I feel the need to reproduce this email in its entirety. Here is Phil Jones actively hoping the world will warm (an outcome he has publicly stated would be catastrophic). The tribalism has gotten so intense that it is more important for his alarmist tribe to count coup on the skeptics than to hope for a good outcome for the Earth.
>From: Phil Jones [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] >Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18 >To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris >Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim >Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009 > > > Tim, Chris, > I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting > till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office > press release with Doug's paper that said something like - > half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on > record, 1998! > Still a way to go before 2014. > > I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying > where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal > scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away. > > Chris - I presume the Met Office > continually monitor the weather forecasts. > Maybe because I'm in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems > a bit over the top re the cold. Where I've been for the last 20 > days (in Norfolk) > it doesn't seem to have been as cold as the forecasts. > > I've just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6 deg > C for the LWC. > It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has > the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights. > The paper > shows the UHI hasn't got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park > and Rothamsted). > > Cheers > Phil
Is this better or worse than rooting for a bad economy to get your favorite politicians elected? Anthony Watt has more in this same tone, showing how climate scientists were working to shift messages and invent new science to protect the warming hypothesis.
The last part about the UHI (urban heat island) study is interesting. I don't remember this study. But it is interesting that he accepts a UHI of as high as 1.6C (my son and I found evening UHI in Phoenix around 4-6C, about in line with his London results). It looks like he is trying to say that UHI should not matter to temperature measurement, since it has not changed in London since 1900 (a bias in temperature measurement that does not change does not affect the temperature anomaly, which is what tends to be important). But the point is that many other temperature stations in the Hadley CRUT data base are in cities that are now large today but were much smaller than London in 1900 (Tucson is a great example). In these cases, there is a changing measurement bias that can affect the anomaly, so I am not sure what Jones was trying to get at.