It seems I’m in a number of the Climategate 2.0 emails. Here’s a couple. The first one confirms to me that this batch is absolutely real, because Thomas Peterson is responding to a joint radio interview I did with him on a radio station in Seattle.
============================================================
File 0755.txt
date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:56:55 -0400
from: Thomas C Peterson <Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxx>
subject: Re: Lots about USHCN on Climate Audit
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxx>
<x-flowed>
FYI, the radio interview seemed to go well. I must say in fairness
that, considering the photographs of how not to observe temperature on
Anthony Watts’ blog, http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
, Mr. Watts gave a well reasoned position. For example, when asked if
the stations with poor siting were removed from the analysis would it
show less warming, Mr. Watts said we won’t know until the analysis is
complete.
-Tom
Phil Jones said the following on 5/29/2007 6:14 AM:
>
>> Tom,
> I can’t find the stations Maryville and Lake Spaulding that
> have the pictures here in recent Climate Audit threads in the
> CRU database.
>
> CA seem to be working for Roger Pielke now, getting him
> loads of pictures !
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxxx
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> —————————————————————————-
—
Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D.
NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Voice: +1-828-271-4287
Fax: +1-828-271-4328
=======================================================================
date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:30:08 -0400
from: “Thomas.R.Karl” <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>
subject: Re: Keenan, China etc
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Hi Phil,
Well… there will always be some outliers. Would be great to get IDAG and DAARWG on the same timeframe. Although let’s hope we don’t get the weather we had last Dec and early Jan in Boulder this year!
Regards, Tom
P.S. We are getting blogged all over for a cover-up of poor global station and US stations
we use. They claim NCDC is in a scandal by not providing observer’s addresses. In any
case Anthony Watts has photographed about 350 stations and finds using our criteria that about 15% are acceptable. I am trying to get some our folks to develop a method to switch over to using the CRN sites, at least in the USA.
Phil Jones said the following on 9/11/2007 9:51 AM:
Tom,
Have thought of you when sending the Wei-Chyung Keenan stuff.
Ferris and the DAARWG dates though reminded me of the above
again. Making the data available seems to make no difference to
Keenan’s response ! Hopefully you’ll report an update to DAARWG!
IDAG is meeting Jan 28-30 in Boulder. You couldn’t make the
last one at Duke. Have told Ferris about IDAG, as I thought DAARWG
might be meeting in Boulder. Jan 31-Feb1 would be very convenient
for me – one transatlantic flight, I would feel good about my carbon
bootprint and I would save the planet!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [1]p.jones@xxxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
—
Dr. Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.
Director
NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center
Veach-Baley Federal Building
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801-5001
Tel: (828) 271-4476
Fax: (828) 271-4246
[2]Thomas.R.Karl@xxxx
========================================================================
3739.txt
Here’s where Peterson is toying with the idea of the “ghost rebuttal”
date: Fri, 15 May 2009 09:31:24 -0400
from: Thomas C Peterson <Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxx>
subject: Re: Parker on Pielke
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxx>
Very cute, Phil. I’ve passed your suggestion on to Matt.
Tom
Phil Jones said the following on 5/15/2009 9:19 AM:
Tom, David, John,
Here’s the first paper to cite it! As we know they didn’t realise the significance
of Figure 1!
I hope you’ve persuaded Matt Menne to do that USHCN split (into the watts-up-that
categories).
You could then have a title.
Watts-up with this – no differences in US average for stations in different categories
Cheers
Phil
At 14:00 15/05/2009, Parker, David wrote:
Tom
Thanks.
For info, in the near future we plan to have discussions here on possible future
developments of the land surface air temperature analyses. We’ll let you know in due
course of any relevant developments.
David
David Parker, Climate Research scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1392 886649 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
Email: [1]david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk
Website: [2]www.metoffice.gov.uk
See our guide to climate change at [3]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/
___________________________________________________________________________________
From: Thomas C Peterson [[4] mailto:Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 1:52 PM
To: Parker, David; Kennedy, John; Phil Jones
Subject: Parker on Pielke
David, Phil & John,
Attached is a copy of our paper:
Parker, David, E., Phil Jones, Thomas C. Peterson, John Kennedy, 2009: Comment on
“Unresolved Issues with the Assessment of Multi-Decadal Global Land Surface Temperature
Trends” by Roger A. Pielke, Sr. et al., Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres,
114, D05104, doi:10.1029/2008JD010450.
When I took a couple month old BAMS with me to read while in a waiting room and
stumbled across a paper I was a co-author on, I realized I needed to update my vitae….
Regards,
Tom
—
Thomas C. Peterson,
Ph.D.
NOAA’s National Climatic
Data Center
151 Patton
Avenue
Asheville, NC
28801
Voice:
+1-828-271-xxxx
Fax:
+1-828-271-xxxx
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [5]p.jones@xxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
—
Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D.
NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Voice: +1-828-271-4287
Fax: +1-828-271-4876
========================================================================
3021.txt Somebody we know at WUWT and CA, is worried that people “I am very concerned that they are actually affecting the populace’s belief in GW”
date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:19:26 +0100
from: mike@xxxx
subject: A couple of questions
to: p.jones@xxxxx
Dr. Jones
I apologise for this intrusion!
I’m sure you are aware of the drivel posted on climateaudit –
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6654#comments
and wattsupwiththat
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
I have posted there under the name of thefordprefect. For a year or so.
A bit of background so you can confirm my name. About 2 years ago I was involved with some robust exchanges on a financial BB (ADVFN) and have been taken to court for defamation – the first judgement (now unfortunately appealed!) is here (my name is Tuppen)
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2008/1797.html&query=advfn&method=all
I can post on ADVFN or climateaudit under my pseudonym of thefordprefect to “prove” my credentials.
I find the current exchange on climateaudit to be very childish and have said so many times. In doing so I have apparently backed your actions and put my interpretation on your statements.
I was therefore hoping that you could reply to these questions. I will if you agree quote your responses (you may also give an “off the record” response which will never leave my computer (please make it obvious which is available for publication!).
1. In this statement:
I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top pass on to others.
We can pass on the gridded data – which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
There is IPR to consider.
Is I have suggested you are refusing to give IPR info to others and have used a bit of humour with the “25 years or so” part
Is this an incorrect interpretation on my part?
2. Do you actually have agreements available for some of the data that prevents release to non academics?
Are these paper or email. Since the CRU has been around from the late 80s when the anti AGW were not in existence and data was not being questioned I can understand that these may have been verbal or lost in moves of location.
3. I understand that upward of 200 FOI requests have been made on the CRU – the attack being instigated and directed by wattsupwiththat and climateaudit. Do you know the cost to the CRU of processing such a FOI claim?
Whilst I can understand your reluctance to speak on such Blogs I am very concerned that they are actually affecting the populace’s belief in GW. If you repeat the same crud often enough it eventually gets copied to other blogs and so on.
By the way I have pointed them to this document
Click to access ECAD_report_2008.pdf
Which states that some data is unavailable because of IP agreements with the sources (i.e. they have the same problenm as you) – it has been ignored of course!
Thanks
Mike Tuppen (aka thefordprefect)
==============================================================================
4564.txt
Here we have Phil Jones saying there isn’t anything wrong with the DeBilt weather station data, but we know better now.
cc: Michael Mann <mann@xxxx>
date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:31:20 -0400 (EDT)
from: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxx>
subject: Re: attacks against Keith
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxx>
<x-flowed>
I agree with Mike. This is not a peer review issue – this is a propaganda
issue. And right now the good guys have conceded the field. The key
observation is that 99% of the people cheerleading have absolutely no idea
what McIntyre has done – they are just happy with the meme. Thus any
response can’t only be a technical one, it has to be one that demonstrates
the integrity of the process – and that requires some degree of further
info that only you guys can supply. The good news is that once something
is out there, people will counter with links to that without themselves
worrying about the detail. We are of course happy to help in any way.
Gavin
PS. Minor issue, but is Keith’s sick leave status being broadcast via a
vacation message on his email or website? I’m wondering if McI knew about
this ahead of time.
=============
Gavin Schmidt
NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025
Tel: (212) 678 5627
Email: gschmidt@xxxx
URL: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Michael Mann wrote:
> thanks Phil, Keith,
>
> I don’t think the peer-reviewed literature is an acceptable response to this.
> They don’t bother publishing there anyway. They know they can do more damage
> by just circumventing the process entirely, since they have immediate access
> to the right-wing media. Look at today’s Telegraph, the lie is already out
> there in the public domain.
>
> I think we ought to get some sort of comment out there, perhaps through
> “RealClimate”, though its worth some discussion as far as the best form that
> would take, perhaps in the form of an “editorial” (i.e. group post).
>
> Interested to hear Gavin’s thoughts. got to run off to a meeting now,
>
> mike
>
> On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:20 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike, Gavin,
>> As Tim has said Keith is making a good recovery and hopes to be back in
>> soon, gradually during October and hopefully full time from November.
>> I talked to him by phone yesterday and sent him and Tom Melvin the
>> threads on CA. As you’re fully aware, trying to figure out what McIntyre
>> has done is going to be difficult. It would be so much easier if they
>> followed normal procedure and wrote up a comment and submitted it to a
>> journal. I looked through the threads yesterday trying to make sense of
>> what he’s done. My suspicion is that he’s brought in other tree ring series
>> from more distant sites, some of which may not even be larch. There are two
>> chronologies that have been used – one called the Polar Urals and one
>> called Yamal. PU is a Schweingruber site with density as well as ring
>> width. The PU reconstruction is therefore not a chronology, but a
>> regression based reconstruction from both MXD and TRW. Yamal is just a ring
>> width series (with lots of sub-fossil material, so much older) from an area
>> some distance (at least 500km) north of PU. It was developed by Hantemirov
>> and Shiyatov and was poorly standardized – corridor method. I also don’t
>> think McIntyre understands the RCS method even though he claims to have a
>> program. The ends and the age structure of the samples are crucial in all
>> this, but I think he just throws series in.
>>
>> I totally agree that these attacks (for want of a better word) are
>> getting worse. Comments on the thread are snide in the extreme, with many
>> saying they see no need to submit the results to a journal! They have
>> proved Keith has manipulated the data, so job done. Difficult to know how
>> to respond to this. They ignore journal comments anyway – just as they will
>> with Grant Foster’s.
>>
>> Hadn’t thought of Senate debates. I’d put this down to the build up to
>> Copenhagen, which is sort of the same.
>>
>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/a-look-at-the-thompson-et-al-paper-hi-tech-wiggle-matching-and-removal-of-natural-variables/
>>
>> is a complete reworking of Dave Thompson’s paper which is in press in J.
>> Climate (online). Looked at this, but they have made some wrong
>> assumptions, but someone has put a lot of work into it. ENSO influences are
>> probably slightly non-linear, but this didn’t stop Mclean et al.
>>
>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/ooops-dutch-meteorological-institute-caught-in-weather-station-siting-failure-moved-station-and-told-nobody/
>>
>> This one is a complete red herring – nothing wrong with De Bilt
>> measurements. This is what it is about according to someone at KNMI
>>
>> The issue you refer to is causing a lot of noise in the Netherlands (even
>> MP’s asking questions to the minister). It seems this is not at all about
>> the observational series (nothing strange is going on), but more related to
>> the “Law on KNMI” and the division of tasks between commercial providers
>> and KNMI to be discussed by parliament soon.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> At 08:46 29/09/2009, Tim Osborn wrote:
>>> Hi Mike and Gavin,
>>>
>>> thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
>>>
>>> I’ll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith.
>>> He’s been off almost 4 months now and won’t be back for at least another
>>> month (barring a couple of lectures that he’s keen to do in October as
>>> part of a gradual return). Hopefully he’ll be properly back in November.
>>>
>>> Regarding Yamal, I’m afraid I know very little about the whole thing —
>>> other than that I am 100% confident that “The tree ring data was
>>> hand-picked to get the desired result” is complete crap. Having one’s
>>> integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil (as I’m sure you
>>> know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such attacks).
>>> Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I
>>> think Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently
>>> been asked to look at CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a
>>> co-author on that and Darrell had asked Keith to help with a response to
>>> the criticisms).
>>>
>>> Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could
>>> shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather
>>> loose cannon and shouldn’t be directly contacted about this (also he
>>> wasn’t involved in the Yamal chronology being discussed, though he has
>>> been involved in a regional reconstruction that we’ve recently been
>>> working towards that uses these — and more — data).
>>>
>>> Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already
>>> considering a response.
>>>
>>> Off to lecture for a couple of hours now…
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>> School of Environmental Sciences
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>>>
>>> e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>>> phone: +44 1603 592089
>>> fax: +44 1603 507784
>>> web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>>> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>>>
>> Prof. Phil Jones
>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx
>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>> NR4 7TJ
>> UK
>> —————————————————————————-
>>
>
> —
> Michael E. Mann
> Professor
> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>
> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)xxxx
> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) xxxx
> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxx
> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>
> website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
> “Dire Predictions” book site:
> http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Having just done a quick (but scrupulously scientific fnord) peruse of some of the e-mails in our new Trevor Trove (it’s an old joke… sorry), I am amazed at the juvenile nature of the stuff written by Phil Jones.
I mean although it’s clear he is a “True Believer”, he could perhaps think about trying to write a little more like a university professor and a little less like a 12 year old girl on a Justin Bieber forum.
Exclamation marks at the end of every second sentence? For [SNIP: sorry, language. -REP]’s sake – what is he, 11?
In my time in academia (back in the olden days, in an economic think tank), the professoriat was prone to over-egging the pudding when it came to gravitas – but it is truly horrifying to see the pendulum swing back past “neutral” to the point where the writer conveys an immaturity more in line with Dora the Explorer than a tax-funded ‘think tank’.
In case nobody’s aware of it yet… the whole climate fraud is about finding a rationale for a raft of new ad valorem taxes. The political class are FINALLY aware of stuff that folks like me were modelling in the 1990s: the retirement of the demographic bulge of the 1940s cohort (who got rich and had fewer kids: the one sensible thing they did) means that there will be MASSIVE budgetary pressure due to over-promising by the political class over the last five decades. By some decent estimates, in places like France there will only be 2 workers per retiree by 2035… down from 12 per retiree in the 1950s: given that retirement benefits are Ponzi-style “use current contributions to pay retirees benefits”, this poses a huge problem – either promises will be welched on, or a new revenue source with broad social approval must be found.
Ad valorem taxes (GST/VAT etc) are useful in that for the most part people don’t examine shopping dockets in the same was as they examine payslips.
Dressing up the new revenue grab by claiming that unless we Do Something, a bunch of Pacific Islanders will be drowned while napping on the beach a hundred years from now (having presumable not noticed the tide rising in the intervening period) – well, that whole narrative style appeals to the New Mum mentality (the same way as “disinfect every surface or you’re a bad Mum” led to a generation with scant resistance to the daily vicissitudes).
There are people who want to Nerf the Worlds, but they’re not politicians… but the politicians will exploit that tendency in order to ram their next grab down our throats (and ram their tentacles into our wallets and bank accounts – the better to enable them to live in palaces once they’re finished sucking at the tax tit).
The claim that the statute of limitations applied in this circumsance appears peculiar from a U.S. point of view for a number of reasons. For one example there is the tolling of the time period during which the statue of limitaton runs. During such time as the law denies the plaintiff and the court the jurisdiction necessary to prosecute a complaint, the statute of klimitation period tolls and extends the date upon which it expires.
A defendant who steals a briefcase filled with $100,000USD from the desk of the State District Attorney in the state capitol can go public and claim the money freely more than 7 years later, if the defendant can prove beyond reasonable doubt they never left the state during that time and paid all applicable income taxes and other taxes. If the defendant left the state immediately after the theft and returned to the state 3 years later, the statute of limitations takes the 3 years of the defendant’s absence from the jurisdiction of the state courts and the 7 years of the statutory period or at least ten years to expire.
In the example of the FOIA request for the e-mail, it would otherwise seem that the legal incapacity to prosecute the violation of the FOIA laws should have tolled the time period of the applicable statute of limitations until such time as the legal capacity to investigate and prosecute were restored to jurisdiction. Consequently, it would seem from a U.S. perspective that the statute of limitation should have actually expired after the number of months in which the investigation and prosecution were barred by law plus the six months allowed by the stature of limitation. Does anyone have any authoritative knowledge indicating the applicable law of the U.K. does NOT toll the time period of the statute of kimitation while the investigation and prosecution are barred by the courts?
Also, why haven’t Phil Jones et al been found accountable for an unlawful conversion of the public property to their own personal use and destruction of public property for which they had custodial duties?
Boy, these ‘climatologists’ are lying $acks of $hi+ $cumbag$ with Ph.D.’s behind their names.