«Edited and Annotated by John Costella The Lavoisier Group March 2010 About the Author John Costella was born in East Melbourne in 1966. After being ...»
forwards it to Kevin Trenberth and Mike Mann:
The Appendix of this attachment has gone to the State University of New York at Albany and is being dealt with by them. Not sure when, but WeiChyung Wang has nothing to worry about.
August 30, 2007: email 1188478901Phil Jones to Kevin Trenberth and Mike Mann:
I’ve been in touch with Wei-Chyung Wang, who’s in China at the moment.
He forwarded the “paper!” to the people dealing with Keenan’s allegations at the State University of New York. He got a reply to say that Keenan has now violated the confidentiality agreement related to the allegation. So, it isn’t right to respond whilst this is ongoing.
Confidentiality is obviously something that only the “contrarians” must abide by.
Mike Mann replies, copying in Kevin Trenberth:
I did take the liberty of discussing this with Gavin, who can of course be trusted to maintain the confidentiality of this. We’re in agreement that Keenan has wandered his way into dangerous territory here, and that in its current form this is clearly libellous; there is not even a pretense that he is only investigating the evidence. Furthermore, while many of us fall under the category of “limited public figures” and therefore the threshold for proving libel is quite high, this is not the case for Wei-Chyung. He is not a public figure. I believe they have made a major miscalculation here in treating him as if he is. In the United Kingdom, where Energy and Environment is published, the threshold is even lower than it is in the United States for proving libel. We both think he should seek legal advice on this, as soon as possible.
With respect to Peiser’s guest editing of Energy and Environment and your review, following up on Kevin’s suggestions, we think there are two key points. First, if there are factual errors (other than the fraud allegation) it is very important that you point them out now. If not, Keenan could later allege that he made the claims in good faith, as he provided you an opportunity to respond and you did not. Secondly, we think you need to also focus on the legal implications. In particular, you should mention that the publisher of a libel is also liable for damages—that might make Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen be a little wary. Of course, if it does get published, maybe the resulting settlement would shut down Energy and Environment and Benny and Sonja all together! We can only hope, anyway. So maybe in an odd way it’s actually win-win for us, not them. Lets see how this plays out… Their proposed legal strategy now encompasses the possibility of shutting down Energy and Environment.
August 30, 2007: email 1188508827
Phil Jones to Wei-Chyung Wang and Tom Karl:
I just received this. I won’t be responding.
Knowing this journal, there is no point, not even if I said I ought to review the paper. Peiser is a well-known skeptic in the UK. Not sure what to do.
I guess you (Wei-Chyung Wang) should forward this to whoever needs to see it at Albany.
If you think I should respond then I can. I will forward this to someone here, but mainly for their file.
I did say the quote on page 3 about two to three years ago. I am still not releasing the Climatic Research Unit … data collected over … the last 25 years.
I have forwarded the file to the Vice-President of Research and she wrote back to me that Keenan has violated the confidentiality agreement, as I told her in the very beginning. In any case, I am letting the university … handle this. Send me whatever you have and I will forward it to the State University of New York at Albany. Keenan does not follow … any rules at all; reasoning with him is useless, but this will come back to badly hurt him.
The Editor of Energy and Environment writes to Phil Jones, clarifying Jones’s query
about its review:
The paper has been sent to three reviewers. Of course I will take your comments and assessment into consideration. Indeed, if the claims are unsubstantiated, I would certainly reject the paper.
Phil Jones to Wei-Chyung Wang:
I won’t do anything then until the State University of New York (SUNY) process has run its course. Can you clarify what you mean by violated confidentiality? I presume you mean that Keenan agreed to do nothing on the issue until the SUNY process has run its course. I presume this will conclude sometime this autumn. Keep me informed of when the final decision might be, as after this we ought to do something about the paper in Energy and Environment. I checked with their guest editor and got this amazing reply! See above. So, if we didn’t already think this was the worst journal in the world, now we know for certain it is, and have clear information from them to prove it.
When I mean doing something, I don’t mean sending anything to Energy and Environment, as that will be useless. Our blog site is a possibility, but there are other avenues.
The confidentiality agreement means that Keenan needs to keep the “inquiry” confidential during the process of the SUNY Albany “inquiry”.
1. Libel is quite easy to prove in the United Kingdom as you’re not a public figure. Perhaps when you’re back you ought to consider taking some legal advice from the SUNY. Assuming the paper is published, that is.
2. More important. I think I should send a short email to the editor Peiser and inform him that Keenan has broken his agreement with the SUNY over this issue. If I don’t, they could say I had the chance and didn’t. Can you check with the SUNY whether the folks there think I should?
We should be thinking, after the whole ordeal is over, to take legal (or other) actions against Keenan. This is a time I regret not been a rich person, otherwise I could throw a million dollar lawsuit against him.
Let me know what you want to do. I have also asked the SUNY at Albany’s opinion about what you should do within the SUNY framework. But be careful that you do not know much about the SUNY action.
Instead of intimidatory law suits, did they ever consider defending the science?
August 31, 2007: email 1188557698
Phil Jones to Tom Wigley:
Tom, Just for interest! Keep quiet about both issues.
I have been in touch with Wei-Chyung Wang. I just agreed with him that I will send a brief response to Peiser. The allegation by Keenan has gone to the State University of New York (SUNY). Keenan’s about to be told by SUNY that submitting this has violated a confidentiality agreement he entered into with SUNY when he sent the complaint. Wei-Chyung Wang has nothing to worry about, but it is still unsettling!
All related to a paper in Nature from 1990! Keenan ought to look at the temperature data (which he has) rather than going on and on about site moves. See the end of this email and the response about Energy and Environment and the three reviewers. Amazing! We all knew the journal was awful.
On something completely different—just agreed to review another crappy paper by Chappell and Agnew on Sahel Rainfall. Chappell is out of a job— and still he tries to write papers saying the Sahel drought might not have happened! Both are just time wasters—but the review is necessary to do unfortunately.
Tom Wigley’s remarkable reply:
It seems to me that Keenan has a valid point. The statements in the papers that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone (WeiChyung Wang at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect.
Whether or not this makes a difference is not the issue here.
Wigley, again, realizes that they have all missed the point: Keenan’s allegations are factually based and are very damaging.
September 11, 2007: email 1189515774
Phil Jones to Mike Mann and Gavin Schmidt:
Don’t pass this on; it’s just for interest. It seems as though Energy and Environment will likely publish this paper. … … The fraud allegation against you, Mike, is only in passing!
Wei-Chyung is in Vienna. Have forwarded this to him to pass onto the State University of New York. I wish they would conclude their assessment of malpractice.
… PS to Gavin—been following (sporadically) the Climate Audit stuff about the Goddard Institute for Space Studies data and release of the computer programs, etc., by Jim Hansen. I may take some of the pressure off you soon, by releasing a list of the stations we use—just a list, no programs and no data. I have agreed to do this under the Freedom Of Information Act here in the United Kingdom.
Again, Jones is doing the bare minimum possible.
It may be difficult for me to sue them over a footnote, and in fact he is very careful only to intimate accusations against me in a response to your comments. Note that he does not do so in the paper. I’m sure they know that I would sue them for that, and that I have a top lawyer already representing me.
Wei Chyung needs to sue them, or at the least threaten a lawsuit. If he doesn’t, this will set a dangerous new precedent. I could put him in touch with a leading attorney who would do this free of charge. Of course, this has to be done quickly. The threat of a lawsuit alone may prevent them from publishing this paper, so time is of the essence. Please feel free to mention this directly to Wei Chyung, in particular that I think he needs to pursue a legal course here … independent of whatever his university is doing. He cannot wait for Stony Brook to complete its internal investigations! If he does so, it will be too late to stop this.
September 11, 2007: email 1189536059
Phil Jones to Jacquie Burgess and Michael McGarvie:
I’ve been in discussion with Michael over the past several months about a number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for Climatic Research Unit data. …
I would like to suggest that we ask Dave Palmer to comment on the events on the Freedom Of Information Act request—I don’t think I fully agree with the story presented here. Do you agree?
I also think we should alert the Press Office in due course.
I will keep your email and hope we don’t have to mobilise. This is very close to harassment, isn’t it?
December 4, 2007: email 1196872660 Despite the growing controversy, Mike Mann feels the need to find an award for his mate, Phil Jones. This episode—and its hilarious aftermath—offers amazing insights into the characters of these two leading conspirators; but it also demonstrates the folly of relying on fancy-sounding awards and memberships to denigrate the criticisms of
all those who are not “in the club”. First, the menu:
By the way, I am still looking into nominating you for an American Geophysical Union award; I’ve been told that the Ewing medal wouldn’t be the right one. Let me know if you have any particular options you’d like me to investigate…
Jones selects his own award:
As for the American Geophysical Union—just getting one of their Fellowships would be fine. I take it you’ve seen the attached in Energy and Environment.
I will look into the American Geophysical Union Fellowship situation as soon as possible. I don’t read Energy and Environment; it gives me indigestion—I don’t even consider it peer-reviewed science, and in my view we should treat it that way, i.e., don’t cite anything appearing in it, and if journalists ask us about a paper, simply explain that it’s not peerreviewed science, and Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the editor, has even admitted to an anti-Kyoto agenda!
Mann has his own definition of what peer-review is!
I do hope that Wei-Chyung pursues legal action here.
January 10, 2008: email 1199999668
Phil Jones to Ben Santer:
Tim has let me into part of the secret. Glenn said the paper had two reviews—one positive; the other said it wasn’t great, but would leave it up to the editor’s discretion. This is why Glenn knows he made the wrong choice.