Phil Jones just doesn’t understand what science is all about.
From the CLimaetgate 2.0 collection, amid an exchange over how to discredit Martin Durkin’s documentary, “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (which, BTW, ought to be a separate posting), Phil Jones writes to Bob Ward of Risk Management Solutions,
… On a related issue, I’d like some advice. I’m being hassled by some of the skeptics (the Climate Audit people). They are requesting much of the data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the UK. They want the raw station data (we make the grids available) and specific data from papers as far back as 1990 (a paper in Nature). I’ve given them the latter, as amazingly I could find it. Anyway, I’ve been contacted by someone in Nature who has noticed their letters and UEA responses on the Climate Audit site. I’m in two minds about whether to contact Nature, as it may give them airtime which is not my aim. I’ve got nothing to hide, but I don’t see why I should make the raw data we’ve collected available – particularly as for some we agreed not to pass it on (with the National Met Service that provided it) to third parties (but we can use it in the grids). [Emphasis added]
The full e-mail exchange is below.
From: Phil Jones [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: 19 April 2007 10:19
To: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Been in Vienna and away next week, but happy to sign up for this. I’ve
just sent an email to Brian Hoskins (couldn’t think of who else to send it)
about their Climate Change controversy web pages. Their argument 1 is too
brief on the MWP and LIA and should have been stronger on the English
aspects of these. Grapes were not that extensively grown. There were ~40
vineyards in the Domesday Book and there are over 400 now. Wine drinking
is more cultural (Romans/Normans as they were used to it) and now it is
more in. Anglo-Saxons drank beer and the Celts spirits. Also the Thames
only froze over between 1400 and 1830 when the old London Bridge
was there with its weir which stopped the tide. Most of the frost fairs
occurred when we have Manley’s Central England temperature record.
On the Ch 4 programme, I met Eric Wolff (BAS) in Vienna and he told
me that Carl Wunsch has hired some London lawyers as Ch 4 said they
would counter sue him.
Also Eric said the NASA figure with the global temperatures on was a
plot from 1881 to 1987 that was stretched to extend to the present. The
plot looked wrong to me when I saw the programme, but I didn’t record it.
I saw that the schematic from the First IPCC Assessment Report in 1990
resurfaced. As you say this was superceded by subsequent reports. The
one in AR4 will be more comprehensive, but similar to the TAR. I’m
involved in a paper from paleo-group meeting last year. In this I will be
showing what the schematic is actually based on. It is not just a schematic
(as its caption says) it is actually a smoothed series for one location. Hopefully,
the review paper will be ready for submission in a few months.
Keep up your efforts. I could spend all my time dismissing the claims
not just in the programme, but in several recent papers in supposedly
peer-review journals (not climate ones). When I’ve talked recently to
journalists, I’ve stressed they should find out the qualifications of their
experts – what I’ve told them to ask is whether they have papers published
in Climate Journals. Only a few on the Ch 4 programme had, and then
some were a number of years ago.
The NAS and CCSP reports in 2006 and the IPCC (WG1) when CUP get it
out soon go a long way to show the current state in Climate Science. It is
ridiculous for anyone to ignore these, but I expect many will. I expect
more of the same from the skeptics when the AR4 report comes out
– in May I’m told. On May 4 you should be able to get pdfs of the chapters.
On a related issue, I’d like some advice. I’m being hassled by some of the
skeptics (the Climate Audit people). They are requesting much of the data
through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the UK. They want the
raw station data (we make the grids available) and specific data from papers
as far back as 1990 (a paper in Nature). I’ve given them the latter, as amazingly
I could find it. Anyway, I’ve been contacted by someone in Nature who has
noticed their letters and UEA responses on the Climate Audit site. I’m in
two minds about whether to contact Nature, as it may give them airtime
which is not my aim. I’ve got nothing to hide, but I don’t see why I should
Page 18832 of 33101
make the raw data we’ve collected available – particularly as for some
we agreed not to pass it on (with the National Met Service that provided it)
to third parties (but we can use it in the grids).
I hope you’ve met a couple of our ex-PhD students Paul Burgess
and Matt Swann at RMS. If you see Matt, he’s still to finish his PhD,
but I expect you’re giving him lots of work and he’s finding it hard to
find the time to fully write up.
At 06:37 19/04/2007, you wrote:
Dear Professor Jones
I am writing to seek your support for a protest letter against the planned distribution
of DVDs of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, which contains a number of serious
misrepresentations of the science of climate change.
The programme was originally broadcast by Channel Four on 8 March and
repeated several times on More 4. Ofcom has received about 150 complaints about the
programme, and is due to give its view in the next few weeks. I have submitted a
complaint outlining seven major misrepresentations that occur in the programme (see
However, the programme’s production company, Wag TV, is already taking advance
for the DVD, which is due to be distributed shortly. Although Ofcom’s role includes
enforcement of the Broadcasting Code, its remit does not extend to the distribution of
DVD versions of programmes. In effect, Wag TV is not bound to wait for Ofcom’s ruling
before it distributes the DVD, nor is it required to reflect Ofcom’s ruling in the DVD
Wag TV is using its website to prominently promote sales of the DVD and has devoted
separate website to the programme ( http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com),
includes commentary and links to materials that it claims support the version of climate
change science that was presented.
I believe that it is not in the public interest for the DVD to be distributed without
amendment of the serious misrepresentations that were contained in the broadcast
versions of the programme. As Ofcom is unable to uphold the public interest in this
case, I am seeking to gain signatures on a letter of protest to Martin Durkin, who
produced the programme and who is Managing Director of Wag TV.
I have sent this letter to a number of leading researchers, such as you, for signature.
I hope that you will join me in signing the letter and thus put pressure on Wag TV to
correct the misrepresentations before the DVD is distributed. I also hope to attract
wider media coverage for the letter once it has been despatched.
In view of the plans to distribute the DVD very shortly, I would be grateful if you
could let me know as soon as possible, and no later than 10:00 am on Monday 23 April,
Page 18833 of 33101
whether you are willing to sign this letter. Please feel free to contact me if you
require any further information.
Director, Global Science Networks
Risk Management Solutions Ltd
30 Monument Street
Tel. +44 (0) 20 7444 7741
Blackberry +44 (0) 7710 333687