Friday, December 23, 2011


From: Kevin Trenberth <>
To: Phil Jones <>
Subject: Re: Something not to pass on
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:41:06 -0600
Cc: "Michael E. Mann" <>

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
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

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
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

Subject: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:18:04 +0100
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
thread-index: AcfqPgYII3NKEW8US8uwftlkhnxNhgAB/4xQAAA5K8A=
From: "Peiser, Benny" [4]<>
To: [5]<>
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
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 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [7]

Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [8]
Climate Analysis Section, [9]
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)

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


Visible links
1. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox5320.html#_ftn1
2. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox5320.html#_ftnref1

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

No comments:

Post a Comment