The Warmist Conspiracy, More Damning Emails
o.n.0.b.
November 21 2009
These are the emails that should have Professor Phil Jones most worried
about his future.
Jones, head of the CRU unit whose emails were leaked, has been under most
fire so far over one email in particular in which he boasted of using a
'"trick" to "hide the decline" that would have otherwise spoiled his graph
showing temperatures soaring ever-upward.
But far more serious - at least in a legal sense - may be his apparent
boasting of destroying data to stop sceptics from checking this alarmist
work. If, as some emails suggest, he destroyed it to thwart FOI requests
from Professor Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, who'd already exposed as
fake the Michael Mann "hockey stick", Jones, one of the most active of the
IPCC lead authors, could even face criminal charges.
(Note: in saying that, I should add that these emails may simply be poorly
worded, out of context or even altered by the whistleblower who leaked them.
Jones may also not knowingly have done anything wrong, and there is no proof
that he did anything against the law.)
Whether laws were broken or not, the emails prove beyond doubt how resistant
Jones and his colleagues were to having their work properly scrutinised by
anyone not of their "team". No wonder, perhaps, when the documents reveal
Jones has so far attracted $25 million in grants.)
The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with
1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM - McIntyre and McKitrick (bold
added):
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything
better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you
never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station
data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now
in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does
your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20
days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will
test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom
Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people
could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he
can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting
into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !
Jones admits he was warned by his own university against deleting data
subjected to an FOI request from McIntyre - or anyone:
From: Phil Jones
To: santer1@XXXX
Subject: Re: A quick question
Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008
Ben,
Haven't got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I'm not entirely
confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on
CA, but I'm not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here
early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails - unless this was
'normal' deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn't paid his �10,
so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.
Anyway requests have been of three types - observational data, paleo data
and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter - and there
have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these - all came from David
Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner's Office, IPCC is an
international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds
anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has
anything to do with our core business - and it doesn't! I'm sounding like
Sir Humphrey here!
Makes you wonder very strongly what Jones is trying to hide, doesn't it?
Also makes you laugh all over again at his claim once that the data being
sought had, sadly, been ... um, lost.
In1212063122.txtm, Jones urges another colleague, Michael "Hockey Stick",
Mann, to join in the deleting - at least of emails about the IPCC's
controversial ARA report on man-made warming which Jones co-authored, and
which claimed warming was "unequivocal" and "most likely" caused by humans:
From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new
email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil:
For years Jones has made clear his determination to keep crucial data from
the eyes of sceptics:
From: Phil Jones To: ma...@xxx.edu
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO
DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: "raymond s. bradley" , "Malcolm Hughes"
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower
troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don't realise
that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He
stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but
Regaldo didn't bother
with that. Also ignored Francis' comment about all the other series looking
similar to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as
appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information
Act !
And when Jones is really forced to the point of handing over his data, he
considers ways to may checking it more difficult or annoying:
Options appear to be:
Send them the data
Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made
us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number
that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like
(Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources
that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove
many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this
be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN.
This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
But Jones figures a way out:
At 04:53 AM 5/9/2008, you wrote:
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things - don't pass on either.
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but
this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and
Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way
around this.
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
UPDATE
More from Don't-Disclose Phil, who seems to have a like-minded acolyte in
Melbourne's own Bureau of Meterology warmist David Jones:
Email 1182255717.txt
Wei-Chyung and Tom,
The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990)
paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to submit
something to Albany. Well may be?!?
Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers to a paper
on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press in J. Climate. I say
'may be' as Ren isn't that clear about this in the text, references and
responses to earlier reviews. Have requested JGR get a copy a copy of this
in order to do the review.In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al.
on urbanization at two sites in China.Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if
the people have anything to do with Climate Audit
.2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are
ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about
Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the
availability of the responses to reviewer's at the various stages of the AR4
drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.
Cheers
Phil
Wow.
Which sites may they be?
And what does it say of Jones that the reading of a single website renders
you a non-person, whose inquiries must invariably be disregarded?
UPDATE
How impartial a scientist is Jones? How open to evidence that he may be
wrong? Gather from this confession to John Christy:
"...If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the
science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't
being political, it is being selfish. "
Cheers, Phil
How typical for Jones to confuse "science" with "hypothesis".
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Surfer
>
>
>November 21 2009
>
>These are the emails that should have Professor Phil Jones most worried
>about his future.
>
Whatever.
Lower troposphere has recommenced warming...
http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/0709tlt_bar.jpg
Misc
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:22:04 +1100, "o.n.0.b." <b...@wa.com> wrote:
>
> >November 21 2009
>
> >about his future.
>
> Whatever.
>
> Lower troposphere has recommenced warming...
>
> http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/0709tlt_bar.jpg
From: Phil Jones <p.j...@uea.ac.uk>
To: Tim Johns <tim....@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Folland, Chris"
<chris....@metoffice.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Date: Mon Jan 5 16:18:24 2009
Cc: "Smith, Doug" <doug....@metoffice.gov.uk>, Tim Johns
<tim....@metoffice.gov.uk>
Tim, Chris,
I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
record, 1998!
Still a way to go before 2014.
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Chris - I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather
forecasts.
Maybe because I'm in my 50s, but the language used in the
forecasts seems
a bit over the top re the cold. Where I've been for the last 20
days (in Norfolk)
it doesn't seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.
I've just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6
deg C for the LWC.
It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC
forecasts has
the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent
nights. The paper
shows the UHI hasn't got any worse since 1901 (based on St James
Park
and Rothamsted).
Cheers
Phil