From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@ucar.edu>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Something not to pass on
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:41:06 -0600
Cc: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@meteo.psu.edu>

   Phil
   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
   difficulties.
   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
   [3]http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/McIntyre.pd
   f.]

   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
   Kevin
   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
      proxies.
      Cheers
      Phil

     Subject: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
     Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:18:04 +0100
     X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
     X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
     Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
     thread-index: AcfqPgYII3NKEW8US8uwftlkhnxNhgAB/4xQAAA5K8A=
     From: "Peiser, Benny" [4]<B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk>
     To: [5]<p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
     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
     [6]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene.
     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]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
     NR4 7TJ
     UK
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: [8]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section,           [9]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)

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

References

   Visible links
   1. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox5320.html#_ftn1
   2. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox5320.html#_ftnref1
   3. http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/McIntyre.pdf
   4. mailto:B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk
   5. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
   6. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene
   7. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
   8. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
   9. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

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

