From: D.J. Keenan
To: Steve McIntyre
Cc: Phil Jones
Subject: Wang fabrications
Date: 19 June 2007 20:45:15

Steve,

I thought that I should summarize what has happened 
with the Wang case.

First, I concluded that the claims made about Chinese 
stations by Jones et al. [Nature, 1990] and Wang et al. 
[GRL, 1990] were very probably fabricated.  (You very 
likely came to the same conclusion.)

Second, some investigation showed that Phil Jones was 
wholly blameless and that responsibility almost certainly 
lay with Wang.

Third, I contacted Wang, told him that I had caught him, 
and asked him to retract his fabricated claims.  My 
e-mails were addressed to him only, and I told no one 
about them.  In Wang's reply, though, Jones, Karl, Zeng, 
etc. were Cc'd.

Fourth, I explained to Wang that I would publicly accuse 
him of fraud if he did not retract.  Wang seemed to not 
take me seriously.  So I drafted what would be the text 
of a formal accusation and sent it to him.  Wang replied 
that if I wanted to make the accusation, that was up to me.

Fifth, I put a draft on my web site--
  http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm
--and e-mailed a few people, asking if they had any 
recommendations for improvement.

I intend to send the final version to Wang's university, and 
to demand a formal investigation into fraud.  I will also 
notify the media.  Separately, I have had a preliminary 
discussion with the FBI--because Wang likely used government 
funds to commit his fraud; it seems that it might be possible 
to prosecute Wang under the same statute as was used in the 
Eric Poehlman case.  The simplicity of the case makes this 
easier--no scientific knowledge is required to understand things.

I saw that you have now e-mailed Phil (Cc'd above), asking 
Phil to publish a retraction of Wang's claims: 
  http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#comment-115879
There could be a couple problems with that.  One problem is 
that it would be difficult for Phil to publish anything without 
the agreement of Wang and the other co-authors (Nature 
would simply say "no").  

Another problem is that your e-mail says that you presume 
Phil was "unaware of the incorrectness" of Wang's work.  I do 
not see how that could be true.  Although the evidence that 
Phil was innocent in 1990 seems entirely conclusive, there is 
also the paper of Yan et al. [Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 
18: 309 (2001)], which is cited on my web page.  Phil is a 
co-author of that paper.  

Phil, this proves that you knew there were serious problems 
with Wang's claims back in 2001; yet some of your work since 
then has continued to rely on those claims, most notably in 
the latest report from the IPCC.  It would be nice to hear the 
explanation for this.  Phil?

Kind wishes, Doug

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Douglas J. Keenan
http://www.informath.org
phone + 44 20 7537 4122
The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK