To: Phil Jones <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: FYI
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:45:50 -0400
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, Ben Santer <email@example.com>
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),
Phil Jones wrote:
> 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.
> 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
> 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 !
> From: "D.J. Keenan" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "Wei-Chyung Wang" <email@example.com>
> Cc: "Phil Jones" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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 email@example.com
> NR4 7TJ
Michael E. Mann
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
University Park, PA 16802-5013