Foia 5335 – FOI answer? Sue them!

As I find things of some interest in the CG2 emails, I’ll put up a posting with the token FOIA and the digits of that email as in the zip file.

Right now, I’m just randomly “poking around” in the online version. The heading below is a link to the particular email. Eventually I’ll get a bit more organized about it. I’ll quote some bits of the email, but the “whole thing” will be at the end of the link where anyone can read them. If you want the mail headers and context, read the link.

I’m just picking out the bits that I think have some News Value and some Social Merit as they illuminate abusive attitudes, defensive and perhaps cult like “circle the wagons” attitudes, and things that might be illegal, immoral, or somehow wrong. Some will be more boring than others, but may give some insight in the larger context.

If folks want to “crowd source” a bit and check out blocks of the email archive, just drop a note if you find a ‘good one’, or even if you just find that, oh, 744-756 are dead dull… Any really good catches will have a posting made about them.

I’m going to adopt the convention of using Foia (capitalized as in all proper names) to mean the leaker and F.O.I.A. or FOIA or lowercase foia to mean the Freedom Of Information Act. I may slip up from time to time, as habits change slowly, but that is the intended direction. I believe that SUNYA in the email is State University of New York at Albany. I’ll try to remember to blank the username in email addresses, but I’ll leave in the organization so you can see who’s from where.


This email thread is interesting in that it, like the other interesting one from yesterday 5310, is a large email with a lot of quoted text for context. That might make a good ‘first filter’. Just look at the size of the messages and take them in size order, large to small.

It starts with the compliance officer for the NSF saying there has been a F.O.I.A. request for information. The researcher in question protests, calls it horrible, and everyone then decides the right thing to do is evade and sue… I’ll be unwinding some of the email quoted text to put it in ‘normal time order’ rather than ‘bottom to top, inside out, historical email’ order.

It starts with what looks to be a legal notice from the NSF that they need information for a foia request, and stating, basically, that it’s a legal requirement to be open with public funded projects. It looks to me like the request is just for the grant application / proposal information. Basically, “what did you plan to do with public money if you got it?”; for grants that were funded. I’ve bolded some bits to help them stand out from, the clutter.

From: Jensen, Leslie A. [****]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 9:41 AM
To: **
Subject: National Science Foundation funded grant proposals – Response required
Importance: High
Dr. Wei-Chyung Wang
SUNY at Albany
Dear Dr. Wang:
We have received a request for copies of the following proposals associated with the NSF
funded grants entitled:

Atmospheric Trace Constituents and Global Climate #0342530
Atmospheric Trace Constituents and Global Climate #0087073
Meeting on Research on Climate Changes of the Last 2000 Years in Monsoon Asia
Atmospheric Tract Constituents and Global Climate #9713858
Atmospheric Trace Gases and Global Climate #9115199
Atmospheric Trace Gases and Global Climate #8805908
Workshop on General Circulation Model Study: Climate Chemistry Interaction
Atmospheric Trace Gases and Global Climate #9096124
Atmospheric Trace Constituents and Global Climate #9415336

Records are available to the public on request except for material that is personal,
privileged or confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under law.
NSF will
remove, before disclosure to the requester, personal information (SSN, date/place of
birth, individual salaries, bios, pending and non-Federal grants) in the file about
yourself or other individuals under Exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
to protect personal privacy.

The FOIA generally prohibits us from withholding records except to the extent that
disclosure of proprietary information (trade secrets or commercial or financial
information) in the records, if any, that you assert is privileged or confidential.
Therefore, I request that you carefully review your proposal, identifying by page
number, line or paragraph, the parts you consider confidential.
You will need to include
a detailed statement explaining how disclosure of this information would harm your
organization or benefit your competitors, or why it is otherwise exempt from disclosure
under the FOIA. Understand that information you submit in response to this request may
itself be subject to disclosure.
Your response is not an agreement between us that the information you request us to
withhold will not be disclosed. Under the law, we must decide what may be withheld and
be prepared to defend that withholding in court. We will, however, notify you if we
cannot agree.
If you have questions regarding this request, you may wish to contact your institutions
intellectual property or grants office for guidance. If you have no objection to
disclosure of the proposal — many submitters have none — simply let me know that.
The requester is Douglas J. Keenan of New York, he did not provide me with his
Please send your response to me, preferably by email at ****
, within five (5) working days after receipt of this letter.
Your prompt response enables us to comply with the statutory time for response to
Leslie A. Jensen
FOIA/Privacy Act Officer
Office of the General Counsel
National Science Foundation

Seems pretty darned clear to me. We’ve got a foia request. The law says “public paid so ‘give the info’; but we can take out personal and proprietary stuff, just identify it”. Also notes many folks do just that. The material requested all related directly to atmospheric gas “workshops” and model theory. Stuff at the heart of the AGW assertions.

So how does the recipient respond to what would seem to be a relatively normal request? Do they say “Well, it’s my duty under law, so OK, lets get on with it.”? Nope…

From: Wei-Chyung Wang
To: Lynn Videka
CC: Wei-Chyung Wang
Sent: Wed Apr 15 09:55:39 2009
Subject: FW: National Science Foundation funded grant proposals – Response required
Hi, Lynn, FYI, it looks Keenan is still trying.
Given the situation, should SUNYA inform NSF about the circumstance? Furthermore, should
we do something to stop the continued hustle. Please advise.


Sends it off to someone else and complains that Keenan is “still trying”. Maybe they ought to just give the information that the law says is to be given and be done with it… (FWIW, I don’t know who Keenan is, so a “Dig Here!” would be finding the background on who they are, what their web site is and why they are seen as so bad.)

What does Lynn say?

From: Lynn Videka [****]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:16 AM
To: Wei-Chyung Wang
Cc: John H Reilly
Subject: Re: National Science Foundation funded grant proposals – Response required

This is very disturbing. I will ask our counsel for his opinion on the matter.

It’s “disturbing” to get a legal request for public information about a public funded project? So it gets bounced to legal? Um, I think it’s called “compliance department” for a reason…

From: Wei-Chyung Wang [ ****]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:28 AM
To: ‘Lynn Videka’
Cc: ‘John H Reilly’; ‘Wei-Chyung Wang’
Subject: RE: National Science Foundation funded grant proposals – Response required


Thanks. I think it is also about time the SUNYA starts some legal action. Have you
notice that:

The requester is Douglas J. Keenan of New w York, he did not provide me with his

I though Keenan resides in UK, at least from the past communication. Perhaps NSF needs
to find out who Keenan is, his affiliation, and also the consequences of using false


Oh, attack the messenger (or in this case, the requester…) I have no idea if there is any residency issue or not. Frankly, if there is a residency issue, Mr. Keenan is one posted comment away from having a few thousand US residents in every state willing to make the request. This is just so silly.

But, at this point, we’ll trying to literally make A Federal Case out of it. (Remember back when “make a Federal Case out of it meant something strange, rare, and exotic? An extreme act of over the top legal importance?…)

At this point, unwinding the email nesting gets a bit interesting, as it looks like we’ve got a different email thread partially quoted by Phil Jones in his reply to (something)… I also note, in passing, that this now moves from a USA foia to a USA University to a UK respondent… So, it’s not OK to share with a UK resident under a foia but it is OK to share via email with the Now Discredited Team? Ok…

I’m going to pull the embedded thread out for a ‘time order’ but also leave a copy where it was found for ‘completion’…

At 15:41 15/04/2009, Wei-Chyung Wang wrote:
I think I am going to ask SUNYA to take action now, including the legal one, trying to
put a stop to this. Anything you can think of, let me know.


Pretty strong stuff, IMHO, in response to a request to comply with the law from a compliance officer… “Trying to put a stop to this” and “take action now, including the legal one”. So how did Phil In The UK respond?

From: Phil Jones [****]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:55 AM
To: Wei-Chyung Wang; ‘Thomas.R.Karl’
Cc: ‘Wei-Chyung Wang’
Subject: Re: FW: National Science Foundation funded grant proposals – Response required

Do ask them! This looks as though it could get out of control. Look
at the tone of some of the recent things on his web site.

Also – send an email to Ray Bradley. He has been through this related
to the Hockey Stick work with Mike Mann and Malcolm Hughes. They ere
asked by a congressman or senator for details of all their grants.
Also ask SUNYA if Keenan has to be US (and/or live in the US) to file
US FOI requests.

At 15:41 15/04/2009, Wei-Chyung Wang wrote:
I think I am going to ask SUNYA to take action now, including the legal one, trying to
put a stop to this. Ã Anything you can think of, let me know.


Well… Roughly “Do Sue!” But at least we know that Dr. Phil ;-) looks at Skeptic Web Sites while at work and encourages others to do so to ;-) I’d be interested to find out what “tone” on Keenan’s web site was in 2009… Again, a nice little “Dig Here!”… ( I think I’ve heard the name Keenan before, but I’m lousy with names and think I only heard it in passing somewhere. It will be interesting to find out what he does that So Irritates the Now Discredited Team… I’m always willing to learn a new ‘trick’ ;-)

I also find it interesting that you can see how the social network runs. Dr. Phil as the adviser, directing folks and coordinating. I also find it more than a bit disturbing that requests for information about publicly funded research by a “congressman or senator” is felt to be in the same bucket of things that ought to be resisted and scorned. A suitable example for following in thwarting other foia requests…

Wonder how a US “congressman or senator” would feel about a UK government employee giving advice to US government employees on how to thwart legal requests for information about US government funded public projects? Seems just a bit, er, um. “wrong” some how… If someone knows who said “congressman or senator” was, they might want to let them know that a UK Dr. Phil is calling the shots on foia requests, and not the US compliance officer…

It ends with the signature block of Phil..

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 ****
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 ****
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email ****

In Conclusion

Not something we didn’t already know, or strongly suspect. Still, it’s a bit disturbing to see it in print.

No wonder they spend so much time and money on FIOA requests. If they would just respond with “OK, release the application for the grant, but take out my email, phone and the proprietary item FOO”, they could be done in less time than they spent looking at skeptic blogs…

But no, they have to natter for a few days and run off to legal and fight it for months…

And folks wonder why I think the state funded university system could use a little privatizing…

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in FOIA Climategate and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Foia 5335 – FOI answer? Sue them!

  1. George says:

    Here’s the picture as I currently sort of have it in my head. The picture is a bit “busy” at the moment, I will refine it later and make it a little easier on the eye/head but this is the gist of it:

    Basically AGW is a huge money mill for UEA (and others).

    One thing, that link to Lord Monckton’s plea that I gave in t2 didn’t give any contact address. He encourages people to contact him but no contact was given.

  2. George says:

    There are certain “themes” to keep in mind across all of this:

    1. Climate was supposedly “stable” prior to the 1970’s.
    2. As they review papers, they place great pressure on the authors to downplay any natural variability. You will see that in several of the review comments. They want/need to suppress the notion of natural variability. This comes out glaringly in an Antarctic paper where an 800 year cycle is clearly noted. A recent Chinese paper doing a tree-ring series going back about 2000 years also noticed the same 800 year cycle.
    3. They share information about papers they are reviewing and coordinate how they are going to apply pressure to these authors. Briffa, for example, might be reviewing a paper but send the paper and his comments to someone else for validation. It is as if they are getting their story straight. The authors of the papers have no idea they are really being reviewed by a much larger “committee” than just the panel of reviewers. There is great effort at coordination and heading off any “inconvenient” conclusions ahead of publication. Anyone who doesn’t bring a “team” member into the review process is, of course, not a “credible” journal.

  3. Cassio says:

    For information on and from Douglas Keenan, see

  4. George says:

    I think the US should simply print $0.00001 notes and burn them for power. It would be cheaper in the long run and they are a renewable source of energy.

  5. E.M.Smith says:

    We’ve already seen 5310, that is a political discussion involving some political intrigue ( I’ll likely come back to it and make a posting of it at some future point, for now it’s ‘out there’ as an interesting example of UK politics trying to manipulate Russia).

    This posting covers 5335 fairly well as a FOIA Thwart insight.

    I’m now starting at the front of the 5300 block and working them ‘in order’, so I have block 5300-5399 “checked out”. On:
    George is working block 0-99 already.

    If folks would like to ‘pick a block’, just pick out a span of 100, or even just 10 if feeling short on time, and “work it’ putting comments here, or in any newer such posting that shows up. A comment of the form “I’m working block FOO” would be helpful in efficiency, but not required to participate.

    For now, I note:

    5300 is a generic “look at the chapter and spruce it up’ mass email to a mail list. The chapter is IPCC Chapter 10, but the mail list members are not listed in the email. The entire chapter is quoted. The email numbers are not in date order, so this one is from back in 1999.

    date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:09:02 +0200 (MET DST)
    subject: chapter 10, draft 1
    to: tar 10 site
    # Filippo Giorgi, Head, #
    # Physics of Weather and Climate Group #
    # The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics

    It might be interesting to find out what is in the ‘tar10’ list but it is hosted at the University of Capetown South Africa, so might be hard to work out.

    Interesting to me is that it is very clear this is a wide spread and well integrated group. We have folks in the UK, USA, Italy and South Africa clearly coordinating in this ‘effort’… and folks of high rank in their organizations, too.

    A “contact tracing” map from the email would be a useful “dig here”…

    5001 is a technical quibble over some statistics and a possible error in a paper that I don’t recognize… between Gavin Cawley, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt. Peter Thorn, and Tom Wigley.

    5002 is a boring announcement

    5003 has Phil Jones showing he is a True Believer (Saints Be Praised…)

    date: Fri Nov 6 14:06:43 2009
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: 220 words on Copenhagen summit for commissioned article
    to: Ian Sinclair

    I have too much on to think about this. This meeting isn’t really about my area – the
    science of climate change. It is more about doing something.
    I know there are climate change deniers trying to malign some of the research going on.
    They do not write any of this in the scientific literature, only on right wing blog sites.
    All the climate scientists I know though are fully behind the conclusions of the last IPCC
    Report in 2007. There is no doubt the world is warming and will continue to warm.


    Seems he conflates “right wing” with “deniers”… While I’m a more Libertarian sort (i.e. want less “right wing” big government mandates too).

    but it does show how media bias happens:

    Dear Professor Jones

    My name is Ian Sinclair and I work as a freelance journalist, writing for a variety of
    publications such as Tribune, the Big Issue, Peace News and the Eastern Daily Press.

    With the Copenhagen climate change summit approaching, I have been commissioned by the
    Morning Star newspaper to ask experts and environmentalists about their hopes and fears
    for the summit. I will then collate the responses I receive in to an article to be
    published in late November. By publishing this article I hope to raise awareness of the
    summit and climate change
    among the newspaper’s readers. Would you be able to send me
    220 words for this?
    As well as yourself, I have asked the following people to contribute: Caroline Lucas of
    the Green Party, the leader of Prospect union, the Director of Greenpeace, Leo Murray
    from Plane Stupid and the Department of Energy and Climate Change

    Nothing like “agenda driven news” meeting up with “agenda driven science”… So he thinks Greenpeace, Plane Stupid, The Green Party, and the Department of Energy and Climate” all share his agenda. He’s probably right… er, correct…

    5304: From Keith Briffa to Malcolm Hughes of U.of Arizona asking for help on understanding the fine points of N.American tree rings ;-)

    5305: From Keith Briffa asking Edward Cook of Columbia if he is reviewing a paper. (I thought that was supposed to be secret?)

    On Jun 26, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Keith Briffa wrote:

    have you been asked to review a paper by the New Zealanders for
    Nature? Just yes or no

    Which got the interesting result:

    date: Thu Jun 26 14:38:23 2008
    from: Keith Briffa
    subject: Re: in confidence
    to: Edward Cook

    Only you could confuse me with a yes or no answer!!! Is it yes or no? When I have
    finished reviewing it (to ensure independence) I would value a few words with you about it

    At 14:27 26/06/2008, you wrote:

    No. Could this a paper by Richard Duncan? See, I just can’t say “NO”.

    Dr. Edward R. Cook
    Doherty Senior Scholar and
    Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
    Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
    Palisades, New York 10964 USA

    I think I’ll make a cuppa’ and then come back for the next 5…

  6. There’s a fair amount of background on the Keenan issue. In very brief, Jones and WCW above asserted that China was getting warmer, based upon asserted high-quality Chinese station records. Keenan investigated (so did Steve McIntyre) and, convinced that the Chinese weather stations could not be of the quality asserted, pursued Jones and WCW.

    Keenan was correct — but Jones and WCW were kind of halfway sort of exonerated in the manner of misdirection.

    Here’s some detail of the story including the Yet Another Exoneration:

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  7. George says:

    0061.txt “is it safe to ignore this email asking about the negative feedback of clouds” (gist). Answer: “shy away because such communications are not encouraged by the Met Office unless through “official channels”. Which I take to mean must first pass through a “gatekeeper”.



    “NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN. How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.”


    0063.txt from Chris Folland at the Met Office:

    “No feedback from the “Sceptic”. But at least I did not get misquoted by the Wall St Journal – I was not even quoted despite my hour of discussion. A good sign probably. So far, touch wood, I have stayed on the “right” side of the sceptics over the last decade. Certainly spoken to enough of them, often at length, and found out a bit about what makes them tick (different in every case). There may come a moment when this is useful.”


    0066.txt Mike Hulme smells money

    ” Folks
    Is this a Tyndall opportunity to affect the OECD Agriculture and Environment Directorates on their biomas and sequestration policies? Do we have any mutual interest or expertise in this area? Could we do it to set the agenda on biofuels? Any thoughts appreciated.”

    Yeah, Tyndall loves to be involved with setting of agendas.

    I’m going to bed, I think.

  8. George says:

    Note that the emails are NOT in chronological order so people with one “chunk” might have a part of a conversation that is in someone else’s chunk. There was a link somewhere that posted the mails in chronological order.

  9. E.M.Smith says:

    @Keith DeHavelle:

    Thanks, that will help bring me up to speed…


    That ‘web’ shows some real work building it… It’s helpful too.

    BTW, I’m pretty sure Monkton can be reached through his Facebook account:

    If that doesn’t work you could likely get a referral through SPPI:

    Yes, it’s clearly the case that there is massive “coordination” going on. There is also ample evidence that personal gain happens, too. Gee, what do you call a group of folks working together, coordinating and cooperating for personal gain at the expense of others?… Oh, I know, an IPCC Committee or a “Network Of Excellence”. Which see below…


    Has Briffa and

    Keith Alverson
    Executive Director
    PAGES International Project Office
    Bärenplatz 2, 3011 Bern, Switzerland

    Planning how to set up more coordinating groups… PAGES is clearly another government sponsored advocacy group.

    The PAGES (Past Global Changes) project is an international effort to coordinate and promote past global change research. The primary objective is to improve our understanding of past changes in the Earth System in order to improve projections of future climate and environment, and inform strategies for sustainability. more…

    PAGES is a core project of IGBP and is funded by the U.S. and Swiss National Science Foundations and NOAA.

    I suppose I ought to find out who IGBP is, but at this point I’m just getting a slow burn going about how much of Public Tax Money is wandering all over the globe funding self serving agenda driven crap.

    What in the world is US TAXPAYER MONEY doing being funneled through NOAA to a SWISS organization? And the NSF too?

    Looks to me like a whole lot of defunding needs to happen, and soon.

    More from the email:

    From: Keith Briffa ***
    Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:16:35 +0000
    Subject: Euro presentation on Paleo

    Jean, Rick and Keith
    I have been asked to go to Brussels (next Monday week) and present a case (15 minutes) for the “importance of Networks of excellence” to some ill-defined group of politicians/bureaucrats . I am asked to use as an example , the value of a European Paleoclimate network . This is different to my first indication,which was that I would go , as one among several, to argue for the HOLIVAR type of agenda .

    HOLIVAR seems to be another consensus building front and has Briffa on its steering committee:

    One can only hope that the “ill-defined group of politicians/bureaucrats” decide that they do not need to fund these guys in the creation of more condescending self serving “networks of excellence” …

    But Alverson responds:

    Dear All,

    It seems there may be an opportunity to make a big push for a european paleo-network in framework 6. PAGES will strongly support such an initiative. In my personal opinion (not worth much) is that we should target the need for a network bringing together people from different disciplines to provide multiproxy, annually resolved data for the Holocene from the wide variety of proxies available. This would also parallel the recent refocusing of the ESH program in the USA. A database component and a model comparison component are key as well.

    How can PAGES help?

    1) attached is a powerpoint show that Keith Briffa should feel to pick and
    chose from in his talk in brussels
    2) PAGES can find funding to ensure that African scientists benefit
    from, and provide benefit to, the network if EU funds the europeans only (although it is of course best if the EU also include some money for Africans – my understanding from hearing a talk from an EU person last week is that in framework 6, unlike 5, this will be possible).

    3) PAGES can convene
    and/or finance a small workshop to draft a proposal should this be of use.

    4) PAGES can help with preparing and submitting the proposal if this is
    requested of us.

    5) Holivar and PEP3 would both provide good basis on which to build.


    So here we have US taxpayer money, when we are $1.5 Trillion PER YEAR deeper in debt each year and they are looking at cutting the military and social welfare services; being spent on these Europeans to make things Kiss Kiss Nice for the Africans?

    I think someone needs desperately to go through the NSF and NOAA budgets with a Meat Axe and focus them on things that put bread on the table of the average American and get them out of the business of funding Agenda Driven group gabfests… And especially those that exist mostly to promote sucking more money into the party…

    IMHO, the USA needs to just stop all funding to NGOs. Period.

    Frankly, I can see a case, at this point, for just defunding the NSF entirely and NOAA with it. Then just rebudget a “keep the basic weather and satellite systems running” subset of NOAA in a new organization. If this is the kind of crap they spend our money on, when folks are desperately trying to make enough money to feed their family and getting crushing tax bills, it just damn well looks to me like they are saying “Let them eat cake” to the taxpayer… just saying it in private and among themselves…

    Someone needs to go through the entire web of organizations and funding and map it back to first sources (NOAA / NSF) and then present that to the public and the congress…

    I’m going to take another break before the next one or I’m going to bust a gusset,…

  10. boballab says:


    The Keenan – Wei Chyung Wang (WCW) clash that Keith linked is about what was said at the time those foia requests went in in relation to what was revealed in Climategate 1. The important thing I remember about that is that in one of the Climagate 1 emails Tom Wigley (former head of CRU before Phil Jones) excoriates Phil Jones for not checking up on what WCW claimed and that WCW was a “sloppy scientist”.

    Ah found it in my copy of the Climategate 1 emails:

    From: Tom Wigley
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: [Fwd: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?]-FROM TOM W
    Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 01:37:07 -0600
    Cc: Ben Santer

    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
    X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by id n457EfQ5005459


    Do you know where this stands? The key things from the Peiser items are …

    “Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for
    nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally,
    there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997)
    explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report
    was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide
    Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program.”


    “Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information
    Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available.
    I was able to get the data by requiring Wang’s co-worker to release it,
    under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang
    had committed fraud.”

    You are the co-worker, so you must have done something like provide
    Keenan with the DOE report that shows that there are no station records
    for 49 of the 84 stations. I presume Keenan therefore thinks that it was
    not possible to select stations on the basis of …

    “… station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any,
    changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times”
    [THIS IS ITEM “X”]

    Of course, if the only stations used were ones from the 35 stations
    that *did* have station histories, then all could be OK. However, if
    some of the stations used were from the remaining 49, then the above
    selection method could not have been applied (but see below) — unless
    there are other “hard copy” station history data not in the DOE report
    (but in China) that were used. From what Wang has said, if what he says
    is true, the second possibility appears to be the case.

    What is the answer here?

    The next puzzle is why Wei-Chyung didn’t make the hard copy information
    available. Either it does not exist, or he thought it was too much
    trouble to access and copy. My guess is that it does not exist — if it
    did then why was it not in the DOE report? In support of this, it seems
    that there are other papers from 1991 and 1997 that show that the data
    do not exist. What are these papers? Do they really show this?

    Now my views. (1) I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy
    scientist. I therefore would not be surprised if he screwed up here
    . But
    ITEM X is in both the W-C W and Jones et al. papers — so where does it
    come from first? Were you taking W-C W on trust?

    (2) It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To
    accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint
    and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble.

    (3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched.
    ITEM X really should have been …

    “Where possible, stations were chosen on the basis of station histories
    and/or local knowledge: selected stations have relatively few, if any,
    changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times”

    Of course the real get out is the final “or”. A station could be
    selected if either it had relatively few “changes in instrumentation”
    OR “changes in location” OR “changes in observation times”. Not all
    three, simply any one of the three. One could argue about the science
    here — it would be better to have all three — but this is not what
    the statement says.

    Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start?
    Perhaps it’s not too late?


    I realise that Keenan is just a trouble maker and out to waste time, so
    I apologize for continuing to waste your time on this, Phil. However, I
    *am* concerned because all this happened under my watch as Director of
    CRU and, although this is unlikely, the buck eventually should stop with me.

    Best wishes,

    P.S. I am copying this to Ben. Seeing other peoples’ troubles might make
    him happier about his own parallel experiences.

    That is from Climategate 1 email 1241415427.txt
    I don’t know if this one is also in the Climategate two batch but you might want to look for it.

  11. George says:

    This is a worthwhile read (as if we don’t have enough to read already):

    Particularly section 2 “CONSCIOUS EFFORTS TO POLITICIZE CLIMATE SCIENCE” but the entire thing is worth reading.

  12. Nullius in Verba says:

    This gives more relevant information about the Wang-Keenan affair.

  13. TIM CLARK says:

    “I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.”

    That is the most damning piece of evidence for fraud I have seen yet. E.M. You need to get this out.

    Not me.
    As in Sgt Schultz:
    “I zee nutheen, nutheen.

  14. Dave says:

    WSJ Article by DJK

    “There are standard checks to (partially) test whether a given time series conforms to a given statistical assumption; if it does not, then any conclusions based on that assumption must be considered unfounded.”

  15. Phil says:


    In addition, there is a document from the original climategate release (080222_ZMZeng_Inputs.pdf) where Professor Zeng summarizes the “few, if any” station moves: 25 station had no moves, 28 stations had 1 move, 19 stations had 3 moves, 3 stations had 3 moves, 1 station had 4 moves and she didn’t remember about 8 stations. SUNYA then concludes that the

    charge of “fabrication and/or misrepresentation” is false.

    In the document from the original climategate releases named 080214_SUNYA_draft.pdf and linked in the post above (link is broken), SUNYA says that

    “established procedures had been used to account for some (but not all??) of the cited station moves (e.g., changes in station altitude) even though this was not indicated in the publications (parenthetical comment added)”


  16. Tom Harley says:

    Reblogged this on pindanpost and commented:
    the e-mails released have, and still are being audited and pored over by one group of climate enthusiasts. Another group are anxiously waiting to see if the 200,000 plus next lot are going to have the lock undone and see if they themselves come under scrutiny. Pass the popcorn.

  17. mpaul says:

    It seems that anything related to the Chinese Station affair causes Jones and Wang to go non-linear. This is a constant theme in CG1 and CG2. The most flak happens when you are over the target. I suspect this is fertile ground.

  18. George says:

    0071.txt Mann says nobody really knows the GLOBAL temperature anomaly over time and the only thing they really have is the Northern Hemisphere and that they use that as a proxy for the global climate response.


    0073.txt Jones forwards all at CRU information about the latest issue of “Carbon Trader”


    0076.txt appears to be another example of moderating natural variability through “mowing” the data.

    Interesting plot from the Dai data as well. Aside from what appears to be a calibration period around months 1000-1400, the remainder of the mins and maxs look like they have been mowed to keep them from getting too extreme as you suggest. I am afraid that the Dai data are looking more and more unreliable. At some point, this will need to be brought up to Dai. Of course, Trenberth will go nuts because his name is on the publications associated with the data.


    0077.txt Bob Webster to Phil Jones notes a paper from Carl Sagan and Steven Schneider concerning the global cooling that was happening in the 1970’s:

    “Temperatures do not increase in proportion to an increase in atmospheric CO[2 ]… Even an eight-fold increase over present levels might warm the Earth’s surface less than 2 degrees Centigrade, and this is unlikely in the next several thousand years.”


    0078.txt Jones gets a reaming from Reviewer #2 on a paper submission for taking dendrochronological time series from two locations on either side of the Eurasian plate and attempting to make the case that those two locations represent the entire planet.

    1) Abstract–the generality of the conclusions are overstated in the abstract. The evidence is only from Europe and China (i.e, only the fringes of the Eurasian continent alone) but the wording argues that implications apply to other regions. It isn’t even clear that the conclusions apply to the interior of the Eurasian continent, let alone any of North America (see comments below). It is a leap of faith, then, to assume that the results generalize to extratropical hemispheric (let alone, full hemispheric) trends, and the authors need to be more cautious in drawing general conclusions.

    And it just gets worse for Jones from there. Here he is sending a copy of he review comments to Briffa.


    0081.txt is Briffa sending Gene Wahl some review comments from IPCC stuff showing that “the team”, when one of them is given something to do, confidentially consult with other members of “The Team”. So when one of them is pulled onto an IPCC task, they all are effectively pulled into it. So you have people that are not officially part of “the process” having potential input into that process. Obviously a team effort on behalf of “The Cause”.

    I am taking the liberty (confidentially) to send you a copy of the reviewers comments (please keep these to yourself) of the last IPCC draft chapter. I am concerned that I am not as objective as perhaps I should be and would appreciate your take on the comments from number 6-737 onwards , that relate to your reassessment of the Mann et al work. I have to consider whether the current text is fair or whether I should change things in the light of the sceptic comments. In practise this brief version has evolved and there is little scope for additional text , but I must put on record responses to these comments – any confidential help , opinions are appreciated . I have only days now to complete this revision and response. note that the sub heading 6.6 the last 2000 years

    That’s enough for now. I’ll do more later.

  19. George says:

    Interesting. In 0084.txt Briffa is asked to review a paper. Briffa absolutely rejects it out of hand in 0870.txt. Someone else chimes in, in another email that I don’t recall offhand. But someone apparently published the paper and it looks right up my alley according to my latest interest. Looks like it finally was published in 2009

    ABSTRACT: New tree ring-based analysis for climate variability at a regional scale is presented for high latitudes of Europe. Our absolutely dated temperature reconstruction seeks to characterise the summer temperatures since AD 750. The warmest and coolest reconstructed 250-year periods occurred at AD 931–1180 and AD 1601–1850, respectively. These periods share significant temporal overlap with the general hemispheric climate variability due to the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA). Further, we detect a multi-decadal (ca. 50- to 60-year) rhythm, attributable to instability of the North Atlantic Deep Water, in the regional climate during the MWPbut not during the LIA. Intensified formation of the North Atlantic Deep Water further appeared coincident to the initiation and continuation of MWP, the mid-LIA transient warmth occurring during the period AD 1391–1440, and to recent warming. Our results support the view that the internal climate variability (i.e. thermohaline circulation) could have played a role in the earlier start of the MWP in several proxy reconstructions compared to the externally forced model simulations. Copyright#2009 John Wiley &
    Sons, Ltd.

    The paper is available here and I will be reading it for a while.

    Click to access 2009_Helama_et_al_Journal_of_Quaternary_Science_vol_24.pdf

  20. George says:

    Bottom line of that paper:

    These findings would further indicate that ongoing changes in the North Atlantic hydrology (Curry et al., 2003; Curry and Mauritzen, 2005) could be comprehended as a realistic forcing towards cooler climates in the region.

  21. R. Shearer says:

    Basic fraud, nothing new, move along.

  22. George says:

    0086.txt Hulme mentioning that UEA has won a “Special Merit Award” from the Royal Society. He seems particularly excited because “… this will help to release a little more Tyndall money for Round 3 projects.”


    0088.txt massaging various weasel words Re: Pattern scaling document for the TGCIA. Don’t mention natural variability, etc.


    0089.txt Mann claims ” this suggests, at least, that the RegEM-based NH reconstructions (e.g. in the Rutherford et al paper you’re co-author on) are unlikely to be impacted by the bias discussed by von Storch et al…”

    subject “email #5: paper in review in J. Climate letters using NCAR forced”


    0091.txt Doug Keenan’s paper on the alleged Wang fraud. In reference to the possibility of We-Chyung suing for libel Mann says:: “There are some folks I could put We-Chyung in touch with who could certainly help him out with w/ the legal issues, if he’s interested. As you might imagine, I have some experience and numerous contacts now in this area ;)”


    100.txt re: BP to Phil Jones from Mick Kelly

    Can you introduce me as senior member of CRU who did a fair bit of work with BP in the 80s and Deputy Director of Graduate Studies for UEA. Latter might be helpful if we discuss studentship support.”


    Ok, 100 done, only 4900 to go.

  23. E.M.Smith says:


    Chinese Station affair? Another thing I missed while looking at something else…

    Oh, wait, a web search shows that’s another name for the Keenan issue… aka The Jones-Keenan Affair:

    (Somebody needs to make a soap opera out of this..)


    Man, you are just cooking! I’m not keeping up in the 5300’s ;-)
    Then again, I decided to hit the README just to get it out of the way and hit some ‘paydirt’ there, too, in that Foia had already selected and listed some important bits…

    But yes, there is ample evidence that these folks work as an agenda driven Team, with clear goals and objectives, and with plenty of Government Money to help them along. Sigh… Wonder when someone will decide to fund the skeptic side, just a little bit…

    There are some general themes showing up, and (maybe tomorrow) I’ll put together a list of general topics that an email ought to apply to. Things like “Bias and Agenda” , “Propaganda / Communications Control” , “Oppression of the Opposition”, “Data Mowing”, “Public Funding / Private Agenda”, “Know Your Activist Agent”, …

    Then we can make an index so folks looking into any given “issue” can find the related emails faster…

    That 84.txt paper is interesting… I’ll need to read it, too, when time permits. Looks like the ocean wobbles during warm times, but not during the LIA. Makes me think the TH Circulation shutdown just might be the trigger for LIA like events… And that might be triggered by wind changes (such as the change we just had from atmospheric squashing with lower UV, after enough time…) So there is some good science being done, just The Team wants it rejected…

    No wonder they were so hot on Peer Review all the time… They thought they had a lock on the process and what could be published. I’m even more convinced now that we need a different kind of ‘review’ process in science. No more Pal Review, and more Public Review.

    After 100, maybe you ought to take a break ;-)

    I think maybe we need a “block of 100” posting where as a block is done, those are covered in that posting. It would make finding them easier…

    I think I’ll take just a bit of time, after README Part 2, and pick a ‘good one’ out of the 100 block to make the stub of a posting, then as you ‘work that block’, comments on it can go under that posting? Yes, I think I like that idea.

    OH, and does 100.txt mean that Mick worked for BP, so gets paid by Big Oil? ;-) Maybe that would make a good ‘stub’ opener..

    @R. Shearer:

    Well, I think it matters just WHICH bits have been buggered. If we’re ever going to get to some truth in all this, we’ll need to know just what needs to be ‘un-buggered’ and documenting how it got to where it is, tells you what to back out…

  24. George says:

    No wonder they were so hot on Peer Review all the time… They thought they had a lock on the process and what could be published.

    Yes. If you attempted to show too much natural variation they would attempt to damp it down somehow by possibly making you state that it was local (if you wanted your paper published) or that you are uncertain. In one review, I believe it is Jones but I don’t recall, where he instructs the author to adjust the “knobs” on his spectrum analysis so that the periodic energy goes away. In other words, kill the natural variation theme.

    Wonder when someone will decide to fund the skeptic side, just a little bit…

    I’ve been thinking about that. Maybe simply emulate the mechanisms used by the other side. First you need a foundation like the Tides Foundation that is designed to “launder” donation. Tides is set up to collect donations from individuals and foundations which people may earmark for certain NGOs and other operations. Tides then bundles these up and donates to the various organizations. The organizations show simply a donation from Tides and the actual donors aren’t associated in any way with those organizations. It is used a lot by people like George Soros and the Heinz Foundation, Ford Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, etc. But those foundations can never be traced directly to the groups Tides funds which is basically “Progressive” and “Environmental” groups. In other words, Socialists.

    There also needs to be an equivalent of Fenton Communications to act as a PR arm that keeps everyone on message. I can almost “see” someone from Fenton coaching Hulme as he directs changes in language in things. That is sort of a hallmark of Fenton … using the same language for things. For example, you might have 20 anti-Iraq war protest groups but for some reason every single one of them will refer to Cindy Sheehan as “Peace Mom” Cindy Sheehan. I see it with Hulme where he is directing someone to change “climate changes” to “climate change” in order to keep the rhetoric consistent with the larger scope of organizations out there. Fenton is huge on consistent rhetoric and buzzwords across organizations. They will all put out press releases and it is obvious they are all written by the same shop.

    So anyway, a coordinated PR, coordinated funding, and a “newswire” that all of the various blogs subscribe to and thus become “news outlets” credentialed with a “wire service”. One purpose of this would also be to highlight new literature in the various academic journals to see that all of the sites get it and to let the various other news outlets know when an important posting is published.

  25. Brian H says:

    AFAIK, Monckton’s email is public info. I have

    Pretty straightforward.

  26. Brian H says:

    Oops, the carets blanked the detail
    ChristopherMonckton <>

  27. Pingback: AGW – Another Voice Pt2 (Climategate Emails still) | The GOLDEN RULE

  28. It is good that EM has picked up on this AGW email thread.
    Given that he did so much work on the temperature measuring and station issues, it is fitting that his blog now covers a topic so openly revealing the AGW/IPCC’s misguided reliance upon the rubbery temperature data.

    First, they are admitting inadequate proof of AGW.
    Second, they admit to being funding-influenced.
    Third, they are shown up to be agenda-driven.
    Fourth, they are in damage control mode and fighting against FOI requests. (One doesn’t need to ask why!).
    Fifth, they have left the science well behind, (because it doesn’t work) and are grasping at adjusting and shaping their rhetoric in order to keep their peers, IPCC and their funders ahead of the “sceptics”.

    From the sceptic’s viewpoint, their cause is exposed and their whole organization is shown to be a scam.

    How can any warmist reader of this and other like blogs fail to begin to at least wonder if they might be wrong.

    Yet, the whole show is firmly and hugely on the road, with governments, NGO’s, financiers, world domination organizations, schools, media, etc., committed to, and relying on, the continuation of the scam.

    So our efforts will likely still be not enough.
    Well worthwhile, but insufficient to stop the debacle.
    Sufficient to get a lot of people changing sides, or at least backing off. Sufficient for ‘them’ to have to move their boundaries or goal posts.
    Sufficient for the public to realize that they are being shafted but helpless to respond.
    Probably insufficient to create a reversal of all the funding control mechanisms.

    I hope that I am wrong in this regard.

  29. P.G. Sharrow says:

    A thing strikes me about the “team’s” effort, to “preserve the resource” and it is funded by the Department of Energy around the world. Military planners have known that liquid fuels “oil” is THE most important resource for waging war and since the early 1900s have been trying to preserve exclusive control of vast amounts of US oil. By the 22st century the rest of the world might be oil poor and the US mostly untapped.

    At present we see every enviro with an on message effort all around the world to stop the use of oil by the western world, funded by US oil companies and the US government as the US government locks up vast areas of possible oil rich lands. That remark about “preserve the resource” and the areas of Naval Petroleum Reservations as well as Wildlife Resource Areas in known rich oil lands, being off limits,strikes me. Add this to the control of the message by US government through behind the scenes funding, this could get very strange, strange indeed. pg

  30. Strange, pg, but maybe true!
    The aim may be to maintain/reserve resources for the select few and restrict them from the needy. Could be the idea!
    (Well, the invitation keeps saying : “Well? Say something!”, so I did!)

  31. E.M.Smith says:


    I’ve thought about that point since your comment….

    The US Airforce is certifying all it’s aircraft to fly on biofuels. The USAF consumes most of the fuel used by the military.

    I know for a fact that biofuels can run in diesels (I’ve done a lot of it).

    Looks to me like someone is worried about fuel supplies and finding options…

    OTOH, the world does have a LOT of oil…

    @Ken McMurtrie:

    Glad you said something!

    That Brazil is finding lots of oil and selling it to China has got to have some folks nervous…

Comments are closed.