‘Jones now says that is unnecesary. He said that he had been under pressure to concede errors earlier this year and had been on medication when he had given the interview to Nature in February. The idea that measuring stations had moved in China had been misinterpreted, he said, because his paper had talked of 84 stations from a larger group of 265. For his paper, Jones said he had chosen those measuring stations that had moved the least.’

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/15/hacked-climate-science-emails-climate-change?intcmp=122

An interesting perspective is the following

Other Relevant Notes:
On 18 February 2008, Professor Jones (Lead author of the 1990 Nature paper) sent me a manuscript, “Urbanization effects in large‐scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China” which was recently submitted to J. Geophysical Research for publication. In the paper, The most relevant finding is that comparing the 42‐rural station data used in the 1990 GRL and Nature papers with those adjusted for homogeneity of a 728‐station network yield very much the same results, implying that the station moves, if any, really did not matter when a representative set of stations (here 42‐stations) was used.

“Very much the same results” isn’t how I would describe a 0.1 K/decade trend attribution to UHI [Jones et al. 2008] compared to 0.05 K/century [Jones et al. 1990].

And another thanks from me. It’s hard to believe that reviewers passed this POS. Bah.

“When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities.”
– David Hume.