Total Overreaction

So there's this little "leak" from East Anglia University... have you seen this, have you heard about this? Once the dust settles, I'm guessing that a certain former DOE employee is gonna have some 'splainin to do!

Seems like the law of unintended consequences is gonna have a field day with this stuff

Pair this statement:

----------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: [7]
To: "'D.J. Keenan'" [8]
Cc: "'Phil Jones'" [9]; [10];
"'Wei-Chyung Wang'" [11]; "'Zeng Zhaomei'"
[12]
Sent: Monday, 30 April, 2007 6:14
Subject: Re: retraction request
> Dr. Keenan,
>
> The discussion with Ms. Zeng last week in Beijing have re-affirmed
> that she used the hard copies of station histories to make sure that
> the selected stations for the study of urban warming in China have
> relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or
> observation times over the study period (1954-1983).
>
> Regards,
>
> WCW
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
from this email:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=802&filename=1182255717.txt

with these statements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X-YMail-OSG: wrT8WAEVM1myBGklj9hAiLvnYW9GqqFcbArMYvXDn17EHo1e0Vf5eSQ4WIGJljnsEw--
From: "Steve McIntyre" [1]
To: "Phil Jones" [2]
Subject: Jones et al 1990
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:44:58 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Dear Phil,

Jones et al 1990 cited a 260-station temperature set jointly collected by the US
Deparment of Energy and the PRC Academy of Sciences, stating in respect to the Chinese
stations:

The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if
any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times.

This data set was later published as NDP-039
[3]http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp039/ndp039.html , coauthored by Zeng Zhaomei,
providing station histories only for their 65-station network, stating that station
histories for their 205-station network (which includes many of the sites in Jones et al
1990) were not available:

(s. 5) Unfortunately, station histories are not currently available for any of the
stations in the 205-station network; therefore, details regarding instrumentation,
collection methods, changes in station location or observing times, and official data
sources are not known.

(s. 7) Few station records included in the PRC data sets can be considered truly
homogeneous. Even the best stations were subject to minor relocations or changes in
observing times, and many have undoubtedly experienced large increases in urbanization.
Fortunately, for 59 of the stations in the 65-station network, station histories (see
Table 1) are available to assist in proper interpretation of trends or jumps in the
data; however, station histories for the 205-station network are not available. In
addition, examination of the data from the 65-station data set has uncovered evidence of
several undocumented station moves (Sects. 6 and 10). Users should therefore exercise
caution when using the data.

---------------------------------------------------

in this email:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=803&filename=1182342470.txt

---------------------------------------------------

So Dr. Wang was cleared in his university investigations based on the word of a colleague which directly contradicts the published notes on the data?

here's another gem from the last email:
----------------------------------------------------
Phil Jones said the following on 6/20/2007 3:59 AM:

Tom P.
Just for interest. Don't pass on.
Might be a precedent for your paper to J. Climate when
it comes out.
There are a few interesting comments on the CA web site.
One says it is up to me to prove the paper from 1990 was correct,
not for Keenan to prove we're wrong. Interesting logic.
Cheers
Phil
Wei-Chyung, Tom,
I won't be replying to either of the emails below, nor to any
of the accusations on the Climate Audit website.
I've sent them on to someone here at UEA to see if we
should be discussing anything with our legal staff.
The second letter seems an attempt to be nice to me,
and somehow split up the original author team.
I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA
request!
Cheers
Phil
--------------------------------

Yes, Dr. Jones, the credibility of your data has been challenged. "Peer-reviewed" status is not a magic talisman against incomplete or inaccurate data. And if the UK law works like the US law, you don't get to pick and choose who gets answers to FOIA requests. You take taxpayer money, you are answerable to the taxpayer.