I’ve not had time to read through all these emails, but this one really, really Stick in my craw. Dr. Phil Jones and Dr. Tom Wigley respond to this graph published in BAMS in 1996:
This is from Goodridge 1996 published in BAMS
Anyone who has ever met or worked Jim Goodridge would dare not characterize him as a “jerk”, and even if he was, what he published still hold true today. Even Jones later published studies on UHI in China which agreed with what Goodridge found.
The paper is titled: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China In it, Jones identifies an urban warming signal in China of 0.1 degrees C per decade. Or, if you prefer, 1 degree C per century. Not negligible by any means.
Phil Jones must be the most spiteful and unscientific person ever in the climate debate to say things like this about Jim Goodridge. He really does need to step down and retire, for good this time.
file 4789.txt
date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:25:14 +0100
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxx>
subject: Re: CA climate
to: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxx>,Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxx>
Tom,
Bryan Weare is at US Davis. He would know about some of the things you
mention. The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban
warming at all Californian sites.
I’m away until today until May 5 in Nice and Geneva. I hope you can do
the temperature plots yourself and that Mike can do the precip ones.
Mike has the data as 5 degree grid boxes, so the it would be good if
you could define these for him. I think he’s back tomorrow.
It would be possible to use the 0.5 degree grid boxes but we’d have to
get Mark New to do that for us.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:13 PM 4/24/00 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
>Phil and Mike,
>
>I have to attend a meeting organized by EPRI and the California Energy
>Commission on June 12, 13. The focus is future climate scenarios and the
>implied impacts. It will include discussions of GCM results and
>statistical and LAM downscaling. They want someone to address observed
>climate (homogeneity problems; E-W and N-S contrasts; ENSO effects;
>changes in circulation — such as increased offshore cyclogenesis, changes
>in storm tracks; etc.), but they don’t have anyone invited yet. Chuck
>Hakkarinen (EPRI) says there is someone at UC-Davis who is an “expert” on
>CA climate. Who is this? Do you know any other Californians who are in
>the observed climate game and who you respect? (From memory, there are
>some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets — we
>don’t want one of those. Wasn’t one of these guys called Goodrich?)
>
>For myself, I would like to have some monthly time series for the CA area
>average. I can possibly do this for temperature, but certainly not for
>precipitation. Is there any way you two could send me time series within
>the next day or so (before I leave for Australia)? For the regions, I’d
>like results for the following separate areas (as near as you can do it):
>(1) 32-36degN, 115-121degW
>(2) 36-42degN, 118-124degW
>(3) 32-42degN, 114-124degW
>(4) 36-42degN, 106-114degW
>The last one represents the headwaters of the Colorado River.
>
>Finally, if you had some PDSI time series for the region, I’d very much
>like these too.
>
>Many thanks,
>
>
>Tom
>
>
>
>**********************************************************
>Tom M.L. Wigley
>Senior Scientist
>ACACIA Program Director
>National Center for Atmospheric Research
>P.O. Box 3000
>Boulder, CO 80307-3000
>USA
>Phone: 303-xxxx
>Fax: 303-497-xxxx
>E-mail: wigley@xxxx
>Web: http://www.acacia.ucar.edu
>**********************************************************
>
>
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
So in climatescientistspeak. the term ´jerk´means someone who writes, or speaks, the truth.
Using Mannian mathematics I guess that makes sense.
Looks like there are a lot of more interesting emails than the ones posted ad priori today. In any case the’ve got another 250,000 waiting to nail AGW forever and all those that went along with it at Universities, UN, NDCD etc….
(From memory, there are
>some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets we
>dont want one of those. Wasnt one of these guys called Goodrich?)
Tom Wigley and Phil Jones are such smooth-talking professionals…NOT.
Anyone whose research hurts “the cause” is a jerk – and probably funded by Big Oil.
I personally want to know why Gavin is the “go to” guy when it comes to digging up dirt on people to slander them in the public eye. I always thought he seemed like a slimeball.
I’m incredibly proud to be a nitpicky jerk, along with Goodrich. Thanks for that stunning graph. I’m now about to add it to my UHI page which already is chocka with many other nitpicky jerks’ work.My “contents” page leads to pages and pages of nitpicky jerks. Click my name for the biggest collection of all.
Anthony, if
you makeJosh designs t-shirts and mugs I’ll buy.Gavin is probably the go-to guy because of his relationship with Fenton (who pays RealClimate’s expenses), which is a public relations firm run by people closely associated with Al Gore.
I’m sure the former Vice President of the United States has people whom he knows who have pretty good investigators on their speed-dial.
It is clear Phil Jones is a foul person.
He never was a real scientist.
He simply disgusts me.
Without having the email it is in reply to, we really don’t know what “jerk” means. Seriously, they could be good friends and this is a term of amusement.
Phil Jones disclosed his true childish and selfish personality when he wrote he was “cheered” by news of John Daly’s death.
I hope to return the favour and display my childish and selfish personality soon.
Although my preferred option is to see these people exposed by the total collapse of AGW theory – which in my opinion is inevitable – but the end may not come until it is indisputably destroyed by the return of the cold – which seems inevitable if historical evidence is correct – and that will be a tragedy for humanity as we will have wasted valuable preparation time on worrying about a myth.
Why is Mann taking legal action if everything damning is simply “taken out of context” – that ought to be easy to demonstrate and would surely be verified by full disclosure.
As a public servant I was never stupid to commit to paper or electronic form something I wasn’t prepared to produce in court and was required to do so numerous times. Being honest and open wins every time.
A minor ‘edit’ at the beginning of the post I believe : “: . . I’ve YET to read . . ” , instead of ” . . .I’ve READ to read . . ”
Wonderful stuff all of this is. I am loading up on the popcorn . . .
“Peter Miller says:
November 22, 2011 at 1:21 pm
So in climatescientistspeak. the term ´jerk´means someone who writes, or speaks, the truth.
Using Mannian mathematics I guess that makes sense.”
Doesn’t “Using Mannian mathematics” produce Hockey Sticks – now those could be useful for controlling sceptics from behind.
“anon says:
November 22, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Without having the email it is in reply to, we really don’t know what “jerk” means. Seriously, they could be good friends and this is a term of amusement.”
Yeah, I’m buying that one.
“Without having the email it is in reply to, we really don’t know what “jerk” means. Seriously, they could be good friends and this is a term of amusement.”
Yes, just as if I was a good friend of President Obama and called him a f$#@*^g liar. The AGW side has doublethink mastered supremely as to make Orwell blush.
It’s really quite incredible Jones was able to remain employed with this sort of attitude – did no one else working with him (and his superiors) ever get concerned?
You get your panties in a bunch when one man calls another a jerk in a private correspondence? Time to grow up and strap on a pair. This kind of victim-bargaining is what trolls do – the passive-agressive ‘you’re hurting my feelings. Do you think you could raise the level of discourse around here?
And I don’t care what ‘they’ do. My mother taught me to do the right thing, and never mind what the other guy does.
Is there another branch of science where scientists so readily and so often circle the wagons after some data to the contrary is presented? At least in the biological sciences when a competing view is published I’ve never heard of other labs contacting one another in such a frenzy to rebut/discredit the authors. Climate science seems to move as a whole organisms in one large syncitium of like-minded thoughts looking to protect their turf. Truly odd.
The British people can be rightly proud of their heritage of scientific achievement. Phil Jones sullys that reputation, and the only jerk [SNIP: I really do sympathize, but maybe we shouldn’t go there. -REP].
And when I asked a defender of Mr Mann here – “If the shoe was on the other foot – do you really think he’d defend you?
They think they have a “Team” but it truly is a school of cuttlefish – And we know what cuttlefish do to each other, in close quarters. “-Cuttlefish are often cannibals”
flyfisher says:
Is there another branch of science where scientists so readily and so often circle the wagons after some data to the contrary is presented?</i.
Hell yes. It's just that most are in small fields or that the rest of us don't believe them anyway.
Freudian Analysis and much of Education Theory.
Most tend to be in "soft" sciences, because of the difficulty of producing incontroveritble evidence. But the String Theory nutters aren't much better.
Jerk? That is actually quite polite from the warmers.
Does this mean that Mann, Jones, Hansen et al are a circle of jerks (okay I know that is so close to snipville so I’ll stop there 🙂
MarkB says:
November 22, 2011 at 3:37 pm
You get your panties in a bunch when one man calls another a jerk in a private correspondence? Time to grow up and strap on a pair
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ha ha ha ha…maybe, you should et out more?
Remind us, who uses the sympathy spiel, again?
What was it Mr Phil Jones was saying after the first batch of climate-gate?
MarkB says:
November 22, 2011 at 3:37 pm
You get your panties in a bunch when one man calls another a jerk in a private correspondence?
====================================================
Yep, coming from a delicate little flower that said he was considering suicide and pining away……Phil Jones
Anthony,
Was the Goodridge paper retracted from BAMS? I tired to download an electronic version via my University account but that issue of BAMS has a gap in the pages where Goodridge comment and graph should have been.
Curious.
REPLY: Not that I’m aware of. I’ll ask him – Anthony
Latitude says:
November 22, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Yep, coming from a delicate little flower that said he was considering suicide and pining away……Phil Jones
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[ THUMBS UP ]
Old saying:
During your working hours, never put anything in an email that you wouldn’t want to see on the front page of the New York Times.
Anthony,
I was concerned about the latest round of released communications between the Climate Scientists being fabricated: Thanks for confirming- in your next post today- that the communications that included you are “as written”.
By chance did to you make it to meeting referenced by Dr. Wigley noted below:
At 12:13 PM 4/24/00 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
> Phil and Mike,
>
> I have to attend a meeting organized by EPRI and the California Energy
> Commission on June 12, 13. The focus is future climate scenarios and the
> implied impacts. It will include discussions of GCM results and
> statistical and LAM downscaling.”
I wonder if Dr. Wigley shared the graph noting the rather different looking slopes between urban and rural stations, as noted above, at the EPIR meeting- AND what that data might mean for the “future climate scenarios and the implied impacts”………………….
Jim Goodrich has been analyzing CA cli-data since well before the climate-gate crowd were in knee-pants. This cites one of his many papers on CA temperature and precipitation that are a major part of the climate-lore in this state. He is a data guy, not a cli-modeler.
I don’t like Phil Jones’ conduct at all, but “jerk” is not a term the English normally use. It’s more likely Tom Wigey wrote to Phil Jones saying something along the lines of “Some jerk has written such-and-such”, to which Jones replied, “The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich”.
When these people finally go down I want it to be for stuff they really did. There must be no room for them to feel aggrieved at being wrongly accused.
Seeing the reactions above, I think it might be helpful if the relevant phrase in the original email (byTom Wigley) was highlighted as well… People seem to be reading over it.
“anon says:
November 22, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Without having the email it is in reply to, we really don’t know what “jerk” means. ”
Um, golly, but wasn’t the email it replied to directly below it in the post? It started with
“At 12:13 PM 4/24/00 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:”
and ended with Tom M.L. Wigley’s signature block before Phil Jones’ signature block was appended?
Was that the email you needed to see before you can “know what ‘jerk’ means?”
They have so much in common with scientology in the IPCC, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if this whole “climate change” religion was a scientology operation. Any real scientists speaking truth are imediatly written off as “SP’s” or surpressive persons by the religious dictatorial high priests of climate change in the IPCC.
I know I jokingly said (& perhaps it was in bad taste at the time & snipped) at the time that Climategate 1 surfaced, that [SNIP: it is still an inappropriate suggestion. Sorry, Alan. -REP] so should they all to preserve their reputations, for whatever they’re worth which isn’t much!
Nice Gig:
“I’m away until today until May 5 in Nice and Geneva”
Only anon could make the claim that we don’t know what “jerk” means.
Maybe anon would like to know what the definition of “is” is as well?
MarkB,
Perhaps you need to be reminded that according to law, both here and in the UK, an email you write as a public employee, on a public computer, on public time, and on the public dime IS NOT and CANNOT BE CONSIDERED “private correspondence”.
All government employees or people working using government grants are told (repeatedly) that you have no expectation of privacy when using your computer at work. None at all. All of these emails are public documents by law. All of these emails SHOULD HAVE adhered to certain standards of ethics and professionalism.
There is a difference between “getting your panties in a bunch” and merely observing the total lack of ethics and professionalism exhibited by these so-called scientists.
Hang on. This one is a bit weak and doesn’t help our case. From what I can see Jones was merely using the term already used by Wigley, who in his email to Jones referred to “some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets.” It would have made more sense if Jones had then used the term in quotation marks, but all the same I do think this is actually one case of him being “taken out of context.” Shouldn’t the contempt here be reserved for Wigley?
Sorry, I can’t agree.
It is exactly the omission of quotation marks – that shows them BOTH referring to Dr Goodrich, as a “jerk”.
I would be “taking out of content” If this sentence by Mr Jones, was thusly written.
The “jerk” [ Meaning YOUR NAME – NOT mine ] you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at all Californian sites.
IMO – Mr Jones can’t even feign ” typo”, “lazy sentence structure”, “unintended” …etc.
He [ Mr Jones ] takes great pains to include other sentence / word attributes within his sentence structure.
The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at all Californian sites.
As evidenced by my bolding.
I think jerk in this case, is the english meaning an abrupt jump or shudder. Il think it possibly refers toi a jerk in the line of a previously mentioned graph. (the jerk in the graph we’re talking about can be explained bye the theories of goodriech)
You non-scientists just don’t understand. The word jerk is commonly used in the scientific community to describe a colleague that that you admire for his honesty and integrity. Its a sort of scientific trick really.
Larry Fields says:
November 22, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Old saying:
During your working hours, never put anything in an email that you wouldn’t want to see on the front page of the New York Times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Darn right!
I was always aware that my e-mails or phone calls could be monitored while at work.
You guys should ease off, Phil is an alright guy with great insight. see 1953.txt.
In an email from Phil to Tim O’Riordan (?)
> 2) What are Michael’s main points ?
>
> (2) is very difficult to summarise. I’m not sure what points he’s trying
> to make his science is so bad. If this paper were submitted to any
> reasonable peer-review journal it would not see the light of day.
Look at 0927. My search terms were Hulme and WWF.
“We can help you with the
database of journos of course – obvious
ones are Paul Brown, Nick Schoon, Charles
Clover, Fred Pearce, Geoffrey lean Jonathan
Leake etc., and Julian Rush or Andy Veitch
at Ch4 news – remember they have to “sell”
it to their news editors.”
and more… looks like a different interesting lead…
Anyone who is not one of the “hockey team” is dismissed as a “rude word” of some kind, and anything sceptical that person may be working on is automatically dismissed sight unseen as “misinformation”. It shows what sort of people they are.
Jones has some weird ideas about this critics:
#4986
“From: Phil Jones
Sent: 07 September 2009 14:39
To: Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC)
Subject: RE: Climate change research
Bruce, I don’t think many of them look at it. They are mostly people who correspond on the Climate Audit blog site. They all seem to have infinite time as they are all retired.
This is another issue. All people working in the field have day to day jobs to do and don’t want to spend evenings going on blog sites trying to put people right.”
Maybe he can take some of his DoE grant money to pay some of these more qualified retirees to give him an Excel lesson.
The thing is, what you’re observing is mostly just that several scientists acted like dicks – which may be shameful, but is not all that surprising – at any given time in any sufficiently large group of people there will be a proportion acting like total dicks! Especially when they think nobody is watching.
This doesn’t change the fact that there is so much science backing up the observation that the globe has warmed significantly, and so much reason to think this is connected with the known release by humans of gases which are *known* to cause warming. The urban heat island effect has been very convincingly shown not to explain observed warning, whatever these particular data points seem to show.
[Reply] I’m sure you’ll be asked to back your claims. Keep it polite everyone. – tallmod