To: Phil Jones <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:54:58 -0600
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.
Phil Jones wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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
> Amazing! We all knew the journal was awful.
> On something completely different - just agreed to review another
> 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
> Both are just time wasters - but necessary to do unfortunately.
> Weekend away with the family now - back Monday!
>> 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" <B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk>
>> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 14:18:06.0729 (UTC)
>> 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
> 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
> From: Phil Jones [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wed 8/29/2007 16:51
> To: Peiser, Benny
> Subject: Re: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
> 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
> 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?
> 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