To: "Phil Jones" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Jones et al 1990
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:31:39 -0600 (MDT)
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.
> 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.
> At 14:54 20/06/2007, you wrote:
>>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,
>> > 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
>> >>From: "Steve McIntyre" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> >>To: "Phil Jones" <email@example.com>
>> >>Subject: Jones et al 1990
>> >>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:44:58 -0400
>> >>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
>> >>, 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" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> > To: "Steve McIntyre" <email@example.com>
>> > Cc: "Phil Jones" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> > 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
>> > 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.
>> > Kind wishes, Doug
>> > * * * * * * * * * * * *
>> > Douglas J. Keenan
>> > http://www.informath.org
>> > 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
>> > UK
>>Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
>>PO Box 3000
>>Boulder CO 80307
>>ph 303 497 1318
> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org
> NR4 7TJ
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318