a source code for each station. Almost all sites have
>>> multiple sources and only a few sites have single sources. I know
>>> things
>>> roughly by country and could reconstruct it, but it would take a while.
>>> GHCN and NCAR don't have source codes either. It does all come from
>>> the
>>> NMSs - well mostly, but some from scientists. A lot of the issues
>>> are
>>> in various papers, but they never read these. Also certainly no use
>>> talking to them. In Geneva all week. David Parker and Tom Peterson
>>> will be there. I can live with the web site abuse, but the Keenan
>>> letter knocked me back a bit. I seem to be the marked man now !
>>> Cheers Phil From: "D.J. Keenan" To: "Wei-Chyung Wang" Cc: "Phil
>>> Jones" Subject: retraction request Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:31:15
>>> +0100
>>> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear Dr. Wang, Regarding the
>>> Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] and
>>> Jones
>>> et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that there are severe
>>> problems.
>>> In particular, the data was obtained from 84 meteorological stations
>>> that can be classified as follows. 49 have no histories 08 have
>>> inconsistent histories 18 have substantial relocations 02 have
>>> single-year relocations 07 have no relocations Furthermore, some of
>>> the relocations are very distant--over 20 km. Others are to greatly
>>> different environments, as illustrated here:
>>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970 The above
>>> contradicts
>>> the published claim to have considered the histories of the stations,
>>> especially for the 49 stations that have no histories. Yet the claim is
>>> crucial for the research conclusions. I e-mailed you about this on
>>> April
>>> 11th. I also phoned you on April 13th: you said that you were in a
>>> meeting and would get back to me. I have received no response. I ask
>>> you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the claims made
>>> in
>>> Nature about the Chinese data. If you do not do so, I intend to
>>> publicly
>>> submit an allegation of research misconduct to your university at
>>> Albany.
>>> Douglas J. Keenan http://www.informath.org phone xxx xxxx xxxx2 The
>>> Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research
>>> Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxxSchool of Environmental
>>> Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxxUniversity of East Anglia Norwich
>>> Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx NR4 7TJ UK
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth
>>> System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology
>>> Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxWalker Building FAX:
>>> (814)
>>> xxx xxxx xxxxThe Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>> University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>> ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO
>>> Box
>>> 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>>
>>> -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science
>>> Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)
>>> xxx xxxx xxxxWalker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> The
>>> Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx University Park,
>>> PA 16xxx xxxx xxxxhttp://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>
>> ___________________
>> Kevin Trenberth
>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
>> PO Box 3000
>> Boulder CO 80307
>> ph xxx xxxx xxxx
>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1177534709.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: FYI
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:58:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Dear Phil,

I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I'd really
like to talk to a few of these "Auditors" in a dark alley. They seem to
have no understanding of how science is actually done - no appreciation
of the fact that uncertainty is an integral part of what we do. Once
again, just let me know how I can help....

It will be good to see you in Exeter. I'm looking forward to that. I'll
have two nights in London after the meeting, and am hoping to spend some
time wandering around the British Museum.

I met a very nice lady (Stephanie) while I was giving a series of
climate change lectures in Puerto Rico back in January. She's a
Professor at the University of San Francisco, and (fortuitously),
specializes in the policy implications of climate change, risk
assessment, etc. She also likes hiking and climbing. It's fun to "have a
life" again (as they say over here).

Best wishes to you and Ruth,

Ben
P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> Ben,
> Thanks for the thoughts. I'm in Geneva at the moment,
> so have a bit of time to think. Possibly I'll
> get the raw data from GHCN and do some work to replace
> our adjusted data with these, then make the Raw
> (i.e. as transmitted by the NMSs). This will annoy them
> more, so may inflame the situation.
>
> Got some ideas/thoughts from Mike, Kevin and Gavin Schmidt.
>
> Some of the stuff on the Climat Audit web site is awful.
>
> Will also be talking to someone at UEA, is they have
> anything useful to say.
>
> Also talking to Wei-Chyung about how he'll respond.
>
> I will be in Exeter. Get back from Tarragona on the
> Weds am, so should be there for dinner on the first day.
>
> Lots of odd things going on at the HC by the way.
>
> See you in Exeter.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>> Dear Phil,
>>
>> Sorry about the delay in replying to your email - I've been out of my
>> office for a few days.
>>
>> This is really nasty stuff, and I'm sorry that it's happened to you. The
>> irony in this is that you are one of the most careful and thorough
>> scientists I know.
>>
>> Keenan's allegations of research misconduct, although malicious and
>> completely unfounded, clearly require some response. The bottom line is
>> that there are uncertainties inherent in measuring ANY properties of the
>> real-world climate system. You've probably delved deeper than anyone
>> else on the planet into uncertainties in observed surface temperature
>> records. This would be well worth pointing out to Mr. Keenan. The whole
>> tenor of the web-site stuff and Keenan's garbage is that these folks are
>> scrupulously careful data analysts, and you are not. They conveniently
>> ignore all the pioneering work that you've done on identification of
>> inhomogeneities in surface temperature records. The response should
>> mention that you've spent much of your scientific career trying to
>> quantify the effects of such inhomogeneities, changing spatial coverage,
>> etc. on observed estimates of global-scale surface temperature change.
>>
>> The bottom line here is that observational data are frequently "messy".
>> They are not the neat, tidy beasts Mr. Keenan would like them to be.
>> This holds not only for surface temperature measurements. It also holds
>> - in spades - for measurements of tropospheric temperature from MSU and
>> radiosondes, and for measurements of ocean temperatures from XBTs,
>> profiling floats, etc. We would like observing systems to be more
>> accurate, more stable, and better-suited for monitoring decadal-scale
>> changes in climate. You and Kevin and many other are actively working
>> towards that goal. The key message here is that, despite uncertainties
>> in the surface temperature record - uncertainties which you and others
>> in the field are well aware of, and have worked hard to quantify - it is
>> now unequivocal that surface temperatures have warmed markedly over the
>> past 100 years. Uncertainties in the station histories do not negate
>> this basic message.
>>
>> Hope some of these random musings might be useful, Phil. Let me know if
>> there's anything else I can do to help. Will you be at the Hadley Centre
>> Science Review Group meeting in May?
>>
>> With best regards,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>>> All,
>>> Thanks for the thoughts. I'll muse on them whilst
>>> away. I've decided to ignore the blogs, but will wait
>>> till I hear from Wei-Chyung when he's back. There is
>>> no point yet in my responding to Keenan till Wei-Chyung
>>> hears.
>>> I'm away much of the next 3 weeks, so I won't be
>>> responding quickly. I'll be noting down some points
>>> for a possible response, so anything I'll do will
>>> be considered rather than my usual quick responses.
>>> The unequivocal statement in the SPM will be clear
>>> in any response.
>>> The whole tone of their argument smacks of a last
>>> resort challenge. 2007 continues warm for the first
>>> 3 months.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>> I agree on the blogs: I have refrained from any responses to the
>>>> attacks
>>>> on me wrt hurricanes etc.
>>>> K
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't disagree w/ Kevin's points here, but I do think it is
>>>>> dangerous to respond to an accusation made on a blog (a dubious
>>>>> one at that). It sets a bad precedent. On the other hand, since
>>>>> the letter to Wang was copied to you, I guess it is legitimate for
>>>>> you to respond to that. but very carefully as Kevin points out,
>>>>>
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi Phil I am sure you know that this is not
>>>>> about the science. It is an attack to undermine the science in some
>>>>> way.
>>>>> In that regard I don't think you can ignore it all, as Mike suggests
>>>>> as
>>>>> one option, but the response should try to somehow label these guys
>>>>> and
>>>>> lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes
>>>>> to
>>>>> construct such a database. Indeed technology and data handling
>>>>> capabilities have evolved and not everything was saved. So my feeble
>>>>> suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in
>>>>> some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with nothng better to do
>>>>> seems like a good thing to do. How about "I tried to get some data
>>>>> from
>>>>> McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but I was unable because he doesn't have
>>>>> such a paper because he has not done any constructive work!" There is
>>>>> no
>>>>> basis for retracting a paper given in Keenan's message. One may have
>>>>> to
>>>>> offer a correction that a particular sentence was not correct if it
>>>>> claimed something that indeed was not so. But some old instrumental
>>>>> data
>>>>> are like paleo data, and can only be used with caution as the metadata
>>>>> do
>>>>> not exist. It doesn't mean they are worthless and can not be used.
>>>>> Offering to make a correction to a few words in a paper in a trivial
>>>>> manner will undermine his case. Kevin Hi Phil, This is
>>>>> all
>>>>> too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking for one
>>>>> thing
>>>>> they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the facts might
>>>>> be
>>>>> able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They can't take on
>>>>> the
>>>>> whole of the science, so they look for one little thing they can say
>>>>> is
>>>>> wrong, and thus generalize that the science is entirely compromised.
>>>>> Of
>>>>> course, as nicely shown in the SPM, every landmass is independently
>>>>> warming, and much as the models predict. So they can harp all they
>>>>> want
>>>>> on one Chinese data set, it couldn't possibly change the big picture
>>>>> (let
>>>>> alone even the trends for China). The So they are simply hoping to
>>>>> blow
>>>>> this up to something that looks like a legitimate controversy. The
>>>>> last
>>>>> thing you want to do is help them by feeding the fire. Best thing is
>>>>> to
>>>>> ignore them completely. They no longer have their friends in power
>>>>> here
>>>>> in the U.S., and the media has become entirely unsympathetic to the
>>>>> rants
>>>>> of the contrarians at least in the U.S.--the Wall Street Journal
>>>>> editorial page are about the only place they can broadcast their
>>>>> disinformation. So in other words, for contrarians the environment
>>>>> appears to have become very unfavorable for development. I would
>>>>> advise
>>>>> Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be bluffing, but if he tries
>>>>> this I believe that British law would make it easy for Wang to win a
>>>>> defamation suit against him (the burden is much tougher in the
>>>>> states),
>>>>> mike Phil Jones wrote: Kevin, Have a look at
>>>>> this
>>>>> web site. I see you're away. The websites can wait, but scroll down
>>>>> to
>>>>> the letter below from Keenan - the last sentence.
>>>>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1471#comments and
>>>>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1479#more-1479 One is about data from
>>>>> a
>>>>> paper 17 years ago (Jones et al. 1990) Also there is this email
>>>>> (below)
>>>>> sent to Wei-Chyung Wang, who was one of the co-authors on the 1990
>>>>> paper. Wei-Chyung is in China, and may not yet have seen this. When
>>>>> he's
>>>>> back in Albany, I've suggested he talks to someone there. It is all
>>>>> malicious. I've cc'd this to Ben and Mike as well, to get any
>>>>> thoughts
>>>>> from their experiences. If it gets worse I will bring Susan in as
>>>>> well,
>>>>> but I'm talking to some people at UEA first. Susan has enough to do
>>>>> with getting the AR4 WG1 volume out. On the 1990 paper, I have put
>>>>> the
>>>>> locations and the data for the rural stations used in the paper on
>>>>> the
>>>>> CRU website. All the language is about me not being able to send them
>>>>> the station data used for the grids (as used in 1990!). I don't have
>>>>> this information, as we have much more data now (much more in
>>>>> Australia
>>>>> and China than then) and probably more stations in western USSR are
>>>>> as
>>>>> well. As for the other request, I don't have the information on the
>>>>> sources of all the sites used in the CRUTEM3 database. We are adding
>>>>> in
>>>>> new datasets regularly (all of NZ from Jim Renwick recently) , but we
>>>>> don't keep a source code for each station. Almost all sites have
>>>>> multiple sources and only a few sites have single sources. I know
>>>>> things
>>>>> roughly by country and could reconstruct it, but it would take a
>>>>> while.
>>>>> GHCN and NCAR don't have source codes either. It does all come from
>>>>> the
>>>>> NMSs - well mostly, but some from scientists. A lot of the issues
>>>>> are
>>>>> in various papers, but they never read these. Also certainly no use
>>>>> talking to them. In Geneva all week. David Parker and Tom Peterson
>>>>> will be there. I can live with the web site abuse, but the Keenan
>>>>> letter knocked me back a bit. I seem to be the marked man now !
>>>>> Cheers Phil From: "D.J. Keenan" To: "Wei-Chyung Wang" Cc:
>>>>> "Phil
>>>>> Jones" Subject: retraction request Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:31:15
>>>>> +0100
>>>>> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-UEA-Spam-Score:
>>>>> 0.0
>>>>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear Dr. Wang, Regarding the
>>>>> Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] and
>>>>> Jones
>>>>> et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that there are severe
>>>>> problems.
>>>>> In particular, the data was obtained from 84 meteorological stations
>>>>> that can be classified as follows. 49 have no histories 08 have
>>>>> inconsistent histories 18 have substantial relocations 02 have
>>>>> single-year relocations 07 have no relocations Furthermore, some of
>>>>> the relocations are very distant--over 20 km. Others are to greatly
>>>>> different environments, as illustrated here:
>>>>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970 The above
>>>>> contradicts
>>>>> the published claim to have considered the histories of the stations,
>>>>> especially for the 49 stations that have no histories. Yet the claim
>>>>> is
>>>>> crucial for the research conclusions. I e-mailed you about this on
>>>>> April
>>>>> 11th. I also phoned you on April 13th: you said that you were in a
>>>>> meeting and would get back to me. I have received no response. I ask
>>>>> you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the claims made
>>>>> in
>>>>> Nature about the Chinese data. If you do not do so, I intend to
>>>>> publicly
>>>>> submit an allegation of research misconduct to your university at
>>>>> Albany.
>>>>> Douglas J. Keenan http://www.informath.org phone xxx xxxx xxxx2
>>>>> The
>>>>> Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK Prof. Phil Jones Climatic
>>>>> Research
>>>>> Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxxSchool of Environmental
>>>>> Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxxUniversity of East Anglia Norwich
>>>>> Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx NR4 7TJ UK
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director,
>>>>> Earth
>>>>> System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology
>>>>> Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxWalker Building FAX:
>>>>> (814)
>>>>> xxx xxxx xxxxThe Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>> University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>>>> ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO
>>>>> Box
>>>>> 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System
>>>>> Science
>>>>> Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)
>>>>> xxx xxxx xxxxWalker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> The
>>>>> Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx University
>>>>> Park,
>>>>> PA 16xxx xxxx xxxxhttp://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>>> ___________________
>>>> Kevin Trenberth
>>>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
>>>> PO Box 3000
>>>> Boulder CO 80307
>>>> ph xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Benjamin D. Santer
>> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
>> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
>> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
>> Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
>> FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
>> email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1182255717.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Thomas.R.Karl" <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: retraction request
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:21:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Wei-Chyung Wang <wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Thanks Phil,
We R now responding to a former TV weather forecaster who has got press, He has a web site
of 40 of the USHCN stations
showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases.
We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out.
Regards, TOm
Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:

Wei-Chyung and Tom,
The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990)
paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to
submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?
Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers
to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press
in J. Climate. I say 'may be' as Ren isn't that clear about this in
the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested
JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.
In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization
at two sites in China.
Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA
requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said
they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are
threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning)
about the availability of the responses to reviewer's at the various
stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on
paleo.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:48 12/06/2007, Wei-Chyung Wang wrote:

FYI. WCW
PS I am flying out to Norway this afternoon. Keep in touch.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wei-Chyung Wang [[1]mailto:wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:46 AM
To: [2]doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: 'WCW'; '[3]Kld@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'
Subject: RE: retraction request
Date: June 12, 2007
To: D. J. Keenan
Cc: K. Demerjian, Director, ASRC/SUNY-Albany
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Keenan,
The only valid scientific issue described in your June 11, 2007 e-mailed pdf
file (attached here as reference) concerning our 1990 GRL paper is the
"station histories", while others are strictly your own opinions and
therefore irrelevant to your inquiry. So let me elaborate further on this
issue.
Digitization of the hard copies of "station histories" was prepared in
1xxx xxxx xxxxby Ms. Zhao-Mei Zeng (IAP/CAS) only for the 60-station network,
while the "station histories" of other stations, including those we used in
1990 urban warming study, were available in paper form, as I have already
indicated in my 4/30/07 e-mail to you. Therefore, the use of the word
"fabrication" in your document is totally absurd.
Concerning the current status of these hard copies of "station histories",
Ms. Zeng told me when I was in Beijing in April 2007, that she no longer has
the access to these information because it has been a long time (since 1990)
and also IAP has moved office. But if you are interested, you can make an
inquiry to the China Meteorological Administration using the web site:
[4]http://211.147.16.25/ywwz/about/cma.php.
I believe that I have made it very clear what we had done with regard to the
"station histories" in 1990 urban warming study. What and how you are going
to proceed from now on is entirely your decision.
WCW
*********************************************
Dr. Wei-Chyung Wang
Professor of Applied Sciences
Atmospheric Sciences Research Center
State University of New York
251 Fuller Road
Albany, New York 12203
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
E-mail: [5]wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
*********************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: D.J. Keenan [[6]mailto:doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 8:43 AM
To: Wei-Chyung Wang
Subject: Re: retraction request
Dear Dr. Wang,
I had something urgent arise, and so had to leave this matter for a while.
Please find attached a rough draft report. If you believe the report to be
inaccurate or misrepresentative, kindly let me know.
I hope that you will reconsider. If you decide to publish retractions, I
will cease to bring this forward.
Sincerely,
Douglas Keenan
----- Original Message -----
From: [7]<wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "'D.J. Keenan'" [8]<doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "'Phil Jones'" [9]<p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; [10]<Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>;
"'Wei-Chyung Wang'" [11]<wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "'Zeng Zhaomei'"
[12]<zzm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, 30 April, 2007 6:14
Subject: Re: retraction request
> Dr. Keenan,
>
> The discussion with Ms. Zeng last week in Beijing have re-affirmed
> that she used the hard copies of station histories to make sure that
> the selected stations for the study of urban warming in China have
> relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or
> observation times over the study period (1xxx xxxx xxxx).
>
> Regards,
>
> WCW
>
> ---------------------4/22/2007 4:46 PM e-mail Wang to Keenan---------
> Dear Dr. Keenan,
>
> I was really surprised to see your e-mail (below) after I logged into
> SUNYA webmail in Nanjing/China, after several days of disconnection
> (from internet) while travelling in central China.
>
> I flew to China early morning on 4/14, the day after your call to my
> office when I was in a meeting. My understanding was that you are
> going to call me again, but you never did.
>
> In any case, becuase of 4/14 trip to China, I origionally plan to
> respond to your 4/11 e-mailed questions when I return to Albany the
> end of this month. To answer your questions more accurately, I need
> to look into the file (if I can find it since it has been a long
> time), and also contact the co-author, Ms. Zeng, who brought the data
> and visited SUNYA as a visiting scientist from the Institute of
> Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, during that time.
>
> Regards,
>
> WCW
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D.J. Keenan" [13]<doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Date: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:31 am
> Subject: retraction request
>
>> Dear Dr. Wang,
>>
>> Regarding the Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al.
>> [GRL, 1990] and Jones et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that
>> there are severe problems. In particular, the data was obtained
>> from 84 meteorological stations that can be classified as follows.
>> 49 have no histories
>> 08 have inconsistent histories
>> 18 have substantial relocations
>> 02 have single-year relocations
>> 07 have no relocations
>> Furthermore, some of the relocations are very distant--over 20 km.
>>
>> Others are to greatly different environments, as illustrated here:
>> [14]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970
>>
>> The above contradicts the published claim to have considered the
>> histories of the stations, especially for the 49 stations that have
>> no histories. Yet the claim is crucial for the research conclusions.
>>
>> I e-mailed you about this on April 11th. I also phoned you on April
>> 13th: you said that you were in a meeting and would get back to me.
>> I have received no response.
>>
>> I ask you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the
>> claims made in Nature about the Chinese data. If you do not do so, I
>> intend to publicly submit an allegation of research misconduct to
>> your university at Albany.
>>
>>
>> Douglas J. Keenan
>> [15]http://www.informath.org
>> phone xxx xxxx xxxx2
>> The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK
>>

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [16]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--

Dr. Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.

Director

NOAA's National Climatic Data Center

Veach-Baley Federal Building

151 Patton Avenue

Asheville, NC 28xxx xxxx xxxx

Tel: (8xxx xxxx xxxx

Fax: (8xxx xxxx xxxx

[17]Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

References

1. mailto:wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:Kld@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://211.147.16.25/ywwz/about/cma.php
5. mailto:wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. mailto:wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
12. mailto:zzm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
13. mailto:doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
14. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970
15. http://www.informath.org/
16. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. mailto:Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Original Filename: 1182342470.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Thomas C Peterson <Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Jones et al 1990
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:27:xxx xxxx xxxx

Fascinating. Thanks for keeping me in the loop, Phil. I won't pass it on but I will keep
it in the back of my mind when/if Russ asks about appropriate responses to CA requests.
Russ' view is that you can never satisfy them so why bother to try?
It seems to me that what they are saying is the equivalent of accusing a doctor of
malpractice for not seeing a broken bone in a Chinese x-ray taken in 1985 when the break is
clearly visible in a state of the art 2005 Canadian MRI scan examined while wearing their
special problem finding glasses.
They also don't seem to understand the collaborative nature of the work, equivalent to
accusing you of faulty reading of metadata at the USHCN station in Reno because you quoted
a general USHCN statement that wasn't fully applicable to Reno.
Good luck.
Tom
Phil Jones said the following on 6/20/2007 3:59 AM:

Tom P.
Just for interest. Don't pass on.
Might be a precedent for your paper to J. Climate when
it comes out.
There are a few interesting comments on the CA web site.
One says it is up to me to prove the paper from 1990 was correct,
not for Keenan to prove we're wrong. Interesting logic.
Cheers
Phil
Wei-Chyung, Tom,
I won't be replying to either of the emails below, nor to any
of the accusations on the Climate Audit website.
I've sent them on to someone here at UEA to see if we
should be discussing anything with our legal staff.
The second letter seems an attempt to be nice to me,
and somehow split up the original author team.
I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA
request!
Cheers
Phil

X-YMail-OSG: wrT8WAEVM1myBGklj9hAiLvnYW9GqqFcbArMYvXDn17EHo1e0Vf5eSQ4WIGJljnsEw--
From: "Steve McIntyre" [1]<stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" [2]<p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Jones et al 1990
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:44:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Dear Phil,

Jones et al 1990 cited a 260-station temperature set jointly collected by the US
Deparment of Energy and the PRC Academy of Sciences, stating in respect to the Chinese
stations:

The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if
any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times.

This data set was later published as NDP-039
[3]http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp039/ndp039.html , coauthored by Zeng Zhaomei,
providing station histories only for their 65-station network, stating that station
histories for their 205-station network (which includes many of the sites in Jones et al
1990) were not available:

(s. 5) Unfortunately, station histories are not currently available for any of the
stations in the 205-station network; therefore, details regarding instrumentation,
collection methods, changes in station location or observing times, and official data
sources are not known.

(s. 7) Few station records included in the PRC data sets can be considered truly
homogeneous. Even the best stations were subject to minor relocations or changes in
observing times, and many have undoubtedly experienced large increases in urbanization.
Fortunately, for 59 of the stations in the 65-station network, station histories (see
Table 1) are available to assist in proper interpretation of trends or jumps in the
data; however, station histories for the 205-station network are not available. In
addition, examination of the data from the 65-station data set has uncovered evidence of
several undocumented station moves (Sects. 6 and 10). Users should therefore exercise
caution when using the data.

Accordingly, it appears that the quality control claim made in Jones et al 1990 was
incorrect. I presume that you did not verify whether this claim was correct at the time
and have been unaware of the incorrectness of this representation. Since the study
continues to be relied on, most recently in AR4, I would encourage you to promptly issue
an appropriate correction.

Regards, Steve McIntyre



From: "D.J. Keenan" [4]<doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Steve McIntyre" [5]<stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "Phil Jones" [6]<p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Wang fabrications
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:45:15 +0100
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Steve,
I thought that I should summarize what has happened with the Wang case.
First, I concluded that the claims made about Chinese stations by Jones et al. [Nature,
1990] and Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] were very probably fabricated. (You very likely came
to the same conclusion.)
Second, some investigation showed that Phil Jones was wholly blameless and that
responsibility almost certainly lay with Wang.
Third, I contacted Wang, told him that I had caught him, and asked him to retract his
fabricated claims. My e-mails were addressed to him only, and I told no one about
them. In Wang's reply, though, Jones, Karl, Zeng, etc. were Cc'd.
Fourth, I explained to Wang that I would publicly accuse him of fraud if he did not
retract. Wang seemed to not take me seriously. So I drafted what would be the text of
a formal accusation and sent it to him. Wang replied that if I wanted to make the
accusation, that was up to me.
Fifth, I put a draft on my web site--
[7] http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm
--and e-mailed a few people, asking if they had any recommendations for improvement.
I intend to send the final version to Wang's university, and to demand a formal
investigation into fraud. I will also notify the media. Separately, I have had a
preliminary discussion with the FBI--because Wang likely used government funds to commit
his fraud; it seems that it might be possible to prosecute Wang under the same statute
as was used in the Eric Poehlman case. The simplicity of the case makes this easier--no
scientific knowledge is required to understand things.
I saw that you have now e-mailed Phil (Cc'd above), asking Phil to publish a retraction
of Wang's claims: [8]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#comment-115879
There could be a couple problems with that. One problem is that it would be difficult
for Phil to publish anything without the agreement of Wang and the other co-authors
(Nature would simply say "no").
Another problem is that your e-mail says that you presume Phil was "unaware of the
incorrectness" of Wang's work. I do not see how that could be true. Although the
evidence that Phil was innocent in 1990 seems entirely conclusive, there is also the
paper of Yan et al. [Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 18: 309 (2001)], which is cited
on my web page. Phil is a co-author of that paper.
Phil, this proves that you knew there were serious problems with Wang's claims back in
2001; yet some of your work since then has continued to rely on those claims, most
notably in the latest report from the IPCC. It would be nice to hear the explanation
for this. Phil?
Kind wishes, Doug
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Douglas J. Keenan
[9]http://www.informath.org
phone xxx xxxx xxxx2
The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [10]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D.
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Voice: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx

References

1. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp039/ndp039.html
4. mailto:doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm
8. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#comment-115879
9. http://www.informath.org/
10. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Original Filename: 1182346299.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Kevin Trenberth" <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Jones et al 1990
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:31:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Reply-to: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Phil
Hang in there. I went thru this on the hurricane stuff and it was hard to
take. But responding to these guys unless they write papers is not the
thing to do.
Kevin
>
> Kevin,
> My problem is that I don't know the best course of action.
> Just sitting tight at the moment taking soundings.
> I'd be far happier if they would write some papers and act
> in the normal way. I'd know how to respond to that. In
> a way this all seems a different form of attack from that on Ben and
> Mike in previous IPCCs.
> I know I'm on the right side and honest, but I seem to be
> telling myself this more often recently! I also know that 99.9%
> of my fellow climatologists know the attacks are groundless.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> At 14:54 20/06/2007, you wrote:
>>Phil
>>It is nasty. It is also very inappropriate. Even were some problems to
>>emerge over time, those should be addressed in a new paper by these guys.
>>Unfortunately all they do is criticise.
>>Kevin
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Kevin,
>> > Have also forwarded these emails to Susan and Martin, just
>> > so they are aware of what is going on. The second email
>> > is particularly nasty.
>> >
>> > I'm not worried and stand by the original paper and also
>> > Wei-Chyung. I do plan to do some more work on urban-related
>> > issues. I also think there is some urban influence in more recent
>> > Chinese series from the 1980s onwards. I've seen some Chinese
>> > papers on this. They are not that well written though.
>> >
>> > The CA web site has also had a go at David Parker's paper in
>> > J. Climate (2006). David sent them the site locations and where
>> > the data came from at NCDC. There are also threads on CA about
>> > US HCN (Tom Karl and Peterson aware of these) and also about
>> > IPCC and our responses to the various drafts.
>> >
>> > Apologies for sharing these with you. It is useful to send to a
>> > very small group, as it enables me to get on with some real work.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Phil
>> >
>> > Wei-Chyung, Tom,
>> > I won't be replying to either of the emails below, nor to any
>> > of the accusations on the Climate Audit website.
>> >
>> > I've sent them on to someone here at UEA to see if we
>> > should be discussing anything with our legal staff.
>> >
>> > The second letter seems an attempt to be nice to me,
>> > and somehow split up the original author team.
>> >
>> > I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA
>> > request!
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Phil
>> >
>> >>X-YMail-OSG:
>> >>wrT8WAEVM1myBGklj9hAiLvnYW9GqqFcbArMYvXDn17EHo1e0Vf5eSQ4WIGJljnsEw--
>> >>From: "Steve McIntyre" <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >>To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >>Subject: Jones et al 1990
>> >>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:44:xxx xxxx xxxx
>> >>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
>> >>X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>> >>X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>> >>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>> >>
>> >>Dear Phil,
>> >>
>> >>Jones et al 1990 cited a 260-station temperature set jointly
>> >>collected by the US Deparment of Energy and the PRC Academy of
>> >>Sciences, stating in respect to the Chinese stations:
>> >>
>> >>The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose
>> >>those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or
>> >>observation times.
>> >>
>> >>This data set was later published as NDP-039
>> >><http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp039/ndp039.html>http://cdiac.o
>> rnl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp039/ndp039.html
>> >>, coauthored by Zeng Zhaomei, providing station histories only for
>> >>their 65-station network, stating that station histories for their
>> >>205-station network (which includes many of the sites in Jones et al
>> >>1990) were not available:
>> >>
>> >>(s. 5) Unfortunately, station histories are not currently available
>> >>for any of the stations in the 205-station network; therefore,
>> >>details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in
>> >>station location or observing times, and official data sources are not
>> >> known.
>> >>
>> >>(s. 7) Few station records included in the PRC data sets can be
>> >>considered truly homogeneous. Even the best stations were subject to
>> >>minor relocations or changes in observing times, and many have
>> >>undoubtedly experienced large increases in urbanization.
>> >>Fortunately, for 59 of the stations in the 65-station network,
>> >>station histories (see Table 1) are available to assist in proper
>> >>interpretation of trends or jumps in the data; however, station
>> >>histories for the 205-station network are not available. In
>> >>addition, examination of the data from the 65-station data set has
>> >>uncovered evidence of several undocumented station moves (Sects. 6
>> >>and 10). Users should therefore exercise caution when using the data.
>> >>
>> >>Accordingly, it appears that the quality control claim made in Jones
>> >>et al 1990 was incorrect. I presume that you did not verify whether
>> >>this claim was correct at the time and have been unaware of the
>> >>incorrectness of this representation. Since the study continues to
>> >>be relied on, most recently in AR4, I would encourage you to
>> >>promptly issue an appropriate correction.
>> >>
>> >>Regards, Steve McIntyre
>> >>
>> >>
>> > From: "D.J. Keenan" <doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> > To: "Steve McIntyre" <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> > Cc: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> > Subject: Wang fabrications
>> > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:45:15 +0100
>> > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
>> > X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>> > X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>> > X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>> >
>> > Steve,
>> >
>> > I thought that I should summarize what has happened with the Wang
>> case.
>> >
>> > First, I concluded that the claims made about Chinese stations by
>> > Jones et al. [Nature, 1990] and Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] were very
>> > probably fabricated. (You very likely came to the same conclusion.)
>> >
>> > Second, some investigation showed that Phil Jones was wholly
>> > blameless and that responsibility almost certainly lay with Wang.
>> >
>> > Third, I contacted Wang, told him that I had caught him, and asked
>> > him to retract his fabricated claims. My e-mails were addressed to
>> > him only, and I told no one about them. In Wang's reply, though,
>> > Jones, Karl, Zeng, etc. were Cc'd.
>> >
>> > Fourth, I explained to Wang that I would publicly accuse him of fraud
>> > if he did not retract. Wang seemed to not take me seriously. So I
>> > drafted what would be the text of a formal accusation and sent it to
>> > him. Wang replied that if I wanted to make the accusation, that was
>> up to
>> > me.
>> >
>> > Fifth, I put a draft on my web site--
>> > http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm
>> > --and e-mailed a few people, asking if they had any recommendations
>> > for improvement.
>> >
>> > I intend to send the final version to Wang's university, and to
>> > demand a formal investigation into fraud. I will also notify the
>> > media. Separately, I have had a preliminary discussion with the
>> > FBI--because Wang likely used government funds to commit his fraud;
>> > it seems that it might be possible to prosecute Wang under the same
>> > statute as was used in the Eric Poehlman case. The simplicity of the
>> > case makes this easier--no scientific knowledge is required to
>> > understand things.
>> >
>> > I saw that you have now e-mailed Phil (Cc'd above), asking Phil to
>> > publish a retraction of Wang's
>> > claims: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#comment-115879
>> > There could be a couple problems with that. One problem is that it
>> > would be difficult for Phil to publish anything without the agreement
>> > of Wang and the other co-authors (Nature would simply say "no").
>> >
>> > Another problem is that your e-mail says that you presume Phil was
>> > "unaware of the incorrectness" of Wang's work. I do not see how that
>> > could be true. Although the evidence that Phil was innocent in 1990
>> > seems entirely conclusive, there is also the paper of Yan et al.
>> > [Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 18: 309 (2001)], which is cited on
>> > my web page. Phil is a co-author of that paper.
>> >
>> > Phil, this proves that you knew there were serious problems with
>> > Wang's claims back in 2001; yet some of your work since then has
>> > continued to rely on those claims, most notably in the latest report
>> > from the IPCC. It would be nice to hear the explanation for this.
>> Phil?
>> >
>> > Kind wishes, Doug
>> >
>> > * * * * * * * * * * * *
>> > Douglas J. Keenan
>> > http://www.informath.org
>> > phone xxx xxxx xxxx2
>> > The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK
>> >
>> >
>> > Prof. Phil Jones
>> > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>> > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>> > University of East Anglia
>> > Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> > NR4 7TJ
>> > UK
>> >
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>___________________
>>Kevin Trenberth
>>Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
>>PO Box 3000
>>Boulder CO 80307
>>ph xxx xxxx xxxx
>>http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

Original Filename: 1182361058.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Wahl, Eugene R" <wahle@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: personal
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:37:xxx xxxx xxxx

Hi Phil:

Glad I can help, even if quite indirectly. I know what you mean about the need for community when under duress. The individual quality of being a scientist works against us in this way. Attached are the original letter and the official UCAR response. I don't know what the lawyers might have written, other than their input to the official response letter. I do know they sought information from Caspar (and myself, but less so). I don't recall if we made available to them our correspondance with Steve Schneider about our responses to the review of WA that McIntyre did, which had a lot of information in it that debunked his claims about withholding contrary results, etc, etc.. In fact, we have never mentioned this to Steve, to make sure that he was in the situation to make editorial decisions as focused soley on the science as possible.

I was wondering if there is any way we as the scientific community can seek some kind of "cease and desist" action with these people. They are making all kinds of claims, all over the community, and we act in relatively disempowered ways. Note that UCAR did send the response letter to the presidents of the two academic institutions with which MM are associated, although this seems to have had no impact. Seeking the help of the attorneys you speak about would be useful, I should think. I know that Mike has said he looked into slander action with the attorneys with whom he spoke, but they said it is hard to do since Mike is, in effect, a "public" person -- and to do so would take a LOT of his time (assuming that the legal time could somewhow be supported financially). If I might ask, if you do get legal advice, could you inquire into the possibility of acting proactively in response via the British system? Maybe the "public" person situation does not hold there, or less so. I only ask you to consider this question on my part; obviously, please do what you deem best for your situation.

Finally, I have shared the MM letter and UCAR response before only with one other scientist, a now retired emminent person here in the US whom I asked to look over all the materials and give me his frank opinion if he felt we had done anything inappropriate. He came back with a solid "NO", and said that what MM were attempting was "unspeakable". Caspar has mentioned that UCAR said to him they did not want to disseminate these materials publically, and I have kept to that, other than the case mentioned. It seems clear to me that providing them to you is appropriate; I have not contacted Caspar to think about it at this point, and don't feel I need to. Anyway, this is just to give you the context on that side of things. I would imagine that sharing the doc's with legal persons you trust would be OK.

Note that I am now out of contact through July 9. I wish you all the best!!

Peace, Gene
________________________________

From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Wed 6/20/2007 4:06 AM
To: Wahl, Eugene R
Subject: Fwd: Jones et al 1990


Gene,
Thanks for the email of support! I've taken up the
idea of asking someone at UEA about legal advice.
I would like to see the original letter if possible. I won't
pass this on. Did the NCAR/UCAR legal staff put anything
in writing, as this might help me decide if the advice
I might get here is reasonable? I'm sure it will be and
I know I've nothing to worry about, as I've done nothing wrong
and neither has Wei-Chyung.
It is good to share these sorts of things with a few people.
I know Ben and Mike have been through this, but wasn't
aware you and Caspar had. Thanks for your strength !

Cheers
Phil

Wei-Chyung, Tom,
I won't be replying to either of the emails below, nor to any
of the accusations on the Climate Audit website.

I've sent them on to someone here at UEA to see if we
should be discussing anything with our legal staff.

The second letter seems an attempt to be nice to me,
and somehow split up the original author team.

I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA
request!

Cheers
Phil



X-YMail-OSG: wrT8WAEVM1myBGklj9hAiLvnYW9GqqFcbArMYvXDn17EHo1e0Vf5eSQ4WIGJljnsEw--
From: "Steve McIntyre" <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Jones et al 1990
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:44:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO

Dear Phil,

Jones et al 1990 cited a 260-station temperature set jointly collected by the US Deparment of Energy and the PRC Academy of Sciences, stating in respect to the Chinese stations:

The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times.

This data set was later published as NDP-039 http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp039/ndp039.html , coauthored by Zeng Zhaomei, providing station histories only for their 65-station network, stating that station histories for their 205-station network (which includes many of the sites in Jones et al 1990) were not available:

(s. 5) Unfortunately, station histories are not currently available for any of the stations in the 205-station network; therefore, details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in station location or observing times, and official data sources are not known.

(s. 7) Few station records included in the PRC data sets can be considered truly homogeneous. Even the best stations were subject to minor relocations or changes in observing times, and many have undoubtedly experienced large increases in urbanization. Fortunately, for 59 of the stations in the 65-station network, station histories (see Table 1) are available to assist in proper interpretation of trends or jumps in the data; however, station histories for the 205-station network are not available. In addition, examination of the data from the 65-station data set has uncovered evidence of several undocumented station moves (Sects. 6 and 10). Users should therefore exercise caution when using the data.

Accordingly, it appears that the quality control claim made in Jones et al 1990 was incorrect. I presume that you did not verify whether this claim was correct at the time and have been unaware of the incorrectness of this representation. Since the study continues to be relied on, most recently in AR4, I would encourage you to promptly issue an appropriate correction.

Regards, Steve McIntyre



From: "D.J. Keenan" <doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Steve McIntyre" <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Wang fabrications
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:45:15 +0100
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO

Steve,

I thought that I should summarize what has happened with the Wang case.

First, I concluded that the claims made about Chinese stations by Jones et al. [Nature, 1990] and Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] were very probably fabricated. (You very likely came to the same conclusion.)

Second, some investigation showed that Phil Jones was wholly blameless and that responsibility almost certainly lay with Wang.

Third, I contacted Wang, told him that I had caught him, and asked him to retract his fabricated claims. My e-mails were addressed to him only, and I told no one about them. In Wang's reply, though, Jones, Karl, Zeng, etc. were Cc'd.

Fourth, I explained to Wang that I would publicly accuse him of fraud if he did not retract. Wang seemed to not take me seriously. So I drafted what would be the text of a formal accusation and sent it to him. Wang replied that if I wanted to make the accusation, that was up to me.

Fifth, I put a draft on my web site--
http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm
<http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm> --and e-mailed a few people, asking if they had any recommendations for improvement.

I intend to send the final version to Wang's university, and to demand a formal investigation into fraud. I will also notify the media. Separately, I have had a preliminary discussion with the FBI--because Wang likely used government funds to commit his fraud; it seems that it might be possible to prosecute Wang under the same statute as was used in the Eric Poehlman case. The simplicity of the case makes this easier--no scientific knowledge is required to understand things.

I saw that you have now e-mailed Phil (Cc'd above), asking Phil to publish a retraction of Wang's claims: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#comment-115879
There could be a couple problems with that. One problem is that it would be difficult for Phil to publish anything without the agreement of Wang and the other co-authors (Nature would simply say "no").

Another problem is that your e-mail says that you presume Phil was "unaware of the incorrectness" of Wang's work. I do not see how that could be true. Although the evidence that Phil was innocent in 1990 seems entirely conclusive, there is also the paper of Yan et al. [Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 18: 309 (2001)], which is cited on my web page. Phil is a co-author of that paper.

Phil, this proves that you knew there were serious problems with Wang's claims back in 2001; yet some of your work since then has continued to rely on those claims, most notably in the latest report from the IPCC. It would be nice to hear the explanation for this. Phil?

Kind wishes, Doug

* * * * * * * * * * * *
Douglas J. Keenan
http://www.informath.org
<http://www.informath.org/> phone xxx xxxx xxxx2
The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK



Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachMM_request_to_UCAR.doc"

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachUCAR_response_to_MM V6.doc"

Original Filename: 1188412866.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Something not to pass on
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:41:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Phil
Confidential: Dennis Shea just had angiogram: 75% blockage: having open heart surgery
tomorrow morning. He does not want this known till the operation results are known.
============
This is awful stuff and I can't imagine that this could be published. I know of this
fellow Peiser though and he is extremely biased (against you likely). So treading with
caution is warranted. The email seems to invite a comment but not a review. You should
probably only respond with something that you would not mind being published. You can also
point out errors of fact. Whether you point out errors of logic or opinion is another
matter altogether. If you write just to the editor you can try to evaluate the comment and
point out that it lacks substance.
I think my approach would be to try to stick to science.e.g.
I don't know what was done for the 1990 paper but obviously sound practice is
1) we attempt to use homogeneous data
2) Site moves are one indication of lack of homogeneity but there are standard means of
adjusting for such moves especially when there is an overlap in the record.
3) All data are scrutinized for possible problems and discontinuities, especially if there
is a question about a possible move and the date is known.
4) Site movements do not necessarily prejudice the record toward warming or cooling: a move
from the inner city to an outlying airport can result in cooling, for instance.
5) Revisions are made when new information becomes available.
6) It is helpful if researchers can improve the records and provide updated analyses.
Or something to this effect. You could try a patronizing approach of over explaining the
difficulties.
At the very least you should be critical of the statement in 4. that he "politely requested
an explanation". He quotes you as saying:
"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it?".[1][1]
______________________________

[2][1] McIntyre S. (19 July 2006), Submission to the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations (Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives). This is a
sworn statement by McIntyre. [It is available at
[3]http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/McIntyre.pd
f.]

but you have no reason to be defensive: if there was a problem with the data and all due
care was taken, then if there is something wrong with it, it was the responsibility of
those who took the data, not those who used it responsibly. You should also point out that
the data are just as available to anyone as to you.

In the IPCC report we are careful to say that there are urban effects and they are
important and we have a lot about them. But they are small on the global scale. His
conclusions are wrong. Also the IPCC evaluates published works and does not do research or
deal with raw data.
In the appendix, presumably the quotes are based on the best information at the time. That
was then.
The conclusions of the author that fabrication occurred is not valid. Maybe things could
have been done better, but that universally applies.
Let me know if you want more concrete suggestions
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:

Kevin, Mike,
Sending just for your thoughts. The Appendix of this attachment has gone
to SUNY Albany and is being dealt with by them. Not sure when, but
Wei-Chyung has nothing to worry about.
I've sent to Wei-Chyung and also to Tom Karl. Q is should I respond?
If I don't they will misconstrue this to suit their ends. I could come up
with a few sentences pointing out the need to look at the Chinese data
rather than just the locations of the sites. Looking further at Keenan's
web site, he's not looked at the temperature data, nor realised that the
sites he's identified are the urban stations from the 1990 paper. He has
no idea if the sites for the rural Chinese stations moved, as he doesn't
seem to have this detail. Whatever I say though will be used for whatever, so it
seems as though I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.
Does the email suggest to you this is a request for a formal review?
E&E have an awful track record as a peer-review journal.
Footnote 8 is interesting. Grape harvest dates are one of the best documentary
proxies.
Cheers
Phil

Subject: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:18:04 +0100
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
thread-index: AcfqPgYII3NKEW8US8uwftlkhnxNhgAB/4xQAAA5K8A=
From: "Peiser, Benny" [4]<B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: [5]<p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 14:18:06.0729 (UTC) FILETIME=[6B4F5F90:01C7EA47]
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Dear Dr Jones
I have attached a copy of Doug Keenan's paper on the alleged Wang fraud
that was submitted for the forthcoming issue of Energy & Environment
[6]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene.
I was wondering whether you would be happy to comment on its content and
factual accuracy. Your comments and suggestions would be much
appreciated. We would need your feedback by Sept 17.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Benny Peiser
Guest editor, E&E
Liverpool John Moores University, UK

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [7]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [8]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [9]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

References

Visible links
1. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox5320.html#_ftn1
2. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox5320.html#_ftnref1
3. http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/McIntyre.pdf
4. mailto:B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene
7. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

Hidden links:
10. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox5320.html#_ftn1

Original Filename: 1188478901.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:01:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
thanks Phil,

I did take the liberty of discussing w/ Gavin, who can of course be
trusted to maintain the confidentiality of this. We're in agreement that
Keenan has wandered his way into dangerous territory here, and that in
its current form this is clearly libellous; there is not even a pretense
that he is only investigating the evidence. Furthermore, while many of
us fall under the category of 'limited public figures' and therefore the
threshold for proving libel is quite high, this is *not* the case for
Wei-Chyung. He is not a public figure. I believe they have made a major
miscalculation here in treating him as if he is. In the UK, where E&E is
published, the threshold is even lower than it is in the states for
proving libel. We both think he should seek legal advice on this, as
soon as possible.

With respect to Peiser's guest editing of E&E and your review, following
up on Kevin's suggestions, we think there are two key points. First, if
there are factual errors (other than the fraud allegation) it is very
important that you point them out now. If not, Keenan could later allege
that he made the claims in good faith, as he provided you an opportunity
to respond and you did now. Secondly, we think you need to also focus on
the legal implications. In particular, you should mention that the
publisher of a libel is also liable for damages - that might make Sonja
B-C be a little wary. Of course, if it does get published, maybe the
resulting settlement would shut down E&E and Benny and Sonja all
together! We can only hope, anyway. So maybe in an odd way its actually
win-win for us, not them. Lets see how this plays out...

RealClimate is of course always available to you as an outlet, if it
seems an appropriate venue. But we should be careful not to jump the gun
here.

Kevin: very sorry to hear about Dennis. Please pass along my best wishes
for a speedy recovery if and when it seems appropriate to do so...

Mike

Phil Jones wrote:
> Mike, Kevin,
> Thanks for your sets of thoughts. I've been in touch with Wei-Chyung,
> who's in China at the moment. He forwarded the 'paper!' to the people
> dealing
> with Keenan's allegations at SUNY. He got a reply to say that Keenan
> has now violated the confidentiality agreement related to
> the allegation. So, it isn't right to respond whilst this is
> ongoing. I will
> draft something short though, whilst it's all fresh in my mind. Then
> I can
> get onto something else.
> I did send the email below to Peiser clarifying whether he wanted
> a review or just thoughts. I got the amazing reply - sent to three
> reviewers!
> So, letting the SUNY process run its course. Once finished, Real
> Climate
> may be one avenue to lay out all the facts/details.
>
> Away tomorrow. I think you have Monday off, so have a good long
> weekend!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>> Subject: RE: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:48:43 +0100
>> X-MS-Has-Attach:
>> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>> Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>> thread-index: AcfqVG3NykjMc9doTBWIfTqkHPH+xwACAfp3
>> From: "Peiser, Benny" <B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 16:53:26.0748 (UTC)
>> FILETIME=[1E7969C0:01C7EA5D]
>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>
>> Dear Phil
>>
>> The paper has been sent to three reviewers. Of course I will take
>> your comments and assessment into consideration. Indeed, if the
>> claims are unsubtantiated, I would certainly reject the paper.
>>
>> I hope this clarifies your query.
>>
>> With best regards
>> Benny
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
>> Sent: Wed 8/29/2007 16:51
>> To: Peiser, Benny
>> Subject: Re: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Benny,
>> Energy and Environment is presumably a peer-review journal. Your
>> email wasn't clear as to whether you want me to review the paper?
>> If you
>> want me to, will you take any notice of what I might say - such as
>> reject the paper? Or has the contribution already been reviewed?
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> At 15:18 29/08/2007, you wrote:
>> >Dear Dr Jones
>> >
>> >I have attached a copy of Doug Keenan's paper on the alleged Wang fraud
>> >that was submitted for the forthcoming issue of Energy & Environment
>> >http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene.
>> >
>> >
>> >I was wondering whether you would be happy to comment on its content
>> and
>> >factual accuracy. Your comments and suggestions would be much
>> >appreciated. We would need your feedback by Sept 17.
>> >
>> >I look forward to hearing from you.
>> >
>> >Yours sincerely
>> >
>> >Benny Peiser
>> >Guest editor, E&E
>> >Liverpool John Moores University, UK
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Prof. Phil Jones
>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> NR4 7TJ
>> UK
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1188508827.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:20:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, 'Wei-Chyung Wang' <wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Phil,

I think you need to respond by providing E&E with a simple answer
of "false" to Keenan's write-up, based on the communication with me
(but no mention of SUNYA confidentiality issue, it has to come
directly from SUNYA). That will force E*E to contact either me
directly or SUNYA. If the former, I can refer to SUNYA also, and let
the university to handle it.

My reading is that, since the IPCC policy report is coming out soon
(in October?), Keenan is in panic and wants to tint the Nature paper
as much and as soon as possible, so he can not wait for SUNYA to
conduct "inquery" (not investigation) which he knows he is not getting
what he wants. Going to news medium will not do his trick because he
can not really explain it. So in a way Keenan traps himself now,
betting on that the "station history" was not available and that the
stations have moved a lot (he does not know that at all). We are
facing a tricky person and group, and the only way to do it is to
follow the procedure to drive them crazy. E&E is not going to publish
it without giving me the chance to respond, and that is when SUNYA
comes in and that is what Keenan does not want to see as well, he
wants to create a smocky screen before the truth comes out. We are not
going to let Keenan doing things his way. So be easy, and respond
directly what you learn from me (and any other scienctific issues you
can identify) and perhaps even ask E&E to contact me/or SUNYA for
verification.

I know you are under tremendous pressure, but Keenan is in panic and
what he has done is going back to burn him, badly. We should be
thinking, after the whole odeal is over, to take legal (or other)
actions against Keenan. This is time I regre not been a rich person,
otherwise I can throw a million dollar lawsuit against him.

Let me know what you want to do. I have also asked SUNYA's opinion
about what you should do within the SUNYA framework. But be careful
that you do not know much about SUNYA action.

WCW

----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:16 am
Subject: Re: Fwd: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud

>
> Wei-Chyung,
> Been thinking. A couple of thoughts:
>
> 1. Libel is quite easy to prove in the UK as you're not a public
> figure. Perhaps when you're back you ought to consider taking
> some legal
> advice from SUNY. Assuming the paper is published that is.
>
> 2. More important. I think I should send a short email to the editor
> Peiser and inform him that Keenan has broken his agreement with
> SUNY over this issue. If I don't, they could say I had the chance
> and didn't. Can you check with SUNY whether the folks there think
> I should? I just don't want to do anything that later could be
> construed as the wrong thing now. I could also point out some
> factual errors.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> At 10:06 30/08/2007, wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> >the confidentiality means that keenan needs to keep the "inquery"
> >confidential during the process of sunya "inquery".
> >
> >wcw
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> >Date: Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:03 am
> >Subject: Re: Fwd: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
> >
> > >
> > > Wei-Chyung and Tom,
> > > Thanks for the quick response. I won't do anything then
until
> > > the SUNY process has run its course. Can you clarify what you
> mean> > by violated confidentiality? I presume you mean that
> Keenan agreed
> > > to do nothing on the issue until the SUNY process has run its
> > > course. I presume this will conclude sometime this autumn. Keep
> > > me informed of when the final decision might be, as after this
> > > we
> > > ought to do
> > > something about the paper in Energy and Environment. I checked
> > > with their guest editor and got this amazing reply! See below.
> > > So, if we didn't already think this was the worst journal in the
> > > world, now we know for certain it is, and have clear information
> > > from them
> > > to prove it.
> > >
> > > When I mean doing something, I don't mean sending anything
> to E&E,
> > > as that will be useless. The Real Climate blog site is a
> > > possibility, but
> > > there are other avenues.
> > > I will make a few notes and send them to you to forward to
> SUNY.> > Only after doing this can I get onto something else!
> > >
> > > I'm away tomorrow - back in on Monday.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > > From: "Peiser, Benny" <B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> > > To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> > > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 16:53:26.0748 (UTC)
> > > FILETIME=[1E7969C0:01C7EA5D]
> > > X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
> > > X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
> > > X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
> > >
> > > Dear Phil
> > >
> > > The paper has been sent to three reviewers. Of course I will take
> > > your comments and assessment into consideration. Indeed, if the
> > > claims are unsubtantiated, I would certainly reject the paper.
> > >
> > > I hope this clarifies your query.
> > >
> > > With best regards
> > > Benny
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> > > Sent: Wed 8/29/2007 16:51
> > > To: Peiser, Benny
> > > Subject: Re: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Benny,
> > > Energy and Environment is presumably a peer-review
> journal. Your
> > > email wasn't clear as to whether you want me to review the
> > > paper? If you
> > > want me to, will you take any notice of what I might say -
> such as
> > > reject the paper? Or has the contribution already been
reviewed?
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At 23:17 29/08/2007, wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> > >
> > > >hi from beijing. thanks for the information, and i have
> > > forwarded the
> > > >file to the vp research and she wrote back to me that keenan has
> > > >violetted the confidentiality, as i have told her in the very
> > > >beginning. in any case, i am letting the university to
> handle this.
> > > >send me whatever you have and i will forward to sunya.
> keenan does
> > > >not follow on any rules at all, reasoning with him is
> useless, but
> > > >this will come back to badly hurt him.
> > > >
> > > >before i left for beijing, i wrote my offical responses (see
> > > >attached). please keep it to yourself. there is no doubt
> that zeng
> > > >had access and examined the station history to pick up the 42-
> pair> > >stations. also remember that, the statements made in
> both papers
> > > >address changes in all the relevant parameters "location,
> > > >instrumentation, observation time, etc." without specifically
> > > focus on
> > > >relocation.
> > > >
> > > >sunya is going through a very careful procedure, as i request
> > > them to
> > > >do because keenan will jump on any slip in procedure.
the "fraud"
> > > >charge, which will not stand any chance, is just his strategy of
> > > >getting attention on the station relocation effect. so
> better to
> > > >start thinking along that line.
> > > >
> > > >i am here attending the meeting of The 3rd Alexander von
Humboldt
> > > >International Conference on "the East Asian monsoon, past,
> > > present and
> > > >future" in Beijing. I am going to take some time off
> travelling in
> > > >southern China after the meeting, when my wife join me this
> weekend.> > >There is a good chance that I might not have e-mail
> access. Have a
> > > >good day.
> > > >
> > > >wcw
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> > > >Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:46 am
> > > >Subject: Fwd: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
> > > >
> > > > > Wei-Chyung and Tom,
> > > > >
> > > > > Just received this. I won't be responding.
> > > > >
> > > > > Knowing this journal there is no point, not even if I said
> > > > > I ought to review the paper. Peiser is a well-known skeptic
> > > > > in the UK. Not sure what to do. I guess you (WCW) should
> > > > > forward this to whoever needs to see it at Albany.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you think I should respond then I can. I will
> forward this
> > > > > to someone here, but mainly for their file.
> > > > >
> > > > > I did say the quote on p3 about 2-3 years ago. I am still
> > > > > not releasing the CRU station data collected over all the
> last> > > > 25 years.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Phil
> > > > >
> > > > > >Subject: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
> > > > > >Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:18:04 +0100
> > > > > >X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
> > > > > >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
> > > > > >Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
> > > > > >thread-index: AcfqPgYII3NKEW8US8uwftlkhnxNhgAB/4xQAAA5K8A=
> > > > > >From: "Peiser, Benny" <B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> > > > > >To: <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> > > > > >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 14:18:06.0729 (UTC)
> > > > > >FILETIME=[6B4F5F90:01C7EA47]
> > > > > >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
> > > > > >X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
> > > > > >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Dear Dr Jones
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I have attached a copy of Doug Keenan's paper on the alleged
> >Wang
> > > > > fraud>that was submitted for the forthcoming issue of
> Energy &
> > > > > Environment>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I was wondering whether you would be happy to comment on its
> > > > > content and
> > > > > >factual accuracy. Your comments and suggestions would be
much
> > > > > >appreciated. We would need your feedback by Sept 17.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I look forward to hearing from you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Yours sincerely
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Benny Peiser
> > > > > >Guest editor, E&E
> > > > > >Liverpool John Moores University, UK
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Prof. Phil Jones
> > > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> > > > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> > > > > University of East Anglia
> > > > > Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > > > > NR4 7TJ
> > > > > UK
> > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > ----
> > > > > ---------
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Prof. Phil Jones
> > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> > > University of East Anglia
> > > Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > > NR4 7TJ
> > > UK
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > ---------
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>

Original Filename: 1188557698.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:54:xxx xxxx xxxx

<x-flowed>
Phil,

Seems to me that Keenan has a valid point. The statements in the papers
that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone (WCW
at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect.

Whether or not this makes a difference is not the issue here.

Tom.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Phil Jones wrote:

> Tom,
> Just for interest! Keep quiet about both issues.
>
> In touch with Wei-Chyung Wang. Just agreed with him
> that I will send a brief response to Peiser. The allegation by Keenan
> has
> gone to SUNY. Keenan's about to be told by SUNY that submitting this has
> violated a confidentiality agreement he entered into with SUNY when he
> sent the complaint. WCW has nothing to worry about, but it still
> unsettling!
> All related to a paper in Nature from 1990! Keenan ought to look at the
> temperature data (which he has) rather than going on and on about
> site moves.
>
> See the end of this email and the response about E&E and the 3
> reviewers.
> Amazing! We all knew the journal was awful.
>
> On something completely different - just agreed to review another
> crappy
> paper by Chappell/Agnew on Sahel Rainfall. Chappell is out of a job -
> and still
> he tries to write papers saying the Sahel drought might not have
> happened!
>
> Both are just time wasters - but necessary to do unfortunately.
>
> Weekend away with the family now - back Monday!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>> Subject: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:18:04 +0100
>> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
>> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>> Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>> thread-index: AcfqPgYII3NKEW8US8uwftlkhnxNhgAB/4xQAAA5K8A=
>> From: "Peiser, Benny" <B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> To: <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 14:18:06.0729 (UTC)
>> FILETIME=[6B4F5F90:01C7EA47]
>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>
>> Dear Dr Jones
>>
>> I have attached a copy of Doug Keenan's paper on the alleged Wang fraud
>> that was submitted for the forthcoming issue of Energy & Environment
>> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene.
>>
>>
>> I was wondering whether you would be happy to comment on its content and
>> factual accuracy. Your comments and suggestions would be much
>> appreciated. We would need your feedback by Sept 17.
>>
>> I look forward to hearing from you.
>>
>> Yours sincerely
>>
>> Benny Peiser
>> Guest editor, E&E
>> Liverpool John Moores University, UK
>
> Dear Phil
>
> The paper has been sent to three reviewers. Of course I will take your
> comments and assessment into consideration. Indeed, if the claims are
> unsubtantiated, I would certainly reject the paper.
>
> I hope this clarifies your query.
>
> With best regards
> Benny
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: Wed 8/29/2007 16:51
> To: Peiser, Benny
> Subject: Re: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>
>
>
>
> Benny,
> Energy and Environment is presumably a peer-review journal. Your
> email wasn't clear as to whether you want me to review the paper? If
> you
> want me to, will you take any notice of what I might say - such as
> reject the paper? Or has the contribution already been reviewed?
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------




</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1189515774.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: paper on alleged Wang fraud
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Phil,

sorry, first version of my message was a bit garbled. Here is the full
message:

thanks for forwarding. It may be difficult for me to sue them over a
footnote, and in fact he is very careful only to intimate accusations
against me in a response to your comments. Note that he does not do so
in the paper. I'm sure they know that I would sue them for that, and
that I have a top lawyer already representing me.

Wei Chyung needs to sue them, or at the least threaten a lawsuit. If he
doesn't, this will set a dangerous new precedent. I could put him in
touch w/ anleading attorney who would do this pro bono. Of course, this
has to be done quickly. The threat of a lawsuit alone my prevent them
from publishing this paper, so time is of the essence. Please feel free
to mention this directly to Wei Chyung, in particular that I think he
needs to pursue a legal course her independent of whatever his
university is doing. He cannot wait for Stony Brook to complete its
internal investigations! If he does so, it will be too late to stop this.

Gavin is in Shanghai, but perhaps may be able to provide some brief
thoughts himself on this,

mike

Michael E. Mann wrote:
> Phil,
>
> thanks for forwarding. It may be difficult for me to sue them over a
> footnote, and in fact he is very careful only to intimate accusations
> against me in a response to your comments. Note that he does not do so
> in the paper. I'm sure they know that I would sue them for that, and
> that I have a top lawyer already representing me.
>
> Wei Chyung needs to sue them, or at the least threaten a lawsuit. If
> he doesn't, this will set a dangerous new precedent. I could put him
> in touch w/ anleading attorney who would do this pro bono. Of course,
> this has to be done quickly. The threat of a lawsuit alone my prevent
> them from publishing this paper, so time is of the essence. Please
> feel free to mention this directly to Wei Chyung, in particular that I
> think he needs to pursue a legal course here here independent of
> whatever his university is doing. He wait for Stony Brook to complete
> its internal investigations!
>
> Gavin is in Shanghai, but hopefully
>
> Phil Jones wrote:
>> Mike, Gavin,
>> Don't pass on, just for interest. It seems as though E&E will likely
>> publish this paper. I've responded briefly, pointing out that Tao et al
>> (1991) doesn't claim that it explicitly states...
>> The response to my point 7 sums up Keenan. It also seems
>> as though he will run with the footnote 3, but it's only a footnote!
>> The fraud allegation against you Mike is only in passing!
>>
>> Wei-Chyung is in Vienna. Have forwarded this to him to pass onto
>> SUNY.
>> I wish they would conclude their assessment of malpractice.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Phil
>>
>> PS to Gavin - been following (sporadically) the CA stuff about the
>> GISS data and
>> release of the code etc by Jim. May take some of the pressure of you
>> soon, by releasing a list of the stations we use - just a list, no code
>> and no data. Have agreed to under the FOIA here in the UK.
>>
>> Oh Happy days!
>>
>>> Subject: paper on alleged Wang fraud
>>> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:39:02 +0100
>>> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
>>> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>>> Thread-Topic: paper on alleged Wang fraud
>>> thread-index: AcfzsbCIlqEe9LxLSeGz6CASlEIWmgAHs4oa
>>> From: "Peiser, Benny" <B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>> To: <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Sep 2007 17:39:03.0905 (UTC)
>>> FILETIME=[7AE76D10:01C7F3D1]
>>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> I have attached Doug's response to your comments. As far as I can
>>> see, his basic accusation seems unaffected by your criticism. Unless
>>> there is any compelling evidence that Keenan's main claim is
>>> unjustified or unsubstantiated, I intend to publish his paper in the
>>> forthcoming issue of E&E.
>>>
>>> Please let me know by the end of the week if you have any additional
>>> arguments that may sway me in my decision.
>>>
>>> With best regards
>>> Benny
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Prof. Phil Jones
>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> NR4 7TJ
>> UK
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>


--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1189536059.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV)" <Jacquie.Burgess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" <P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Possible problem looming
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:40:59 +0100

Thanks Phil,
I will keep your email and hope we don't have to mobilise. This is very
close to harassment, isn't it.
Jacquie

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 11 September 2007 14:06
To: Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV)
Cc: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
Subject: Possible problem looming


Jacquie,
I've been in discussion with Michael over the past several months
about a
number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for CRU data. I've
responded to
one and will be responding to another in the next few days. Michael
suggested I bring you up to speed on the issue. To cut a very long
story short, I'm attaching 3 things that relate to what's happened
since
responding to the first request.

1. A paper from 1990 by me and others in Nature. The request was for
the station data from the rural station networks in the three
regions studied.

This led to a person in London (Douglas Keenan) putting some
material on his website
claiming fraud against one of the co-authors on the paper (Wei-Chyung
Wang of the State University of Albany, SUNY, in NY, USA). He then
put an allegation of fraud into SUNY against Wang. SUNY are dealing
with this - not quickly, but I have seen Wang's response.

2. Keenan then submitted a paper (attached) to the world's worst
journal,
Energy and Environment. According to Wang this is in breach of an
agreement
with SUNY not to do anything whilst the allegation is being dealt
with.
According to Wang, SUNY have told Keenan this.

I was sent the paper to comment on the factual allegations in the
paper. After
discussing this with Wang (who informed SUNY) I sent 9 comments.

3. My comments - with Keenan's responses embedded within (this is
the new bit for you Michael).
I have subsequently told the E&E guest editor that Keenan's
response to my point
# 5 is wrong. I sent him Tao et al. (1991) so he can see
this. Keenan's response to my point 7
illustrates his arrogance.

I have loads more background to all this, and it has taken some time
over the
last few weeks and months in responding.

You are now partly up to speed on the issue. I'm away next week.
I don't know when E&E might publish, nor when the SUNY review
process (which is being dealt with by their Director of Research) will
conclude. Wang and I both know that the allegations are groundless,
but it is likely it will not look good when it first comes out. This
is just
another of the attempts by climate skeptics to get the public and the
media thinking that there is disagreement amongst scientists and that
we shouldn't be doing anything about global warming. I will be
discussing
this with some IPCC people when I meet them in early October.

Cheers
Phil




Phil,

Thanks for forwarding this. I am shocked about this - if a formal review
is underway at the University of Albany it is surely improper to publish
a paper in a journal about the matter!

I suggest that you alert Jacquie Burgess to this, as the new Head of
School.

I would like to suggest that we ask Dave Palmer to comment on the events
on the FOIA request - I don't think I fully agree with the story
presented here. Do you agree?

I also think we should alert the Press Office in due course.

Regards

Michael

Michael McGarvie
Senior Faculty Manager
Faculty of Science
Room 0.22C
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
tel: 01xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: 01xxx xxxx xxxx
m.mcgarvie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Original Filename: 1241415427.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?]-FROM TOM W
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 01:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueacanitdb01.uea.ac.uk id n457EfQ5005459

<x-flowed>
Phil,

Do you know where this stands? The key things from the Peiser items are ...

"Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for
nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally,
there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997)
explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report
was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide
Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program."

and

"Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information
Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available.
I was able to get the data by requiring Wang’s co-worker to release it,
under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang
had committed fraud."

You are the co-worker, so you must have done something like provide
Keenan with the DOE report that shows that there are no station records
for 49 of the 84 stations. I presume Keenan therefore thinks that it was
not possible to select stations on the basis of ...

"... station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any,
changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times"
[THIS IS ITEM "X"]

Of course, if the only stations used were ones from the 35 stations
that *did* have station histories, then all could be OK. However, if
some of the stations used were from the remaining 49, then the above
selection method could not have been applied (but see belowxxx xxxx xxxxunless
there are other "hard copy" station history data not in the DOE report
(but in China) that were used. From what Wang has said, if what he says
is true, the second possibility appears to be the case.

What is the answer here?

The next puzzle is why Wei-Chyung didn't make the hard copy information
available. Either it does not exist, or he thought it was too much
trouble to access and copy. My guess is that it does not exist -- if it
did then why was it not in the DOE report? In support of this, it seems
that there are other papers from 1991 and 1997 that show that the data
do not exist. What are these papers? Do they really show this?

Now my views. (1) I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy
scientist. I therefore would not be surprised if he screwed up here. But
ITEM X is in both the W-C W and Jones et al. papers -- so where does it
come from first? Were you taking W-C W on trust?

(2) It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To
accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint
and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble.

(3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched.
ITEM X really should have been ...

"Where possible, stations were chosen on the basis of station histories
and/or local knowledge: selected stations have relatively few, if any,
changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times"

Of course the real get out is the final "or". A station could be
selected if either it had relatively few "changes in instrumentation"
OR "changes in location" OR "changes in observation times". Not all
three, simply any one of the three. One could argue about the science
here -- it would be better to have all three -- but this is not what
the statement says.

Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start?
Perhaps it's not too late?

-----

I realise that Keenan is just a trouble maker and out to waste time, so
I apologize for continuing to waste your time on this, Phil. However, I
*am* concerned because all this happened under my watch as Director of
CRU and, although this is unlikely, the buck eventually should stop with me.

Best wishes,
Tom

P.S. I am copying this to Ben. Seeing other peoples' troubles might make
him happier about his own parallel experiences.



</x-flowed>
Return-Path: <b.j.peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Original-To: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Delivered-To: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Received: from nscan3.ucar.edu (nscan3.ucar.edu [128.117.64.193])
by post2.cgd.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB38C3803F;
Sun, 3 May 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by nscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABDD3230C024;
Sun, 3 May 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Received: from nscan3.ucar.edu ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (nscan3.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 12674-01; Sun, 3 May 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
X-SMTP-Auth: no
X-SMTP-Auth: no
Received: from exch4.jmu.ac.uk (exch4.jmu.ac.uk [150.204.37.14])
by nscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B970230C00B;
Sun, 3 May 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Subject: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 15:57:08 +0100
Message-ID: <08927B60D87D374DB001D814D5D2250F01663F4F@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?
Thread-Index: AcnIu0OvOgPY3fShTXip0PBdcf9mWwAAWuOQAGIoisAAbhWS4A==
From: "Peiser, Benny" <B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "cambridge-conference" <cambridge-conference@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu

CCNet Xtra - 3 May 2xxx xxxx xxxxAudiatur et altera pars

CLIMATE SCIENCE FRAUD AT ALBANY UNIVERSITY?
-------------------------------------------


The University at Albany is in a difficult position. If the University received such records as part of the supposed misconduct investigation, then they could easily resolve the problem by making them available to the scientific community and to readers. If the University does not have such records then they have been complicit in misconduct and in coverup of misconduct. If the University at Albany does have such records, but such records are not in accordance with the stated methodology of the publications, then the University has more serious difficulties.

"Investigations" of scientific misconduct should themselves align with the usual principles of scientific discourse (open discussion, honesty, transparency of method, public disclosure of evidence, open public analysis and public discussion and reasoning underlying any conclusion). This was not the case at the University at Albany. When you see universities reluctant to investigate things properly, it provides reasonable evidence that they really don't want to investigate things properly.
-- Aubrey Blumsohn, Scientific Misconduct Blog, 2 May 2009



(1) ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD AT ALBANY - THE WANG CASE
Aubrey Blumsohn, Scientific Misconduct Blog, 2 May 2009

(2) THE FRAUD ALLEGATION AGAINST SOME CLIMATIC RESEARCH OF WEI-CHYUNG WANG
Douglas J. Keenan, Informath, April 2009

(3) KAFKA AT ALBANY
Peter Risdon, Freeborn John, 15 March 2009


=====
(1) ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD AT ALBANY - THE WANG CASE

Scientific Misconduct Blog, 2 May 2009
http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/05/allegations-of-fraud-at-albany-wang.html

Aubrey Blumsohn

Professor Wei-Chyung Wang is a star scientist in the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center at the University at Albany, New York. He is a key player in the climate change debate (see his self-description here). Wang has been accused of scientific fraud.

I have no inclination to "weigh in" on the topic of climate change. However the case involves issues of integrity that are at the very core of proper science. These issues are the same whether they are raised in a pharmaceutical clinical trial, in a basic science laboratory, by a climate change "denialist" or a "warmist". The case involves the hiding of data, access to data, and the proper description of "method" in science.

The case is also of interest because it provides yet another example of how *not* to create trust in a scientific misconduct investigation. It adds to the litany of cases suggesting that Universities cannot be allowed to investigate misconduct of their own star academics. The University response has so far been incoherent on its face.

Doug Keenan, the mathematician who raised the case of Wang is on the "denialist" side of the climate change debate. He maintains that "almost by itself, the withholding of their raw data by [climate] scientists tells us that they are not scientists".

Below is my own summary of the straightforward substance of this case. I wrote to Wei-Chyung Wang, to Lynn Videka (VP at Albany, responsible for the investigation), and to John H. Reilly (a lawyer at Albany) asking for any correction or comments on the details presented below. My request was acknowledged prior to publication, but no factual correction was suggested.

Case Summary

The allegations concern two publications. These are:

Jones P.D., Groisman P.Y., Coughlan M., Plummer N., Wang W.-C., Karl T.R. (1990), “Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land”, Nature, 347: 169