Thursday, December 22, 2011


From: "Kevin Trenberth" <>
Subject: Re: FYI
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:24:12 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: "Phil Jones" <>, "Ben Santer" <>

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.


> 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.
>> and
>> 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:
>> 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
>> phone + 44 20 7537 4122
>> The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK
>> Prof. Phil Jones
>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich Email
>> NR4 7TJ
>> UK
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Michael E. Mann
> Associate Professor
> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
> The Pennsylvania State University email:
> University Park, PA 16802-5013

Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318

No comments:

Post a Comment